9800

From: Weaver <wordweaver@a...> 
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2001 3:30pm
Subject: " Hello "

 	
I am a new member, my name is Weaver and I have just recently become involved in a reiki healing group. I have received my level 1 attunement which in turn has lead me in search of the Buddha. I look forward to reading your wise words. Thank you.

Weaver
	
9801

From: <hhofman@d...> 
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2001 3:40pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Was the Buddha a Theravadin?

 	
Dear Mike,

One of the things I got out of the passages I quoted was that the 
adherence to views (of any kind) is a roadblock to the achievement of 
the goal of Buddhist practice, which according to MN 24 Ratha-vinta 
Sutta is formulated thus:

The holy life is lived under the Blessed One, my friend, for the sake 
of total Unbinding through lack of clinging.

I am sure that you know, Mike, that the above sutta (MN 24) is the 
only one in the whole Sutta Pitaka that so much as mentions the seven 
purities, yet hundreds of years later the seven purities become the 
foundation for the entire Visuddhimagga, which is probably the most 
cited work in this group.

So what's the go?

The Buddha teaches that one must dispense with views, or keep on 
suffering. The Visuddhimagga seems to proliferate views. (This group 
has previously engaged in fertile discussions re cittas).

Would it not be better to go to One who knows, rather than to one who 
knows One who knows? You are saying that the Theravada is the 
tradition that has preserved the word of the Buddha. Yet I find 
myself spending hours attempting to filter out the words of the 
Buddha from the words of the Theravada tradition.

Supplanting is a very loaded word, I find. Happily, reality is not 
found in books, and the three marks of reality are not yet the 
subject of copyright or licencing arrangements with Microsoft.

I wish you well


Herman

-- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "m. nease" <mlnease@y...> wrote:
> Great quotes Herman--thanks!--though I don't see how
> they relate to your subject heading. The Theravaada
> is the tradition that has preserved the you've
> copiedsuttas (despite more that twenty centuries of
> attempts to supplant them)--not vice versa.
> 
> mike
> 
> --- hhofman@d... wrote:
> > SnI.1 Uraga Sutta
> > 
> > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind
> > and knows about the world: "This is all unreal,"
> > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > 
> > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > greedless he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > 
> > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > lust-free he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > 
> > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > hate-free he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > 
> > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > delusion-free he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > 
> > SnIV.5 Paramatthaka Sutta
> > 
> > "A person who associates himself with certain views,
> > considering them 
> > as best and making them supreme in the world, he
> > says, because of 
> > that, that all other views are inferior; therefore
> > he is not free 
> > from contention (with others). In what is seen,
> > heard, cognized and 
> > in ritual observances performed, he sees a profit
> > for himself. Just 
> > by laying hold of that view he regards every other
> > view as worthless. 
> > Those skilled (in judgment) say that (a view
> > becomes) a bond if, 
> > relying on it, one regards everything else as
> > inferior. Therefore a 
> > bhikkhu should not depend on what is seen, heard or
> > cognized, nor 
> > upon ritual observances. He should not present
> > himself as equal to, 
> > nor imagine himself to be inferior, nor better than,
> > another. 
> > Abandoning (the views) he had (previously) held and
> > not taking up 
> > (another), he does not seek a support even in
> > knowledge. Among those 
> > who dispute he is certainly not one to take sides.
> > He does not [have] 
> > recourse to a view at all. In whom there is no
> > inclination to either 
> > extreme, for becoming or non-becoming, here or in
> > another existence, 
> > for him there does not exist a fixed viewpoint on
> > investigating the 
> > doctrines assumed (by others). Concerning the seen,
> > the heard and the 
> > cognized he does not form the least notion. That
> > brahmana who does 
> > not grasp at a view, with what could he be
> > identified in the world? 
> > "They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion);
> > doctrines are not 
> > accepted by them. A (true) brahmana is beyond, does
> > not fall back on 
> > views." 
> > 
> > 
> > Herman

	
9802

From: <binh_anson@y...> 
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2001 4:03pm
Subject: Nina's book ... Re: Questions on the Paramis

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote:

> BTW, the book I recommended was the one by Nina 
> http://www.abhidhamma.org/perfections%20of%20enlightenment.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------

BA: G'day Robert,

That on-line version needs more work on its presentation: the Table 
of Contents should include other Chapters, from 7 to 10. The 
footnotes also need to be moved to the end of each chapter.

Metta,
Binh
	
9803

From: <robertkirkpatrick@r...> 
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2001 7:00pm
Subject: Nina's book ... Re: Questions on the Paramis

 	
--- 
Thanks Binh,
Yes, I realise this. I am very lazy, that is the problem.
I will get around to it eventually. If you wanted to put it on your 
web-site you could take it and format it in your usual stylish way. 
(And then I could copy yours back to mine).
best wishes
robert

In dhammastudygroup@y..., binh_anson@y... wrote:
> --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote:
> 
> > BTW, the book I recommended was the one by Nina 
> > http://www.abhidhamma.org/perfections%20of%20enlightenment.htm
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> BA: G'day Robert,
> 
> That on-line version needs more work on its presentation: the Table 
> of Contents should include other Chapters, from 7 to 10. The 
> footnotes also need to be moved to the end of each chapter.
> 
> Metta,
> Binh
	
9804

From: m. nease <mlnease@y...> 
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2001 8:28pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Was the Buddha a Theravadin?

 	
Hi Herman,

I t hink the confusion may be that, in the suttas, the
word 'ditthi' is often used as a synonym for
micchaditthi. In fact, as has been lavishly
documented on this list, sammaditthi, right view, is
the indispensible precursor to the development and the
completion of the eightfold path.

mike

--- hhofman@d... wrote:
> Dear Mike,
> 
> One of the things I got out of the passages I quoted
> was that the 
> adherence to views (of any kind) is a roadblock to
> the achievement of 
> the goal of Buddhist practice, which according to MN
> 24 Ratha-vinta 
> Sutta is formulated thus:
> 
> The holy life is lived under the Blessed One, my
> friend, for the sake 
> of total Unbinding through lack of clinging.
> 
> I am sure that you know, Mike, that the above sutta
> (MN 24) is the 
> only one in the whole Sutta Pitaka that so much as
> mentions the seven 
> purities, yet hundreds of years later the seven
> purities become the 
> foundation for the entire Visuddhimagga, which is
> probably the most 
> cited work in this group.
> 
> So what's the go?
> 
> The Buddha teaches that one must dispense with
> views, or keep on 
> suffering. The Visuddhimagga seems to proliferate
> views. (This group 
> has previously engaged in fertile discussions re
> cittas).
> 
> Would it not be better to go to One who knows,
> rather than to one who 
> knows One who knows? You are saying that the
> Theravada is the 
> tradition that has preserved the word of the Buddha.
> Yet I find 
> myself spending hours attempting to filter out the
> words of the 
> Buddha from the words of the Theravada tradition.
> 
> Supplanting is a very loaded word, I find. Happily,
> reality is not 
> found in books, and the three marks of reality are
> not yet the 
> subject of copyright or licencing arrangements with
> Microsoft.
> 
> I wish you well
> 
> 
> Herman

p.s. Spare us the sarcasm. Good bye and good luck.

> -- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "m. nease"
> <mlnease@y...> wrote:
> > Great quotes Herman--thanks!--though I don't see
> how
> > they relate to your subject heading. The
> Theravaada
> > is the tradition that has preserved the you've
> > copiedsuttas (despite more that twenty centuries
> of
> > attempts to supplant them)--not vice versa.
> > 
> > mike
> > 
> > --- hhofman@d... wrote:
> > > SnI.1 Uraga Sutta
> > > 
> > > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind
> > > and knows about the world: "This is all unreal,"
> > > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > > 
> > > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > > greedless he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > > 
> > > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > > lust-free he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > > 
> > > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > > hate-free he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > > 
> > > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > > delusion-free he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > > 
> > > SnIV.5 Paramatthaka Sutta
> > > 
> > > "A person who associates himself with certain
> views,
> > > considering them 
> > > as best and making them supreme in the world, he
> > > says, because of 
> > > that, that all other views are inferior;
> therefore
> > > he is not free 
> > > from contention (with others). In what is seen,
> > > heard, cognized and 
> > > in ritual observances performed, he sees a
> profit
> > > for himself. Just 
> > > by laying hold of that view he regards every
> other
> > > view as worthless. 
> > > Those skilled (in judgment) say that (a view
> > > becomes) a bond if, 
> > > relying on it, one regards everything else as
> > > inferior. Therefore a 
> > > bhikkhu should not depend on what is seen, heard
> or
> > > cognized, nor 
> > > upon ritual observances. He should not present
> > > himself as equal to, 
> > > nor imagine himself to be inferior, nor better
> than,
> > > another. 
> > > Abandoning (the views) he had (previously) held
> and
> > > not taking up 
> > > (another), he does not seek a support even in
> > > knowledge. Among those 
> > > who dispute he is certainly not one to take
> sides.
> > > He does not [have] 
> > > recourse to a view at all. In whom there is no
> > > inclination to either 
> > > extreme, for becoming or non-becoming, here or
> in
> > > another existence, 
> > > for him there does not exist a fixed viewpoint
> on
> > > investigating the 
> > > doctrines assumed (by others). Concerning the
> seen,
> > > the heard and the 
> > > cognized he does not form the least notion. That
> > > brahmana who does 
> > > not grasp at a view, with what could he be
> > > identified in the world? 
> > > "They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion);
> > > doctrines are not 
> > > accepted by them. A (true) brahmana is beyond,
> does
> > > not fall back on 
> > > views." 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Herman


	
9805

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2001 4:03pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Parinibbana Subcommentary

 	
Hi, Suan -

In a message dated 12/3/01 10:11:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
abhidhammika@y... writes:


> 
> Dear Dhamma Friends
> 
> The following is the first part of Parinibbana Subcommentary written 
> in response to the questions and statements of Upasaka Howard, Robert 
> Epstein, and Mike Neace. This first part deals with Upasaka
> Howard's question regarding the exact meaning of `Apannattikabhaavo - 
> the state of undefined reality.' In the second part of the
> subcommentary, I will directly address the statements of Robert 
> Epstein. In that second part, I will also include the meaning of the 
> last mind, which partly satisfies Howard's desire to know the exact 
> meaning of consciousness. If space allowed, I will also respond to 
> Mike's question regarding why the term `vatta' was translated as
> machinary. Otherwise, Mike will have to wait for the third part of 
> the subcommentary. 
> 
> 
> 1. PARINIBBANA COMMENTARY PALI
> 
> "Parinibbutaa naama arahattapattito patthaaya kilesavattassa 
> khepitattaa sa-upaadisesena, carimacittanirodhena khandhavattassa 
> khepitattaa anupaadisesena caati dviihi parinibbaanehi 
> parinibbutaa, anupaadaano viya padiipo apannattikabhaavaam gataati 
> attho."
> 
> "`Parinibbutaa' is the ultimate cool by means of two-way complete 
> extinguishments, one with the existential residues emptied of 
> defilement machinery ever since attainment of Arahatta awakening, and 
> the other without the existential residues emptied of psychophysical 
> machinery by termination of the last mind (the dying consciousness). 
> It has the meaning of reaching the state of the undefined reality 
> like the lamp without fuel." 
> 
> 
> Carimacittanirodho – termination of the last mind 
> Apannattikabhaavo - the state of undefined reality
> 
> 
> 2. PARINIBBANA SUBCOMMENTARY
> 
> Howard wrote:
> 
> "Certainly, taken at face value, this commentary suggests
> parinibbana as a kind of nullity. A couple matters remain: (1) The 
> exact meaning of Apannattikabhaavaam - the state of undefined 
> reality, and the exact meaning of vi~n~nana, which I take as the 
> dualistic operation of separating out an individualized object from 
> the potential field of awareness, a special type of knowing/~nana."
> 
> 
> The expression `apannattikabhaavo - the state of undefined
> reality' has given both Howard and Robert Epstein an opportunity to 
> undergo profound contemplation, as it would everybody else. 
> 
> Therefore, this unique expression has become a suitable topic for 
> further analysis and elucidation as Buddhaghosa did not elaborate on 
> it, at least on this occasion.
> 
> The expression `Apannattikabhaavo' can be broken up 
> as `a+pannatti+ika+bhaavo'. 
> 
> The term `pannatti' has the same meaning as `paññatti'. Therefore, 
> pannatti means a name, a convention, or a verbalization as `paññatti' 
> would. We all know that a name can refer to either an existent 
> phenomenon or a non-existent category such as God the Creator. No 
> offense to theists amid the Buddhists! 
> 
> In Pali texts, the term that describes the opposite of a non-existent 
> category is `paramattho – a reality'. Examples of realities are 
> matter and mind. No offense to extremist Mahayanists amid the 
> Theravadiis and scientists!
> 
> Now, let us look at the combination `a+pannatti'. The prefix
> `a' in `apannatti' means `not' or `no' just like
> the prefix `a' in the words `amoral' and `amorphous' giving the 
> opposite meanings of `moral' and `morphous'. 
> 
> Thus, we get `not + name (or convention, or verbalization)'.
> 
> And, what about the bit `ika'? The suffix `ika' means `having or 
> doing something that the preceding term indicates.'
> 
> Thus, the combination `pannatti+ika' means `having + name (or 
> convention, or verbalization).' 
> 
> Now, when we add both the prefix and the suffix to the 
> term `pannatti', we get the `apannattika – something
> not having a name, something not of convention, something not of 
> verbalization, or something undefined. 
> 
> The word `bhaava' denotes a state. Therefore, the 
> expression `apannattikabhaavo' refers to the state of something 
> unconventional, unverbalizable, or undefinable.
> 
> As we mentioned earlier above, the antonym of the term `paññatti' in 
> the Pali texts, is the term `paramattho – a reality'. Therefore, the 
> expression `apannattikabhaavo' means the state of something
> existent, something real, but not subject to verbalization, or 
> conventionalization.
> 
> The above analysis should satisfy Howard's request for the exact 
> meaning of apannattikabhaavo – the state of undefined reality.
> 
> Now, I will try to answer why Buddhaghosa described parinibbutaa as 
> the state of undefined reality.
> 
> By using the espression `apannattikabhaavo - the state of
> undefined reality', Buddhaghosa has killed two birds with one stone. 
> We could toy with the idea of using the term `paramattho – a
> reality' instead of `apannatti'. But, that could deprive us of the 
> ability to convey the meanings of unverbalizableness and 
> undefinableness. Not only that handicap, paramattho could refer to 
> other types of realities as well, which we can also verbalize and 
> define easily. Therefore, it is a very clever choice of word that 
> Buddhaghosa described parinibbutaa as `apannattikabhaavo - the state 
> of undefined reality'.
> 
> Now, what is the meaning of undefinableness or unverbalizableness? 
> Why did Buddhaghosa regarded parinibbutaa as being undefinable?
> 
> The world is programmed to think only in terms of stereotypes and 
> stereotyping. It is programmed to verbalize only in terms of ready 
> expressions and convenient vocabulary.
> 
> Our linguistic stereotypes include both existent and non-existent 
> categories. But, all our verbalizable catagories refer only to either 
> mind and mental (associates and) products, or matter and material 
> things.
> 
> In short, we are programmed to define things and beings only in the 
> terminology of mind and matter, the two main existential realities. 
> This two-reality existential programming has conditioned us to regard 
> anything outside psychophysical givens as nullity.
> 
> The Arahatta awakening that Gotama the Buddha has discovered is 
> capable of demolishing our existential programming and allowing us to 
> realize the third reality outside mind and matter. Here, the 
> term `mind' includes mental associates (cetasikas) as well. Because 
> this third reality is outside mind and matter, we cannot verbalize it 
> in terms of psychophysical existences. Yet, this third reality exists 
> as parinibbutaa, the ultimate cool. As Buddhaghosa has done, we can 
> describe parinibbutaa only as complete extinguishment of defilements 
> and psychophysical existence. 
> 
> Therefore, the meaning of undefinableness in the expression `the 
> state of undefined reality' is that parinibbaana is an existence
> that we cannot define in terms of mind and matter.
> 
============================
Thank you for all the foregoing detailed analysis. It strikes me from 
that analysis, that a possible meaning for 'apannattikabhaavo' might be 
"nonconceptual state of being". Is not one meaning of 'pa~n~nati' that of 
"concept"? If this is a possible reading, then it is possible that 
parinibbana may be a state not of "undefined reality" but, rather, a 
nonconceptual state of being, a state of direct knowing, unmediated by 
concept. What do you think?

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) 




	
9806

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2001 9:10pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Was the Buddha a Theravadin?

 	
Dear Howard, Herman & Mike,

Against my better judgement and forsaking office and home chores (following yr
example, Christine...), let me take a bite at the bait;-))

I’m looking at another translation of the Uraga Sutta by Ven Saddhatissa who
was/is (I’ve lost touch) a very fine Pali scholar and monk. He summarises at
the top: ‘the monk who discards all human passions is compared to a snake that
casts its skin’.

I don’t have the Pali, but can’t imagine where the ‘This is all unreal’ comes
from in the other translation below. In V.Saddhatissa's translation. We read
‘gives up the Cycle of Existence’ which of course is a reference to attaining
arahatship. I’ll just quote the first few stanzas:

“Uraga Sutta, The Snake’s Skin

1. He who gives up anger which has arisen, as the snake poison diffused in the
body is removed by antidotes, that monk gives up the Cycle of Exostence as the
snake sheds its old, decayed skin.

2. He who has completely destroyed lust as one cuts off a lotus flower in a
lake, that monk......

3. He who has completely destroyed craving like drying up a once
swiftly-flowing river.......

4. He who has completely destroyed pride like a weak bridge of reeds swept away
by a mightly flood....

5. He who does not see any substantiality in forms of becoming as one does not
find flowers on a fig tree...
..................................................” <end quote>


> hhofman@d... writes:
> 
> 
> > SnI.1 Uraga Sutta
> > 
> > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind
> > and knows about the world: "This is all unreal,"
> > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > 
> > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > greedless he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > 
> > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > lust-free he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > 
> > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > hate-free he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > 
> > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > delusion-free he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > 
> > SnIV.5 Paramatthaka Sutta
> > 
> =============================

In the last stanza I quote above, the reference to substantiality is I’m sure
to self or atta.

When we read about the need to give up views, ritual, dogma and the like, the
references are of course to wrong views (as described at length in many places
such as in the Brahmajala Sutta) and not of course to right view or right
understanding.

While we’re on the snake theme, in the Alagaddupama sutta (Snake simile, MN22),
there is a discussion about the 6 grounds for false views.:

‘....he considers corporeality thus: “This is mine, this I am, this is my
self”......

and so on for the other khandhas.

At the risk of being accused of serious nit-picking or entering into more
proliferations, I’d also like to make a brief comment on Herman’s quote here as
well:

--- hhofman@d... wrote: > Dear Mike,
> 
> One of the things I got out of the passages I quoted was that the 
> adherence to views (of any kind) is a roadblock to the achievement of 
> the goal of Buddhist practice, which according to MN 24 Ratha-vinta 
> Sutta is formulated thus:
> 
> The holy life is lived under the Blessed One, my friend, for the sake 
> of total Unbinding through lack of clinging.
> 

In B.Bodhi’ s translation, we read;

‘ “Friend, it is for the sake of final Nibbana without clinging that the holy
life is lived under the Blessed One.” ‘* (see note at end of post, unless you
prefer to filter it out;-) 

I'm not sure if this is what you understood by "Unbinding' in the translation
you used above.

Herman, I’d better finish here;-)

Sarah

* (the Pali is given in the footnote as anupaadaanaparinibbaana, which it says
the MA glosses as appacayaparinibbaana, ‘final Nibbana that has no condition’,
explaining that ‘upaadaana has two meanings: grasping (gaha.na), as in the
usual passage on the four types of clinging; and condition (paccaya), as
illustrated by this passage. The commentators explain ‘final Nibbana without
clinging’ either as the fruit of arahatship, because it cannot be grasped by
any of the four types of clinging; or as Nibbana the unconditioned, because it
has not arisen through any condition’)


	
9807

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2001 4:38pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Was the Buddha a Theravadin?

 	
Hi, Sarah (and all) -

Yes, I also own Ven. Saddhatissa's wonderful translation of the 
Sutta-Nipata, and he definitely uses 'insubstantial' instead of 'unreal'. I 
also don't have the Pali, but it seems to me that 'insubstantial' would be a 
"safer" word than 'unreal', because 'unreal' could be taken to mean 
"absolutely without existence", which leans towards the nihilistic pole, 
whereas 'insubstantial' tends more towards the middle-way (or emptiness) 
perspective of the Dhamma. One translation that uses 'unreal' is the 
translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu to be found on Access to insight.

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 12/4/01 12:12:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
sarahdhhk@y... writes:


> Dear Howard, Herman & Mike,
> 
> Against my better judgement and forsaking office and home chores (following 
> yr
> example, Christine...), let me take a bite at the bait;-))
> 
> I’m looking at another translation of the Uraga Sutta by Ven Saddhatissa 
> who
> was/is (I’ve lost touch) a very fine Pali scholar and monk. He summarises 
> at
> the top: ‘the monk who discards all human passions is compared to a snake 
> that
> casts its skin’.
> 
> I don’t have the Pali, but can’t imagine where the ‘This is all unreal’ 
> comes
> from in the other translation below. In V.Saddhatissa's translation. We 
> read
> ‘gives up the Cycle of Existence’ which of course is a reference to 
> attaining
> arahatship. I’ll just quote the first few stanzas:
> 
> “Uraga Sutta, The Snake’s Skin
> 
> 1. He who gives up anger which has arisen, as the snake poison diffused in 
> the
> body is removed by antidotes, that monk gives up the Cycle of Exostence as 
> the
> snake sheds its old, decayed skin.
> 
> 2. He who has completely destroyed lust as one cuts off a lotus flower in a
> lake, that monk......
> 
> 3. He who has completely destroyed craving like drying up a once
> swiftly-flowing river.......
> 
> 4. He who has completely destroyed pride like a weak bridge of reeds swept 
> away
> by a mightly flood....
> 
> 5. He who does not see any substantiality in forms of becoming as one does 
> not
> find flowers on a fig tree...
> ..................................................� <end quote>
> 
> 
> > hhofman@d... writes:
> > 
> > 
> > > SnI.1 Uraga Sutta
> > > 
> > > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind
> > > and knows about the world: "This is all unreal,"
> > > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > > 
> > > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > > greedless he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > > 
> > > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > > lust-free he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > > 
> > > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > > hate-free he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > > 
> > > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > > delusion-free he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > > 
> > > SnIV.5 Paramatthaka Sutta
> > > 
> > =============================
> 
> In the last stanza I quote above, the reference to substantiality is I’m 
> sure
> to self or atta.
> 
> When we read about the need to give up views, ritual, dogma and the like, 
> the
> references are of course to wrong views (as described at length in many 
> places
> such as in the Brahmajala Sutta) and not of course to right view or right
> understanding.
> 
> While we’re on the snake theme, in the Alagaddupama sutta (Snake simile, 
> MN22),
> there is a discussion about the 6 grounds for false views.:
> 
> ‘....he considers corporeality thus: “This is mine, this I am, this is my
> self�......
> 
> and so on for the other khandhas.
> 
> At the risk of being accused of serious nit-picking or entering into more
> proliferations, I’d also like to make a brief comment on Herman’s quote 
> here as
> well:
> 
> --- hhofman@d... wrote: > Dear Mike,
> > 
> > One of the things I got out of the passages I quoted was that the 
> > adherence to views (of any kind) is a roadblock to the achievement of 
> > the goal of Buddhist practice, which according to MN 24 Ratha-vinta 
> > Sutta is formulated thus:
> > 
> > The holy life is lived under the Blessed One, my friend, for the sake 
> > of total Unbinding through lack of clinging.
> > 
> 
> In B.Bodhi’ s translation, we read;
> 
> ‘ “Friend, it is for the sake of final Nibbana without clinging that the 
> holy
> life is lived under the Blessed One.� ‘* (see note at end of post, unless 
> you
> prefer to filter it out;-) 
> 
> I'm not sure if this is what you understood by "Unbinding' in the 
> translation
> you used above.
> 
> Herman, I’d better finish here;-)
> 
> Sarah
> 
> * (the Pali is given in the footnote as anupaadaanaparinibbaana, which it 
> says
> the MA glosses as appacayaparinibbaana, ‘final Nibbana that has no condition
> ’,
> explaining that ‘upaadaana has two meanings: grasping (gaha.na), as in the
> usual passage on the four types of clinging; and condition (paccaya), as
> illustrated by this passage. The commentators explain ‘final Nibbana 
> without
> clinging’ either as the fruit of arahatship, because it cannot be grasped 
> by
> any of the four types of clinging; or as Nibbana the unconditioned, because 
> it
> has not arisen through any condition’)
> 
> 
> 


/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) 




	
9808

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2001 9:45pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] metta, kamma, social conscience and vipassana

 	
Dear Rob Ep,

> I think you make a lot of good points, and I would say that Dan's original
> points
> were good too, even though I had some reactions and additions......from my
> own
> point of view.

I understand well. I may not have had much (any?) experience of the despondency
and fear some have mentioned with regard to more understanding of anatta and
lack of control, but believe me, all these areas that you’ve discussed with Dan
and which I added to yesterday, have not been easy at all for me. I can talk
about kamma and vipaka and understand it quite well intellectually, but this is
mostly at a pretty superficial level. 

I also remember when I first used to stay with Khun Sujin, how I often
questioned whether understanding realities now was really enough and whether we
shouldn’t be doing more ‘out there’.....all of course, clinging to wrong views
with that idea of self and control again. No understanding of conditions when
one thinks like that. Still the ‘missionary zeal’ , the ‘social conscience’ the
‘fighting for human rights’ kept raising its head and even now there can be
strong attachment to the rights and wrongs in the world on a conceptual level.
These are the views that we attach to and which bring the disputes, dogmas and
so on.
> 
> What I mostly am saying is that I would want to avoid getting into an
> intellectual
> place where I can philosophize away daily conventional suffering by saying
> it's
> not 'real'. I know that no one here is doing that, but I think it's a good
> point
> anyway, at least to chew on. 

Again, of course, there’s ‘real’ on a conventional level and ‘real’ on an
absolute level. So often when we refer to suffering, on an absolute level,
isn’t it unpleasant bodily feeling, aversion and so on... These are very real
dhammas that can be understood. 

But I also certainly don't think that worrying
> about
> something that we're in no position to fix is a proper use of one's energy. 
> That
> would also be nothing but an intellectual exercise. 

There can also be a lot of attachment, I find, to fixing problems and wrongs,
usually with no understanding of realities or conditions.

> Finally, the real suffering is caused by delusion and ignorance, and on that
> I
> certainly agree.

We’re indeed fortunate to have a glimmer of the truth, even if it’s forgotten
most the time;-)

Always good chatting and yes, personally, I appreciate everyone’s participation
here, including yours;-))))

Sarah


	
9809

From: <hhofman@d...> 
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2001 10:00pm
Subject: The noble nine fold path

 	
Sarah and Mike,

The missing element in my study has obviously been....

right translation :-)

I got those quotes from accesstoinsight. Thanissaro Bhikkhu and 
Nyanaponika Thera. They both have This is all unreal or all this is 
unreal. 

Right view in my understanding is not a view that is held. It is 
seeing what is there when clinging (ie clinging to held views) 
ceases. I don't think dispensing with right view is possible.

What is the problem with the rendition: All this is unreal?


All the best

Herman





-- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
> Dear Howard, Herman & Mike,
> 
> Against my better judgement and forsaking office and home chores 
(following yr
> example, Christine...), let me take a bite at the bait;-))
> 
> I'm looking at another translation of the Uraga Sutta by Ven 
Saddhatissa who
> was/is (I've lost touch) a very fine Pali scholar and monk. He 
summarises at
> the top: `the monk who discards all human passions is compared to a 
snake that
> casts its skin'.
> 
> I don't have the Pali, but can't imagine where the `This is all 
unreal' comes
> from in the other translation below. In V.Saddhatissa's 
translation. We read
> `gives up the Cycle of Existence' which of course is a reference to 
attaining
> arahatship. I'll just quote the first few stanzas:
> 
> "Uraga Sutta, The Snake's Skin
> 
> 1. He who gives up anger which has arisen, as the snake poison 
diffused in the
> body is removed by antidotes, that monk gives up the Cycle of 
Exostence as the
> snake sheds its old, decayed skin.
> 
> 2. He who has completely destroyed lust as one cuts off a lotus 
flower in a
> lake, that monk......
> 
> 3. He who has completely destroyed craving like drying up a once
> swiftly-flowing river.......
> 
> 4. He who has completely destroyed pride like a weak bridge of 
reeds swept away
> by a mightly flood....
> 
> 5. He who does not see any substantiality in forms of becoming as 
one does not
> find flowers on a fig tree...
> .................................................." <end quote>
> 
> 
> > hhofman@d... writes:
> > 
> > 
> > > SnI.1 Uraga Sutta
> > > 
> > > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind
> > > and knows about the world: "This is all unreal,"
> > > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > > 
> > > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > > greedless he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > > 
> > > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > > lust-free he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > > 
> > > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > > hate-free he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > > 
> > > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind,
> > > delusion-free he knows: "This is all unreal,"
> > > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> > > 
> > > SnIV.5 Paramatthaka Sutta
> > > 
> > =============================
> 
> In the last stanza I quote above, the reference to substantiality 
is I'm sure
> to self or atta.
> 
> When we read about the need to give up views, ritual, dogma and the 
like, the
> references are of course to wrong views (as described at length in 
many places
> such as in the Brahmajala Sutta) and not of course to right view or 
right
> understanding.
> 
> While we're on the snake theme, in the Alagaddupama sutta (Snake 
simile, MN22),
> there is a discussion about the 6 grounds for false views.:
> 
> `....he considers corporeality thus: "This is mine, this I am, 
this is my
> self"......
> 
> and so on for the other khandhas.
> 
> At the risk of being accused of serious nit-picking or entering 
into more
> proliferations, I'd also like to make a brief comment on Herman's 
quote here as
> well:
> 
> --- hhofman@d... wrote: > Dear Mike,
> > 
> > One of the things I got out of the passages I quoted was that the 
> > adherence to views (of any kind) is a roadblock to the 
achievement of 
> > the goal of Buddhist practice, which according to MN 24 Ratha-
vinta 
> > Sutta is formulated thus:
> > 
> > The holy life is lived under the Blessed One, my friend, for the 
sake 
> > of total Unbinding through lack of clinging.
> > 
> 
> In B.Bodhi' s translation, we read;
> 
> ` "Friend, it is for the sake of final Nibbana without clinging 
that the holy
> life is lived under the Blessed One." `* (see note at end of post, 
unless you
> prefer to filter it out;-) 
> 
> I'm not sure if this is what you understood by "Unbinding' in the 
translation
> you used above.
> 
> Herman, I'd better finish here;-)
> 
> Sarah
> 
> * (the Pali is given in the footnote as anupaadaanaparinibbaana, 
which it says
> the MA glosses as appacayaparinibbaana, `final Nibbana that has no 
condition',
> explaining that `upaadaana has two meanings: grasping (gaha.na), as 
in the
> usual passage on the four types of clinging; and condition 
(paccaya), as
> illustrated by this passage. The commentators explain `final 
Nibbana without
> clinging' either as the fruit of arahatship, because it cannot be 
grasped by
> any of the four types of clinging; or as Nibbana the unconditioned, 
because it
> has not arisen through any condition')
> 
> 
> 
	
9810

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2001 10:33pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? <3>

 	
Dear All,

Smp. = Samantapaasaadikaa. This is the commentary to the Vinaya by Buddhaghosa,

Baahiranidaana, The Inception of Discipline & the Vinaya Nidaana = the
introductory chapter to the Smp. 

This is the text, translated into English by N.A. Jayawickrama, Sacred Books,
that I’m quoting from. 

Just to recap, in the Baahianidaana, the introductory commentary to the Vinaya,
Buddhaghosa is establishing the authenticity of the vinaya, suttanta and
abhidhamma.
....................

Details of how the first 499 Arahants were selected with a place left for
Ananda were given last time.“...............Thereupon the monks themselves
begged of the Elder on Ananda’s behalf.......Thereupon Venerable Mahakassapa
selected Venerable Ananda as well. there were thus 5oo elders including that
vernerable one who was selected on the express wish of the monks....”
<end quote>
*********************

To continue, summarising from the Baahiranidaana now, It was decided that the
Council would be held in Rajagaha (Rajghir) because “Food is plentiful at
Rajagaha and lodgings are easy to obtain there.” It was decided to spend the
‘Rains-residence’ there and to rehearse all the Teachings. This decision, it
seems was made two weeks after the Buddha’s Parinibbana. There was another ‘one
and a half months of the summer’ left and so the Council took place exactly
2mths after the parinibbana. 

What was the reason for the haste in holding the First Council? Earlier there
is a passage from the Baahiranidaana which explains this and also refers to
parinibbana as ‘devoid of any material substratum’:

“.....When the Exalted One, the Lord of the world had passed away in the
element of Nibbana which is devoid of any material substratum, at the hour of
day-break on the full moon day of the month of Visakha between the twin sala
trees in the Upavattana sala-grove of the Mallas in Kusinara, having discharged
the functions of an Enlightened One, beginning with the turning of the Wheel of
the Dhamma, down to the conversion of the wandering ascetic Subhadda, the
Venerable Mahakassapa, the leading Elder among the 700,000 monks who had
assembled at the passing away in perfect Nibbana of the Exalted One,
recollecting after the lapse of seven days ....the words uttered by Subhadda
who had taken to the ascetic life in old age, namely, ‘Away with it friends,
grieve not, lament not, we are well rid of the Great Recluse who was wont to
tell us what was befitting and what was not and hence made our lives miserable;
but now we will do whatever we please and not do what we please not’; kindled
the enthusiasm among the Order of monks to bring about a rehearsal of the
Dhamma and Vinaya and further reflected, ‘It may be that the occasion would
arise for evil-minded monks to think that the Sacred-word is such, that its
Teacher is no more, to form factions and before long make the Good Teaching
disappear for ever.

‘ As long as the Dhamma and Vinaya endure, so long will the Sacred-word be
such that its Teacher has not passed into oblivion. And so has the Exalted One
said, “O Ananda, the Dhamma and the Vinaya that I have declared to you and laid
down before you (respectively) that itself will be your teacher after my
demise.’... “<end quote>

After deciding on the time and place, we have another glimpse into the
different accumulations of the Elders. MahaKassapa promptly made his way with
half the monks to Rajagaha, the Elder Anuruddha took with him the other half
and went by ‘a different route’. 

However, Ananda, took ‘the bowl and the robe of the Exalted One’, ‘attended by
a company of monks’ and went to Savatthi. There was great ‘lamentation’
wherever he went and it was particularly great when he arrived in Savatthi it
seems. He ‘consoled the populace with a discourse on the Dhamma dealing with
transciency’ and entered the Jeta Grove and the Fragrant Chamber there “which
used to be the dwelling of the Lord of Ten Powers, shifted the couch and seats,
dusted them, swept the Fragrant Chamber, threw away the rubbish of withered
flowers and garlands, brought back the couch and sets and placed them in their
former places and did all the ministrations which he would have done when the
Exalted one had been alive.” 

“Then the Elder took a purgative in milk on the following day in order to allay
the humours of his body which were disturbed on account of the excessively
sedentary life he had led from the time of the passing away of the Exalted One
in perfect nibbana, and remained indoors in the monastery...”

The next day he preached the Subhasutta (DN) and then ‘supervised the repairs
to the broken and shattered portions of the Jetavana Monastery’. When it was
close to the ‘Rains-residence’ , he went to Rajagaha,

With King Ajatasattu’s support, a pavilion was erected in Rajagaha ‘as though
surpassing the splendour of the royal palace’.

Surprisingly perhaps, some monks referring to Ananda said, ‘There is a monk
here in this assembly who goes about emanating the smell of raw flesh’. These
comments referred to his ‘Learner’ status and obviously were made with wisdom. 

The assembly was to meet the next day and Ananda ‘spent the greater part of the
night in mindfulness as to the body, and at day-break, descended from the
cankama-walk, entered the monastery, and inclined his body with the idea of
lying down. Scarcely had his feet left contact with the floor and before his
head had reached the pillow, during that interval his mind was released from
the cankers with no further clinging to the material substratum.........he
reflected...’I have over-exerted myself in my effort, in consequence of which
my mind was tending towards distraction. let me therefore abate the rigour of
my exertions.’ Saying so he came down from the cankama walk, washed his feet
standing at the place for washing the feet, entered the monastery, sat down on
his couch and stretched himself on it thinking and resting awhile.......the
Elder attained arahatship remaining in a position outside the four postures. 
Therefore, when it is asked what monk attained arahatship in this Dispensation
neither lying down, sitting, standing, nor pacing upa and down one should
answer that it is the Elder Ananda.” <end quote>

********************
Back to the discussion on Buddhaghosa and the writing of commentaries such as
this one I’ve been quoting from; Jayawickrama in the introduction says further:

‘Another reason given by Buddhaghosa for rewriting the commentaries in Pali is
his desire to secure the stability of the good Teaching
(saddhamma.t.thitikaama). This should be considered as the chief reason why
the Pali commentaries were written. In fact, Buddhaghosa came to Ceylon at a
very opportune time in the history of the Mahavihara. ......Buddhaghosa’s role
as editor and translator is quite clear. He was convinced of the purity of the
Mahavihara tradition and it was all that mattered to him so that he strove to
maintain it at all costs. His editorial activity was centred on the correct
interpretation of the Word of the Buddha from the Theravada point of
view......’ <end quote>

In another book I have by G.P. Malalsekera ‘The Pali Literature of Ceylon’, he
refers to Law’s ‘The Life and Work of Buddhaghosa’ (maybe, the book you have,
Nina?) in which he says the later ‘has a very interesting chapter on the origin
of these commentaries. He says that the need for an accurate interpretation of
the Buddha’s words, which formed the guiding principle of life and action of
the members of the Sangha, was felt from the very earliest days of the order. 
When the master was alive there was always the possibility of referring
disputed questions direct to him. But even during the madster’s lifetime - at
the Buddhist centres formed at various places under the leadership of one or
other of the famous disciples - discussions, friendly interviews, and
analytical expositions used to take place, and the raison d’etre of the
commentaries is to be traced to these discussions. Sometimes it happened that
accounts of these discussions were duly reported to the Teacher, and some of
them were approved by him, and he would then ask the monks to bear the
particular expositions in mind as the best that could have been given.....’
<end quote>

Please note that I’m merely doing a little research for my own interest and
maybe that of a few others here. I quite understand (and have no problem at
all) if these quotes from Buddhaghosa and the other comments are not acceptable
or of interest. 

Best wishes,

Sarah
=====================



	
9811

From: Christine Forsyth <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2001 11:08pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? <3>

 	
Dear Sarah,

I find them very interesting - please keep posting...

metta,
Christine

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
> Dear All, 
Smp. = Samantapaasaadikaa. This is the commentary to the Vinaya by 
Buddhaghosa,Baahiranidaana, The Inception of Discipline & the Vinaya 
Nidaana = the introductory chapter to the Smp. 
> This is the text, translated into English by N.A. Jayawickrama, 
Sacred Books, that I'm quoting from. 
> Just to recap, in the Baahianidaana, the introductory commentary to 
the Vinaya, Buddhaghosa is establishing the authenticity of the 
vinaya, suttanta and abhidhamma. 
> Please note that I'm merely doing a little research for my own 
interest and maybe that of a few others here. I quite understand (and 
have no problem at all) if these quotes from Buddhaghosa and the 
other comments are not acceptable or of interest. 
> Best wishes,
> Sarah
	
9812

From: <binh_anson@y...> 
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2001 11:26pm
Subject: Nina's book ... Re: Questions on the Paramis

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote:

> Yes, I realise this. I am very lazy, that is the problem.
> I will get around to it eventually. If you wanted to put it on 
your 
> web-site you could take it and format it in your usual stylish way. 
> (And then I could copy yours back to mine).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

BA: I'll do it after the new year, when I return from the trip to 
South-east Asia.

Metta,
Binh
	
9813

From: Christine Forsyth <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2001 11:39pm
Subject: Re: " Hello "

 	
Hi Weaver,

Welcome to dsg, I'm fairly new to buddhism too....Is reiki related in 
any way to Buddhism - I don't know much about it but have a feeling 
originally there was a connection?? What sort of reading are you 
doing on Buddhism, and have you found anything of particular interest?
Look forward to reading your posts,
metta,
Christine
--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Weaver"<wordweaver@a...> wrote:
> 
> I am a new member, my name is Weaver and I have just recently 
become involved in a reiki healing group. I have received my level 1 
attunement which in turn has lead me in search of the Buddha. I look 
forward to reading your wise words. Thank you.
> 
> Weaver
	
9814

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2001 11:52pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? <3>

 	
Dear Christine,

likewise w/yr comments on Sammanaphala Sutta and paramis....we both love yr
style..(still laughing about those chicks...... and have you ever seen an
elephant having a lot of fun bathing itself and throwing water everywhere w/its
trunk....pure lobha;-)) ...I meant to add a few comments, but out of time.....

--- Christine Forsyth <cforsyth@v...> wrote: > Dear Sarah,
> 
> I find them very interesting - please keep posting...
> 
> metta,
> Christine



9815

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 0:00am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? <3>

 	
p.s.

I nearly put a special note in for you and Rob K to take note where it
discussed Ananda's 'tidy housework' accumulations', but then I thought that
might be too pointed;-)).......

S.

--- Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote: > Dear Christine,
> 
> likewise w/yr comments on Sammanaphala Sutta and paramis....we both love yr
> style..(still laughing about those chicks...... and have you ever seen an
> elephant having a lot of fun bathing itself and throwing water everywhere
> w/its
> trunk....pure lobha;-)) ...I meant to add a few comments, but out of
> time.....
> 
> --- Christine Forsyth <cforsyth@v...> wrote: > Dear Sarah,
> > 
> > I find them very interesting - please keep posting...
> > 
> > metta,
> > Christine


	
9816

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 0:41am
Subject: Re: [dsg] The noble nine fold path

 	
Hi, Herman -

In a message dated 12/4/01 1:04:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
hhofman@d... writes:


> I got those quotes from accesstoinsight. Thanissaro Bhikkhu and 
> Nyanaponika Thera. They both have This is all unreal or all this is 
> unreal. 
> 
===========================
Interesting that Nyanaponika Thera gave that formulation. He was a 
brilliant man, and an Abhidhammika. Robert K, do you have access to the Pali 
for the Uraga Sutta? If so, how would you translate it?

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) 




	
9817

From: Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 10:05am
Subject: Cambodia, Ch 13, no. 2

 	
Cambodia, ch 13, no. 2.

Pramesavara: There can only be patipatti, practice, when there is first
pariyatti, theoretical understanding that is correct. Is that right?

Sujin: We have to understand first what pariyatti is, the study and the
correct understanding of the characteristics of realities so that they are
known as dhammas, not self. From birth to death dhammas arise and fall away
but we take them all for self. When we study the theory, we begin to
understand that what we take for self are citta, cetasika and rúpa. However,
we should have a deeper understanding, we should realize them as dhamma. We
learn that the rebirth-consciousness, the ptatisandhi-citta, the first citta
of a new life, is an element that experiences, nåma dhåtu, different from
rúpa arising at the same time. Nobody knows the moment of his
rebirth-consciousness, but after that characteristics of rúpa dhammas and
nåma dhammas appear. If someone does not study, there is no awareness of
them, but if one studies and understands nåma and rúpa, there can be
conditions for the arising of sati, depending on the degree of
understanding. Sati does not arise when one clings to the view of a self who
wants to have sati. When someone really understands that there are only
dhammas, it is a condition for satipaììhåna to be aware of the
characteristic that is dhamma.

Pramesavara: Thus, we should begin with the study of the Dhamma, no matter
whether this is done by reading, listening or Dhamma discussions. We must
consider correctly the teachings in conformity with what the Buddha taught,
namely, that realities are not a being or person, that they are only
elements. We have to develop this understanding all the time.

Sujin: We should also understand that dhammas are not theory, that they are
not merely contained in the texts. We have to know that at each moment now
everything is dhamma. Studying dhamma is studying what is appearing at this
very moment. We should never forget this.

Pramesavara: Study should be based on something, because we cannot know the
truth just by ourselves. Study must be based on listening, reading and
considering what we read and heard.

Sujin: When we truly consider the dhamma while we are listening, we can
understand that the Dhamma we studied is here at this very moment. If we
understand this, it is a condition for sati to arise and to be aware,
because dhamma appears each moment; it appears at this very moment. Some
people separate pariyatti from paìipatti which they see as something that is
not part of their normal daily life, as something particular they have to be
engaged in. They forget that when they study the theory, pariyatti, they
should study with the aim to understand the reality that appears at this
moment. One should study in order to understand that any reality of this
moment is dhamma, be it seeing or hearing, but one never knew before that it
was dhamma. Thus, people should study with the aim to correctly understand
that nåma dhamma at this moment is the reality that experiences, the element
that experiences. Nåma dhamma is not theory, but there is nåma dhamma while
we are seeing now. One may have heard and understood that seeing at this
moment is nåma dhamma, because it is a reality that experiences something,
but the expression ³ the reality that experiences² is most difficult to
understand and to penetrate. When one sees, there is something that is
appearing through the eyes, but the reality of nåma that sees does not
appear. Only when its characteristic appears, it can be known as an element
or a kind of dhamma that is real.

When people have understood this, they know that what is appearing through
the eyes at this moment could not appear if there would not be nåma dhamma
that has arisen and sees that object. One can gradually understand that
seeing at this moment is dhamma. Therefore, when one studies the Dhamma one
studies with the purpose to have right understanding of the characteristics
of realities that are the truth of each moment in daily life. This can be a
condition for sati to arise and to be aware and in this way one will
gradually understand that when one sees at this moment, it is a reality, an
element that experiences, or when one hears, it is an element that
experiences sound.

**** 


	
9818

From: Christine Forsyth <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 1:00pm
Subject: some more about metta

 	
Dear Sarah, and All,

Even though acknowledging (maybe... perhaps...probably...) that the 
Canon sees metta as being directed outwards, here are some more 
thoughts....
In a mail responding to my question, around the time I posted to this 
list, a recent teacher of mine sent a response - partly quoted below.
I don't attribute it to him by name, as I haven't yet received any 
other communication - he is travelling in India and is incommunicado 
most of the time. 
And as I sent him a virus last time, he may be wary of any post from 
me! :-) I like the phrase 'the living tradition'...
metta,
Christine

"Because of the difficulty that most people find in radiating these 
qualities
equally to all, the living tradition came up with a solution that 
prepares
us for the full practice. It ensures that our practice is established 
and
balanced, so that we don't become disheartened at the sheer scale of 
what
we are trying to accomplish. Most people find the approach beneficial.

I had a meeting with Bhikkhu Bodhi at the Forest Hermitage in Sri 
Lanka,
last year, and raised this very point. [metta - self or other 
directed] Aware that the canonical description
is always outwardly directed, I was concerned that I may be relying 
too
heavily on Buddhaghosa's 6th century sectional approach when initially
training others. Bhikkhu Bodhi's response was that he teaches metta in
exactly the same way - with oneself first - because it works.
<SNIP>
The over-riding concern is that the training we
are undertaking works in the optimal way for each of us. All of the 
methods
we are using aim at the canonical ideal, and that is why they have 
been
present in the tradition for so many centuries.

The very few people who can immediately radiate any of these 
qualities to
all, in a boundless way, without favouring or neglecting any sentient 
being,
are already fairly accomplished in the brahmaviharas. They should bask
in that beautiful state and continue to work in it! Even the Buddha 
continued
to practice the brahmaviharas after his enlightenment. The rest of us 
usually
need to work with one of the skilful means that the tradition has 
devised
to get us nearer to that point. How speedily this comes about depends 
on
our past actions and the amount of energy we devote to the task. Many 
people
accomplish this in a year or two of steady work, some even sooner.

We must always remember that this is not a religion of the book: it 
is a
living tradition that relies on more than what is recorded in the 
texts.
It responds to the emerging needs of practitioners who sincerely wish 
to
arrive at the goal that the Buddha outlined. Anything that works to 
bring
an individual nearer to acquiring the skills that the Buddha deemed 
necessary
for awakening is a legitimate part of the Buddhist path. The texts 
offer
splendid advice and a reference point against which we can check for 
wilfull
distortions, but this does not preclude innovations in training 
practices
(even 6th century ones) providing that their aim is consonant with the
teaching of the Buddha.

What others have written about the need to overcome any form of self-
hatred
in order to practice metta, etc., is also a pressing argument for the 
inclusion
of the preliminary reflection on oneself. As always, there is the need
for balance: we don't want to enshrine Self (because this would be 
wrong
understanding according to the Dhamma), but neither do we want to 
neglect
our practical and emotional needs whilst we are treading this path."
	
9819

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 9:32pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] The noble nine fold path

 	
Dear Herman,

This time perhaps it’s me being dense, but I can’t quite see where your subject
heading ‘The Noble Ninefold Path’ comes from..;-)

--- hhofman@d... wrote: > Sarah and Mike,
> 
> The missing element in my study has obviously been....
> 
> right translation :-)

Of course, as we all know very well, it is the understanding of dhammas rather
than any translation that is important. However, if we’re relying on the Suttas
and the Sutta translations available to understand the Buddha’s word, the
translation does take on some significance, don’t you think? Often too, it
reflects the understanding of the Pali and Teachings by the translator too.
> 
> I got those quotes from accesstoinsight. Thanissaro Bhikkhu and 
> Nyanaponika Thera. They both have This is all unreal or all this is 
> unreal. 
> 
> Right view in my understanding is not a view that is held. It is 
> seeing what is there when clinging (ie clinging to held views) 
> ceases. I don't think dispensing with right view is possible.

Indeed, rather than dispensing with it, it needs to be developed...

> What is the problem with the rendition: All this is unreal?

The reason I looked at another translation was because, to be honest, I didn’t
understand what the meaning was. What is unreal? Is this really an accurate
translation of the Pali, I wonder?

> > > > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind
> > > > and knows about the world: "This is all unreal,"
> > > > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > > > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 

Again, I may just be slow, but the following translation I gave for the same
verse is immediately comprehensible to me and concords with the Pali Canon as I
understand it:

> > 1. He who gives up anger which has arisen, as the snake poison 
> diffused in the
> > body is removed by antidotes, that monk gives up the Cycle of 
> Existence as the
> > snake sheds its old, decayed skin.

As I’ve mentioned before, I think it’s wonderful to have quick internet access
to the Suttas, but, I can’t help hoping that some of the other translations
will be available on-line soon.

Please know that these comments are not meant as any criticism of the hard work
that has gone into putting these texts on line in order to spread the Dhamma.
But as you asked.....

Best wishes,

Sarah


	
9820

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 9:54pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: " Hello "

 	
Dear Weaver,

May I add a welcome to Christine's kind words. 

It's always interesting to hear what leads people to Buddhism and like
christine, I look forward to hearing any more you may wish to share. Where do
you live?

I also think that reiki is a very valuable healing tool, but wasn't aware of
the connection with buddhism.

Kind regards,

Sarah

--- Christine Forsyth <cforsyth@v...> wrote: > Hi Weaver,
> 
> Welcome to dsg, I'm fairly new to buddhism too....Is reiki related in 
> any way to Buddhism - I don't know much about it but have a feeling 
> originally there was a connection?? What sort of reading are you 
> doing on Buddhism, and have you found anything of particular interest?
> Look forward to reading your posts,
> metta,
> Christine
> --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Weaver"<wordweaver@a...> wrote:
> > 
> > I am a new member, my name is Weaver and I have just recently 
> become involved in a reiki healing group. I have received my level 1 
> attunement which in turn has lead me in search of the Buddha. I look 
> forward to reading your wise words. Thank you.
> > 
> > Weaver


	
9821

From: rjkjp <rjkjp@y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 10:04pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] The noble nine fold path

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:
> Hi, Herman -
> 
> In a message dated 12/4/01 1:04:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> hhofman@d... writes:
> 
> 
> > I got those quotes from accesstoinsight. Thanissaro Bhikkhu and 
> > Nyanaponika Thera. They both have This is all unreal or all this 
is 
> > unreal. 
> > 
> ===========================
> Interesting that Nyanaponika Thera gave that formulation. He 
was a 
> brilliant man, and an Abhidhammika. Robert K, do you have access to 
the Pali 
> for the Uraga Sutta? If so, how would you translate it?
> 
> With metta,
> Howard
> 
> ++++++++

Dear Howard,
I'm flattered that you think any translation i make would be 
acceptable. Unfortunately my pali is very weak and I would be just 
relying on the Pali-English dictionary and my own intuition; not 
reliable I'm afraid.
If Herman gives us the url's we can all look at these translations, 
though.
Even if the best translation does turn out to be 'unreal' I think 
this shouldn't be seized on without regard to the rest of the 
Tipitaka. Sometimes rupa and the khandas are described as void 
(sunna) false(tuccha),asara(essenceless) or compared with foam or a 
mirage etc. These descriptions assist us in contemplating the khandas 
so as to turn away from them, it does not mean that the khandas are 
imaginary.
robert k.
	
9822

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 10:33pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Questions on the Paramis

 	
Hi Christine,

I’m glad Rob K has answered one question anyway;-)

--- Christine Forsyth <cforsyth@v...> wrote: > Dear all,
> 
> Against my better judgment I took a tiny peek at 'A Treatise on the 
> Paramis' - just to see what I was 'saving for a few more weeks' - 
> not a wise move.....But I have restricted myself to the first 20 
> pages...(I hope). 

I’m actually not familiar with this work. Do you have a link or reference you
can give?

> Is this addiction to Dhamma, greed? Housework, other study, etc. get 
> put aside immediately I have a choice between tasks and studying the 
> Teachings...........How do I stop?

Actually Rob answered this one too;-)

> If anyone has a little time, could I pose a few other questions 
> please?
> 
> Who was Acariya Dhammapala, and when did he live?

He lived in Sri Lanka around the time or soon after Buddhaghosa (not sure
anyone has the exact dates, around AD 600, I think). He is believed to have
been a Tamil by race. As Rob said, he is the most famous commentator after
Buddhaghosa in the Theravadan Teachings and wrote 14 commentaries on the texts
Buddhaghosa had left.

> Bhikkhu Bodhi says in his introduction that 'What distinguishes the 
> supreme bodhisattva from aspirants in the other two vehicles 
> (paccekabuddhas or disciples) is the degree to which the paramis must 
> be cultivated and the length of time they must be pursued.'
> Under the heading "What is their condition" 
> Quote: 'The condition of the paramis is, firstly, the great 
> aspiration (abhinihara). This is the aspiration supported by the 
> eight qualifications. <snip> The eight qualifications through which 
> the aspiration succeeds are: the human state, the male sex, the 
> cause, the sight of the Master, the going forth, the achievement of 
> noble qualities, extreme dedication and strong desire.'
> Question: Was it the Buddha who said "This is impossible, bhikkhus, 
> this cannot come to pass, that a woman might become a perfectly 
> enlightened Buddha"? The male sex <sigh> - I'm O.K. about 
> this......I'm coming around to realising gender isn't that important, 
> that I've probably been either/or a million times. (What happened 
> to 'In this very life'? I seem to be losing it on the way.).

This is all as I’ve read and u’stood. Some may say this is ‘unfair’, but then
many things in life seem ‘unfair’ <as Rob Ep and Erik have mentioned..oops;-)
or as my students always tell me ...> Again the Buddha is merely describing the
way they are, I think.


> Question: The mention of "the sight of the Master" as a necessary 
> precondition to making an aspiration to be a Bodhisattva.......Is 
> this widely known? or have I misunderstood? I am acquainted with 
> some meditators in other traditions, male and female, who seem to 
> have missed these points, and have made a Bodhisattva vow....perhaps 
> I'm on the wrong track.......

I’ve also read about the aspiration and think it’s well documented in the
texts.Sorry, i’ll have to leave the references to others. ?Jataka Stoies ?Birth
Stories of 10 Bodhisattas.....I’ll maybe look later..

> Quote: "Possessions (!) such as fields, land, bullion, gold, cattle, 
> buffaloes, slaves, children, wives, etc., bring tremendous harm to 
> those who become attached to them. 
<snip>
> Comment: (In discussing the Perfection of Giving I would have hoped 
> that Bhikkhu Bodhi could have made a note about the different view 
> held of women in those days before so much effort was put in to 
> raising people's consciousness .......)
> Again - I don't mind being further down the list than land and gold - 
> but cattle and buffaloes!!! 

Look at it this way, Christine....perhaps the relinquishing of land, gold,
cattle and buffaloes, takes place before the relinquishing of women.....;-)

> Quote: "Since there are goods, and beggars have come, not to give 
> them something would be a great deception on my part." And: "How can 
> I relinquish my own life and limbs to those who ask for them?" 
> Question: Does this mean he is happily a victim of assault, torture 
> and murder? Could this be regarded as incitement? Where is the 
> kamma? Does the perpetrator inherit the fruits of the action if the 
> victim sort of 'donated' himself?

Could we say that if already by conditions he is the victim or assault or
toture or murder, then what about the metta or generosity or wholesome state of
mind at that time? Oc course, he would try to prevent others from committing
akusala kamma patha, but this isn’t always possible.

> Quote: "He should arouse a desire to give things away without concern 
> by reflecting: "Good returns to the one who gives without his 
> concern, just as the boomerang returns to the one who threw it 
> without his concern." 
> Question: Boomerang? Is this really the correct word? I have 
> mentioned it to the Indigenous Health Workers at the hospital - they 
> are doubting but intrigued......they believed that the 'returning' 
> boomerang was an invention of their people (Australian Aboriginal and 
> Torres Strait Islanders), - though they concede 'non-returning' 
> hunting boomerangs were known in Europe as well.......

Well, at least it encouraged a useful discussion at the hospital;-) Jon
mentioned that he’d read that one translator (Bodhi?) wasn’t sure how to
translate a particular term when he used boomerang......at least you guys
should feel at home...

> Quote: "Attachment to external objects is like the bathing of an 
> elephant; therefore you should not be attached to anything."
> Question: I find the meaning a little obscure, can someone 
> elucidate? I suppose if it was a 'very very large elephant' it could 
> mean something like 'never-ending'?

lobha, lobha, I think, as mentioned..

> Quote: "You should always be well behaved, safeguarding your virtue 
> perfectly, more carefully than a hen safeguarding its eggs." 
> Comment: I should hope so....With respect, the author must never have 
> kept fowls.....as a victor in many a battle with a 'clucky' hen over 
> her eggs in the past, with only slight battle wounds, I feel a 
> stronger simile could have been used........though he does say 'more 
> carefully'...... And the hen does make a lot of noise during the 
> encounter. Though she settles down immediately if the encounter 
> happens at night, and she is fooled by leaving one egg for her 
> to 'brood'. Better not to extend the simile that far? :-)

;-)))))))))

> Quote: "I am just as much the cause as he for the wrong on account of 
> which this suffering has arisen."
> Comment: Hmmm....I understand this theoretically, but when I am with 
> a victim of rape, or other assault the meaning seems far 
> away.......And I wonder how this impacts on the general tendency to 
> blame the victim....."It's their kamma".
> Question: "Should we help victims? Isn't it in the same category as 
> not agreeing with euthanasia, because the person only has to work out 
> their kamma in yet another rebirth if they shorten their suffering in 
> this life.? Wrong track?

very glad, Rob K chose this point to answer;-)

> Quote: "All these beings are watched over by the Buddha as if they 
> were his own dear children."
> Question: 'Just where does the Buddha exist when he is 'watching over 
> these beings? '..........

During his life he was able to read or understand any minds......also maybe
‘watched over’ really means ‘be concerned for’...I’d like to know the Pali...

> Sorry - just realised that this is getting too long - so I'll stop 
> now.

Oh dear, just beginning to enjoy this...;-)

Christine, I know you won't take my comments here too seriously. I haven't seen
the text and I'm just having a little fun.

Look f/w to more,
Sarah




	
9823

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 10:55pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Parinibbana Subcommentary

 	
--- upasaka@a... wrote:

> ============================
> Thank you for all the foregoing detailed analysis. It strikes me from 
> that analysis, that a possible meaning for 'apannattikabhaavo' might be 
> "nonconceptual state of being". Is not one meaning of 'pa~n~nati' that of 
> "concept"? If this is a possible reading, then it is possible that 
> parinibbana may be a state not of "undefined reality" but, rather, a 
> nonconceptual state of being, a state of direct knowing, unmediated by 
> concept. What do you think?
> 
> With metta,
> Howard

I of course like this idea, and will wait with you to hear of the possibility of
this interpretation.

Robert Ep.



	
9824

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 11:14pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
Dear Christine,

Me again!

This post is a little harder for me to respond to as I’m always nervous about
making any comments that may be seen as critical of any teacher or writing
(unless someone writes directly to the list and then it’s ‘fair game’).

Actually, we’d be very pleased if your recent teacher were to join us here for
further discussion. Of course we’d also be extremely honoured if B.Bodhi were
to join us but we realise he’s very busy writing already and has limited
electricity and computer use at the Forest Hermitage.

There are just a few general points I’d like to comment on (briefly I hope):

1. I think it is important to establish what the Canon teaches as this is the
record and ‘umpire’ of the Teachings here. It seems that (reluctantly) in the
texts, other beings are accepted as being the objects of metta accordingly.

2. Many approaches, practices and techniques are followed and found to be
useful by many teachers and students. In order for these to be considered as
the Buddha’s Teachings, however, I think reference needs to be found. 

3. Furthermore, I don’t understand the ancient commentators, including
Buddhaghosa, to suggest either that metta should be directed to oneself. Was a
training practice of this kind really introduced at this time I wonder?

4. I think we all agree that ‘radiating metta in a boundless way’ is suggestive
of a very high level of samatha indeed. This doesn’t mean there cannot be a
start to developing metta now, when there are opportunities, to those around
us. As usual, understanding is the key.

5. if we have the idea of wishing to develop more metta or being the person
with lots of metta, this is the result of attachment. Attachment cannot lead
directly to the development of wholesome states. 

6. I don’t understand there to be a time frame for accomplishing any
development of wholesomeness. Are we concerned about results?

7. Whenever there is an idea of ‘doing’ or ‘working’ or ‘undertaking’ or
‘acquiring skills’, I think it’s useful to consider whether there is an idea of
self and control again.

8. When there is any concern to get rid of ‘hatred’, is there any detachment
from conditioned realities at that time?

Christine, I understand your viewpoint well and indeed was ‘trained’ in a
similar manner with seeimingly useful results. I offer these comments only for
consideration purposes. I fear I’ve already repeated myself too often and am
probably just being a bore at this stage;-)

metta,
Sarah

p.s. KenO, thank you for your helpful references and quotes on metta as well,
which I appreciated. 

Christine Forsyth <cforsyth@v...> wrote: > Dear Sarah, and All,
> 
> Even though acknowledging (maybe... perhaps...probably...) that the 
> Canon sees metta as being directed outwards, here are some more 
> thoughts....
> In a mail responding to my question, around the time I posted to this 
> list, a recent teacher of mine sent a response - partly quoted below.
> I don't attribute it to him by name, as I haven't yet received any 
> other communication - he is travelling in India and is incommunicado 
> most of the time. 
> And as I sent him a virus last time, he may be wary of any post from 
> me! :-) I like the phrase 'the living tradition'...
> metta,
> Christine

<snip for brevity only>

	
9825

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 11:31pm
Subject: characteristic of hardness

 	
Dear Rob Ep and Howard,

I believe you were having a useful discussion on understanding the
characteristic or nature of ‘hardness’. I’ve just been catching up on Nina’s
recent drafts of her translations from Cambodia. The following extract seemed
very pertinent to your discussion and I wondered if you had any further
comments.

<Cambodia Ch 12, no 3, Sujin speaking>
>......................................................................Understanding,
although it is
> still very slight, can begin to realize that there are dhammas, each with
> their own characteristic, and at such moments there is no need to think of
> them or to speak about them. There can be understanding of the
> characteristic of hardness that appears at such a moment, it can be realized
> as a kind of dhamma that has the characteristic of hardness.
> 
> When hardness appears, there are two kinds of realities: hardness and the
> experience of hardness. The moment of sati and of paññå that gradually
> begins to understand realities, is very short, because such a moment arises
> and then falls away extremely rapidly. It is impossible that is immediately
> clear understanding of realities. There can gradually be awareness and more
> understanding of the characteristic which experiences, of the reality which
> experiences hardness; there will be more understanding of that
> characteristic as it really is. This is satipatthåna, but not yet of the
> level of pativedha, the direct realization of the truth. One only begins to
> develop correct understanding of the characteristics of realities we used to
> take for people, for beings, for this or that thing. When sati arises and is
> aware of what appears, one begins to understand that there are only
> different dhammas, each with their own characteristic, and that this is
> reality. When sati arises people will know when they are forgetful of
> realities and when there is sati. Knowing the difference between the moment
> of sati and the moment of forgetfulness is the beginning level of its
> development, and people can only know this themselves. Other people cannot
> know with regard to someone else what sati is aware of, whether sati arises
> or not. Each person can only know this for himself.
> **** 


	
9826

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 11:37pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] metta, kamma, social conscience and vipassana

 	
Dear Sarah,
Thanks for your comments. I think it's very worthwhile to see that we don't have
control over conditions and to see the insubstantial nature of the things we want
to hold onto or change. I would only add that I don't see any reason why we can't
try to maintain this perspective while being available for the opportunities to
end suffering, and to be committed to end suffering in all its forms, due to all
the forms of ignorance that manifest in the world. 

Lately I have really found a kind of comfort in starting to see directly that the
things that happen to me aren't by chance. Instead of wishing things were
different I see that karma and conditions are causing things to happen. It is
actually a relief to not be responsible on that level, but to be responsible to
stay aware instead so that new akusala conditions are lessened to some degree. I
have a kind of hope that sometime in the future maybe the tide of conditions will
turn and things will be 'better', not because of chance or some sort of reward,
but only because negative conditions have not been created as much. And that this
leads in the direction of eliminating all causal conditions. It's an interesting
perspective. In the meantime, if my child cries, I pick her up.

Best Regards,
Robert Ep.

======================================


--- Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
> Dear Rob Ep,
> 
> > I think you make a lot of good points, and I would say that Dan's original
> > points
> > were good too, even though I had some reactions and additions......from my
> > own
> > point of view.
> 
> I understand well. I may not have had much (any?) experience of the despondency
> and fear some have mentioned with regard to more understanding of anatta and
> lack of control, but believe me, all these areas that you’ve discussed with Dan
> and which I added to yesterday, have not been easy at all for me. I can talk
> about kamma and vipaka and understand it quite well intellectually, but this is
> mostly at a pretty superficial level. 
> 
> I also remember when I first used to stay with Khun Sujin, how I often
> questioned whether understanding realities now was really enough and whether we
> shouldn’t be doing more ‘out there’.....all of course, clinging to wrong views
> with that idea of self and control again. No understanding of conditions when
> one thinks like that. Still the ‘missionary zeal’ , the ‘social conscience’ the
> ‘fighting for human rights’ kept raising its head and even now there can be
> strong attachment to the rights and wrongs in the world on a conceptual level.
> These are the views that we attach to and which bring the disputes, dogmas and
> so on.
> > 
> > What I mostly am saying is that I would want to avoid getting into an
> > intellectual
> > place where I can philosophize away daily conventional suffering by saying
> > it's
> > not 'real'. I know that no one here is doing that, but I think it's a good
> > point
> > anyway, at least to chew on. 
> 
> Again, of course, there’s ‘real’ on a conventional level and ‘real’ on an
> absolute level. So often when we refer to suffering, on an absolute level,
> isn’t it unpleasant bodily feeling, aversion and so on... These are very real
> dhammas that can be understood. 
> 
> But I also certainly don't think that worrying
> > about
> > something that we're in no position to fix is a proper use of one's energy. 
> > That
> > would also be nothing but an intellectual exercise. 
> 
> There can also be a lot of attachment, I find, to fixing problems and wrongs,
> usually with no understanding of realities or conditions.
> 
> > Finally, the real suffering is caused by delusion and ignorance, and on that
> > I
> > certainly agree.
> 
> We’re indeed fortunate to have a glimmer of the truth, even if it’s forgotten
> most the time;-)
> 
> Always good chatting and yes, personally, I appreciate everyone’s participation
> here, including yours;-))))
> 
> Sarah


	
9827

From: rjkjp <rjkjp@y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 11:39pm
Subject: Robert Eddison

 	
Dear group,
I just received an email from Robert Eddison addressed to Sarah, Jon 
and myself.
You might recall he wrote several weeks ago that he was recovering 
from an illness (he thought). 
Very briefly: He had thought it was a severe case of flu but soon 
after he wrote the symptoms worsened and he went into coma - it was 
actually meningitis. He is very slowly recovering from this grave 
illness but cannot write without assistance(he can't touch type) and 
has impaired vision which means he can only read a little everyday 
(by increasing the font size to 72points).
He writes of his appreciation of the Dhamma and the discussions here, 
but won't be able to actively participate for sometime.
I much respect his understanding and wish him well in this hard time.
robert k.
	
9828

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 0:01am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Interesting sutta

 	
Hi Dan,

I've just read the Parivimamsanasutta (Thorough Investigation), SN11,12,51
which you quoted from before.

Just to say I appreciate your comments and useful questions which I've just
re-read. When there is a little understanding of not-self and conditions, the
suttas take on a 'new life' I believe.

thanks for your kind comments too.

Sarah


--- dalthorp@o... wrote: 

>......... Then, the language of the Satipatthana sutta mirrors those 
> suttas that are obvious descriptions and seems much more akin to 
> descriptions of types of understanding at reasonably deep levels 
> (though mostly not at a level of an arahant) than to "practices" 
> aimed at developing understanding. The Parivimamsana sutta suggests 
> that the development of wisdom isn't so much a matter of training the 
> mind to mimic the descriptions of wise mind, but more a matter of 
> thorough investigation of the moment. With proper investigation, 
> understanding will develop, perhaps slowly but develop nonetheless. 

<snip>



	
9829

From: ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 0:11am
Subject: Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)

 	
Dear Robert,and All,

Sorry, anatta again....thinking about the puppet quotes, they 
illustrate the impermanence of the body very well to me.... and raise 
issues of who or what is in control..... every puppet is owned by a 
puppet-master ...someone who pulls the strings.....makes it act, - 
controls it.
Equating the body with an arrow (shaft) also brings to mind that 
there is an 'archer', who fits the arrow, and releases the bow-
string, - aims it.
I have also tried to understand this by thinking the 'life force' as 
the combination of engine and petrol in a car, with the mind as the 
ignition key......but, "whose" is the hand that turns the key in the 
car?.... - makes it move.
The ship is the one I like best, because an impersonal set of
conditions creates weather systems, and causes the wind that moves the
ship.....but then, . 'Something' decides direction and steers it.

After further thinking about puppets, dolls, archers, and ships, and 
reading a little more, I feel part of the problem I am having with 
Anatta is that the entire Western culture (literature, painting, 
poetry, science, religion, law, politics) is threaded through with 
the belief that there is a body which is impermanent and dies, 
plus 'something' immaterial, the soul, which is capable of living 
apart from the body after the bodys' death.( If this is not so, it
is certainly going to affect the pleasure of reading - perhaps 
literature will lose some of its richness .....God has already gone, 
but imagine Donne without soul and death ....)

When I look at a dead body, whether a baby or an aged person, there 
is no problem with realising that the body is Not-Self. But the 
distinct impression made (even without signs of disease or deliberate 
damage) is that 'something' has gone, is missing......the 'something' 
that vitalised the body. Just as in part of your quote 'but by means 
of their working together, this mental and bodily combination may 
move about, stand up, and appear full of life and activity." With a 
corpse, the body is still there, the 'something' (the mental part?) 
is absent......
But the Buddha didn't think of anything as separate or separable from 
the body. Or did he?

Looking at the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (The Not-Self Characteristic) 
sort of from the flip side, could it be inferred that the Buddha is 
saying that for'something' to be considered as Self it would :
1. Not lead to affliction
2. Obey the person of whom it is the Self
3. have to be permanent i.e. Pleasant, permanent, not 
subject to change.

And I've just found the brick wall.....A gate somewhere, maybe?

metta,
Christine

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Kirkpatrick 
<robertkirkpatrick@r...> 
> Robert: Absolutely Christine. The suttas 'are heavy with
> condensed meaning'! I like puppet too. Here are some more
> quotes :
> From the VisuddhiMagga, chap. xi. And it is when the body is
> impelled by the wind element that it performs its four functions
> of walking, standing, sitting, or lying-down, or draws in and
> stretches out its arms, or moves its hands and its feet. Thus
> does this machine made of the four elements move like a puppet,
> and deceives all foolish people with its femininity,
> masculinity, etc"endquote.
> 
> From majjhima nikaya 82 p683 Bodhi
> Behold a puppet here pranked out,
> a body built from sores,
> sick, an object of concern, where no stabilty abides
> 
> http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic3_n.htm
> "Just as a wooden puppet though unsubstantial, lifeless and
> inactive may by means of pulling strings be made to move about,
> stand up, and appear full of life and activity; just so are mind
> and body, as such, something empty, lifeless and inactive; but
> by means of their mutual working together, this mental and
> bodily combination may move about, stand up, and appear full of
> life and activity."
> 
> from the Satipatthana sutta atthakatta (sections on modes of
> deportment)"Just as a ship goes on by winds impelled,
> Just as a shaft goes by the bowstring's force,
> So goes this body in its forward course
> Full driven by the vibrant thrust of air.
> As to the puppet's back the dodge-thread's tied
> So to the body-doll the mind is joined
> And pulled by that the body moves, stands, sits.
> Where is the living being that can stand,
> Or walk, by force of its own inner strength,
> Without conditions that give it support? "
> 
> ++++++++++ 
> Christine: I wonder....in Buddhism, is Mara believed to be real?
> or a projection 
> of our own desires and impulses? 
> ++++++++++++++
> 
> There are five kinds of Mara: the devaputta Mara (who confronted
> Sela), the kilesa(defilements), kamma formations, Death Mara,
> and the five aggregates Mara. I haven't met the first one (in
> this life). The last one, the khandas, is one we cling to and
> love but the khandas are like murderers waiting for the right
> time to strike. One day they will and we will die; better to see
> the danger of them now and so lessen clinging to them.
> ++++++++++++
>
	
9830

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 0:19am
Subject: Seeing - Ken O

 	
Dear Ken O,

I thought of you and our discussion as I read this extract from <Cambodia ch12,
no 4>:

> When we are seeing and satipatthåna does not arise, there is
> no way of knowing that seeing is an element or reality that experiences
> something; this characteristic is real, and it does not have shape or form.
> We should consider the reality that is the element which experiences
> something: there is no rúpa that is blended or mixed with it. Then it will
> be clear that the characteristic of the element that experiences is
> penetrated through the mind-door. Such a moment is different from the
> moments that everything seems to appear together, such as visible object
> that seems to appear together with seeing. 

Any comments?

The following comments about developing sati naturally were from the same
segment. I appreciate the reminders about becoming 'detached' from realities.
Don't we wish to have more sati or metta and to have less dosa?

Best wishes,

Sarah

>....Sati can be aware , and we should not think it too difficult or
> impossible. People may doubt whether they can be aware in this life, but
> that is just thinking. When there are conditions for the arising of sati it
> can arise. One may think that sati may only arise after ten years or in the
> next life, but that is useless. Sati is dependent on conditions, just like
> hearing and other realities: when there are conditions for hearing, it must
> arise; and when there are conditions for seeing it must arise. Even so, when
> there are conditions for the arising of sammå-sati, it arises. Therefore, we
> should correctly understand that sati can arise naturally.
> 
> Each dhamma arises naturally. It is not natural if someone because of his
> ignorance wishes for the arising again of sati. We should not forget that
> paññå is developed with the aim to become detached. Sati arises and then
> falls away, this is normal. Why does one wish for its arising again?
> Whenever there are conditions sati will arise. We should clearly understand
> that all realities appearing at this moment do so because there are
> conditions for their arising. If someone really understands this, he will
> not worry. Lobha will arise because there are conditions for its arising.
> Dosa will arise because there are conditions for its arising. Whatever
> reality arises must fall away again, and we cannot do anything else but
> study with sati sampajaññå, clear comprehension, the realities that arise
> and fall away. 

	
9831

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 0:38am
Subject: Re: [dsg] metta, kamma, social conscience and vipassana

 	
Dear Rob Ep,

--- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > Dear Sarah,
> Thanks for your comments. I think it's very worthwhile to see that we don't
> have
> control over conditions and to see the insubstantial nature of the things we
> want
> to hold onto or change. I would only add that I don't see any reason why we
> can't
> try to maintain this perspective while being available for the opportunities
> to
> ent suffering, and to be committed to end suffering in all its forms, due to
> all
> the forms of ignorance that manifest in the world.

I agree if I can that we should follow any opportunity to develop all kinds of
wholesome states and deeds......However, to be 'committed to end suffering in
all its forms' sounds like a pretty tall order.....even the Buddha couldn't
accomplish that;-) 

> Lately I have really found a kind of comfort in starting to see directly that
> the
> things that happen to me aren't by chance. Instead of wishing things were
> different I see that karma and conditions are causing things to happen. It
> is
> actually a relief to not be responsible on that level,

Exactly so, this is why the devleopment of understanding should be 'light'
rather than 'heavy' or leading to despondency..

> but to be responsible
> to
> stay aware instead so that new akusala conditions are lessened to some
> degree. I
> have a kind of hope that sometime in the future maybe the tide of conditions
> will
> turn and things will be 'better', not because of chance or some sort of
> reward,
> but only because negative conditions have not been created as much.

Rather than hope or think about future conditions, isn't it more useful to
develop understanding with detachment....less minding, less hoping...

> And that
> this
> leads in the direction of eliminating all causal conditions. It's an
> interesting
> perspective. 

Yes...conditions are so very complicated....who knows what kamma and other
conditions will brring what results at any time for anyone?

>In the meantime, if my child cries, I pick her up.

Good! Not to do so would be wrong view or wrong understanding that 'there's no
use doing anything' or sth along those lines.....

And good to chat again.....now I need to attend to 'my patient' (Jon's just
come home after some minor surgery on his head.....)

Sarah

	
9832

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 0:57am
Subject: Re: [dsg] metta, kamma, social conscience and vipassana

 	
--- Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:

> And good to chat again.....now I need to attend to 'my patient' (Jon's just
> come home after some minor surgery on his head.....)

Oh geez, talk about arising conditions. 
I'm glad that neither of us takes our family members to be 'merely illusions'. 
<g>
And please wish him the best!

Regards,
Robert Ep.



	
9833

From: jaranoh <jaranoh@y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 1:08am
Subject: Re: Cambodia, Ch 13, no. 2: thank you Nina.

 	
Hello Nina:

I can't thank you enough for posting these summaries. They are very
good reminders of what we listened to sometime ago but almost forgot
completely.

You were saying something about sore wrists last time we met in India,
I hope they can keep up with you kasula-cetana. Please take a good
care of yourself.

See you,
jaran
--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> wrote:
> Cambodia, ch 13, no. 2.
>
	
9834

From: ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 2:26am
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
Dear Sarah,

Please don't be nervous at all, any teacher worth their salt would 
never mind honest criticism of something they have written......and 
your remarks are absolutely honest. I don't feel attached to 
anyones' words - if they're true, they're true - if they're not, 
they're not. I post, not to win a point (just as well :-)), but to 
see what people think, and to learn from their answers - if it fits 
what I am able to understand as truth at this moment.

metta,
Christine

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
> Dear Christine,
> 
> Me again!
> 
> This post is a little harder for me to respond to as I'm always 
nervous about
> making any comments that may be seen as critical of any teacher or 
writing
> (unless someone writes directly to the list and then it's `fair 
game').
> 
> Actually, we'd be very pleased if your recent teacher were to join 
us here for
> further discussion. > metta,
> Sarah
	
9835

From: onco111 <dalthorp@o...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 2:34am
Subject: unreal--[was: "The noble nine fold path"]

 	
Nyanaponika wrote a little about his translation in an essay 
entitled "The Worn-out Skin" [I believe it is a "Wheel" or "Bodhi 
Leaves" publication through BPS, a selection of which are compiled 
into a book called "Vision of Dhamma"]. I quote:

"The world is 'unreal' in the sense of presenting a deceptive 
appearance, being quite different in actuality from the way it 
appears to a greedy, lustful, hating, and ignorant mind. The Pali 
word 'vitatha', here rendered by 'unreal,' has both in Pali and 
Sanskrit the meaning of 'untrue' or 'false.' [The CSCD dictionary 
agrees precisely]. These verses, however, are not meant to convey the 
idea that the world is mere illusion, a play of the imagination. What 
underlies its deceptive appearance, the flux of mental and physical 
processes, is rea enough in the sense that it is effect-producing. 
The unreality lies in what we attribute to the world, and not in the 
world itself.

"What, now is this 'world' (loka) and this 'all' (sabba), which 
should be seen as unreal, in the sense of being deceptive? When the 
Enlightened One was questioned about these two words, he gave the 
same answer for both: 

1.'"One speaks of 'the world,' Lord. In how far is there are world or 
the designation 'world'?" "When there is the eye and visible forms, 
visual consciousness and things cognizable by visual consciousness; 
when there is the ear and sounds...; nose and smells...; tongue and 
flavours...; body and tangibles...; mind and ideas, mind-
consciousness and things cognizable by mind-consciousness--then there 
is a world and the designation 'world'."'[SN 35:68]

2. '"'All' will I show you, O monks. And what is 'all'? The eye and 
visible forms, ear and sounds, nose and smells, tongue and flavors, 
mind and ideas--this, O monks, is what is called 'all'."' [SN35:22]"
	
9836

From: onco111 <dalthorp@o...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 2:36am
Subject: Re: Interesting sutta [Ken O]

 	
> Could you kindly provide the full text of the sutta as I don't have 
a copy
> or a link

Hi Ken,
I don't have a link either. The sutta is a few pages, and I will type 
it out for you when I have a little free time.

Dan
	
9837

From: ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 3:01am
Subject: Is it only me?

 	
Dear all,

Is it only my "from" line that has changed to my user ID? Or is this 
a sophisticated way to teach me about Not-Self?
In addition, every time I try to enter dsg, I am told I am a guest 
and have to go through the whole routine of User ID and Password?

The only other theory I have concerns a malfunctioning toaster and a 
possum in my ceiling - but I think that's coincidence..... :-)

metta,
Christine
	
9838

From: onco111 <dalthorp@o...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 3:13am
Subject: Re: Is it only me?

 	
It's not just you, Christine! Look at the recent messages 
from 'onco111' (Dan) and rjkpk (Robert K). I think Yahoo! did some 
rearranging. Last time they did this, I couldn't even post anymore 
and ended up having to sign up again. But it wouldn't let me even do 
that in a straightforward way--it kept telling me that my e-mail 
address wouldn't work. I finally found a way around it, but it took 
an hour or so. This time, they just messed around with the way the 
names are displayed. I'm thankful for that! 

Dan

> Dear all,
> 
> Is it only my "from" line that has changed to my user ID? Or is 
this 
> a sophisticated way to teach me about Not-Self?
> In addition, every time I try to enter dsg, I am told I am a guest 
> and have to go through the whole routine of User ID and Password?
> 
> The only other theory I have concerns a malfunctioning toaster and 
a 
> possum in my ceiling - but I think that's coincidence..... :-)
> 
> metta,
> Christine
	
9839

From: ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 3:32am
Subject: Re: Is it only me?

 	
Thanks Dan - I don't think I'll bother trying to change it back - I'd 
probably cause more problems - the only other change is that a 
warning now appears at the top of the Post page saying your email 
address will be displayed in the message you send. Wasn't it always?

metta,
Christine

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" <dalthorp@o...> wrote:
> It's not just you, Christine! Look at the recent messages 
> from 'onco111' (Dan) and rjkpk (Robert K). I think Yahoo! did some 
> rearranging. Last time they did this, I couldn't even post anymore 
> and ended up having to sign up again. But it wouldn't let me even 
do 
> that in a straightforward way--it kept telling me that my e-mail 
> address wouldn't work. I finally found a way around it, but it took 
> an hour or so. This time, they just messed around with the way the 
> names are displayed. I'm thankful for that! 
> 
> Dan
> 
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > Is it only my "from" line that has changed to my user ID? Or is 
> this 
> > a sophisticated way to teach me about Not-Self?
> > In addition, every time I try to enter dsg, I am told I am a 
guest 
> > and have to go through the whole routine of User ID and Password?
> > 
> > The only other theory I have concerns a malfunctioning toaster 
and 
> a 
> > possum in my ceiling - but I think that's coincidence..... :-)
> > 
> > metta,
> > Christine
	
9840

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 3:33am
Subject: Re: [dsg] unreal--[was: "The noble nine fold path"]

 	
Dear Friends,

Just in brief, I wish to apologise.

I've just realised I haven't been comparing 'like with like'.

The Uraga Sutta stanzas that Herman quoted, I now see, were from the middle of
the sutta and not from the start, as I'd thought.

Thanks to Dan's extra note, I now can quote the Pali, Thanissaro, Nyanaponika
and Saddhatissa for the same verse 9:

1. Pali
Yo naaccasaari na paccasaari
'sabba.m vitatham idan'ti ~natvaa loke
so bhikkhu jahaati orapaara.m
urago ji.n.nam taca.m puraa.na.m

2. Thanissaro
He who neither goes too far nor lags behind
and knows about the world: "This is all unreal,"
-- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 

3. Nyanaponika
Who neither goes too far nor lags behind
and knows about the world: 'This is all unreal,'
-such monk gives up the Here and the Beyond,
just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin.

4. Saddhatissa
He who is neither restless nor indolent and knowing that all is unsubstantial,
that monk gives up the Cycle of Existence as the snake sheds its old, decayed
skin.

I apologise again for any confusion and Herman, I apologise for more Pali;-)

Sarah

p.s Talking about worn-out skins, I just pulled out a 25yr old,
falling-to-pieces copy of the Wheel "Worn-out Skin' with a note in the front to
show it was given to me by 'Dhamma Friends in Sri Lanka'. I'll read all the
notes tomorrow.




--- onco111 <dalthorp@o...> wrote: > Nyanaponika wrote a little
about his translation in an essay 
> entitled "The Worn-out Skin" [I believe it is a "Wheel" or "Bodhi 
> Leaves" publication through BPS, a selection of which are compiled 
> into a book called "Vision of Dhamma"]. I quote:
> 
> "The world is 'unreal' in the sense of presenting a deceptive 
> appearance, being quite different in actuality from the way it 
> appears to a greedy, lustful, hating, and ignorant mind. The Pali 
> word 'vitatha', here rendered by 'unreal,' has both in Pali and 
> Sanskrit the meaning of 'untrue' or 'false.' [The CSCD dictionary 
> agrees precisely]. These verses, however, are not meant to convey the 
> idea that the world is mere illusion, a play of the imagination. What 
> underlies its deceptive appearance, the flux of mental and physical 
> processes, is rea enough in the sense that it is effect-producing. 
> The unreality lies in what we attribute to the world, and not in the 
> world itself.
> 
> "What, now is this 'world' (loka) and this 'all' (sabba), which 
> should be seen as unreal, in the sense of being deceptive? When the 
> Enlightened One was questioned about these two words, he gave the 
> same answer for both: 
> 
> 1.'"One speaks of 'the world,' Lord. In how far is there are world or 
> the designation 'world'?" "When there is the eye and visible forms, 
> visual consciousness and things cognizable by visual consciousness; 
> when there is the ear and sounds...; nose and smells...; tongue and 
> flavours...; body and tangibles...; mind and ideas, mind-
> consciousness and things cognizable by mind-consciousness--then there 
> is a world and the designation 'world'."'[SN 35:68]
> 
> 2. '"'All' will I show you, O monks. And what is 'all'? The eye and 
> visible forms, ear and sounds, nose and smells, tongue and flavors, 
> mind and ideas--this, O monks, is what is called 'all'."' [SN35:22]"
>

	
9841

From: onco111 <dalthorp@o...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 3:41am
Subject: Re: Is it only me?

 	
> Thanks Dan - I don't think I'll bother trying to change it back - 

Smart move. I just spent 20 precious minutes trying to edit my 
profile and whatnot trying to fix the problem. All to no avail. Oh 
well.
	
9842

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 3:49am
Subject: Re: [dsg] unreal--[was: "The noble nine fold path"]

 	
Oooops!

Another wrong assumption;-(

I just checked Thanissaro's translation and it is the following:

The monk who hasn't slipped past or turned back,
knowing with regard to the world
that "All this is unreal,"
    sloughs off the near shore & far -- 
    as a snake, its decrepit old skin. 

Herman had quoted Nyanaponika's.

Herman, i'm sorry if we've also somewhat lost the gist of your original message
i.e that wrong views and attachments need to be discarded....

S.


--- Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote: > Dear Friends,
> 
> Just in brief, I wish to apologise.
> 
> I've just realised I haven't been comparing 'like with like'.
> 
> The Uraga Sutta stanzas that Herman quoted, I now see, were from the middle
> of
> the sutta and not from the start, as I'd thought.
> 
> Thanks to Dan's extra note, I now can quote the Pali, Thanissaro, Nyanaponika
> and Saddhatissa for the same verse 9:
> 
> 1. Pali
> Yo naaccasaari na paccasaari
> 'sabba.m vitatham idan'ti ~natvaa loke
> so bhikkhu jahaati orapaara.m
> urago ji.n.nam taca.m puraa.na.m


> 3. Nyanaponika
> Who neither goes too far nor lags behind
> and knows about the world: 'This is all unreal,'
> -such monk gives up the Here and the Beyond,
> just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin.
> 
> 4. Saddhatissa
> He who is neither restless nor indolent and knowing that all is
> unsubstantial,
> that monk gives up the Cycle of Existence as the snake sheds its old, decayed
> skin.


	
9843

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 4:06am
Subject: Re: [dsg] unreal--[was: "The noble nine fold path"]

 	
p.s -Dan,

these notes you added are very helpful and make it very clear, I think. I like
the cross-references to the other suttas too. 

many thanks.
S 

Hope you all get used to your new 'skins' or 'names';-)

> --- onco111 <dalthorp@o...> wrote: > Nyanaponika wrote a little
> about his translation in an essay 
> > entitled "The Worn-out Skin" [I believe it is a "Wheel" or "Bodhi 
> > Leaves" publication through BPS, a selection of which are compiled 
> > into a book called "Vision of Dhamma"]. I quote:
> > 
> > "The world is 'unreal' in the sense of presenting a deceptive 
> > appearance, being quite different in actuality from the way it 
> > appears to a greedy, lustful, hating, and ignorant mind. The Pali 
> > word 'vitatha', here rendered by 'unreal,' has both in Pali and 
> > Sanskrit the meaning of 'untrue' or 'false.' [The CSCD dictionary 
> > agrees precisely]. These verses, however, are not meant to convey the 
> > idea that the world is mere illusion, a play of the imagination. What 
> > underlies its deceptive appearance, the flux of mental and physical 
> > processes, is rea enough in the sense that it is effect-producing. 
> > The unreality lies in what we attribute to the world, and not in the 
> > world itself.
> > 
> > "What, now is this 'world' (loka) and this 'all' (sabba), which 
> > should be seen as unreal, in the sense of being deceptive? When the 
> > Enlightened One was questioned about these two words, he gave the 
> > same answer for both: 
> > 
> > 1.'"One speaks of 'the world,' Lord. In how far is there are world or 
> > the designation 'world'?" "When there is the eye and visible forms, 
> > visual consciousness and things cognizable by visual consciousness; 
> > when there is the ear and sounds...; nose and smells...; tongue and 
> > flavours...; body and tangibles...; mind and ideas, mind-
> > consciousness and things cognizable by mind-consciousness--then there 
> > is a world and the designation 'world'."'[SN 35:68]
> > 
> > 2. '"'All' will I show you, O monks. And what is 'all'? The eye and 
> > visible forms, ear and sounds, nose and smells, tongue and flavors, 
> > mind and ideas--this, O monks, is what is called 'all'."' [SN35:22]"
> >


9844

From: rikpa21 <rikpa21@y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 6:03am
Subject: Re: The noble nine fold path

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., hhofman@d... wrote:

> Right view in my understanding is not a view that is held. It is 
> seeing what is there when clinging (ie clinging to held views) 
> ceases.

I wonder speculations those those blind men would cling to about the 
nature of an elephant were their eyes suddenly opened. I wonder how 
many would continue to entertain beliefs like "it is like a fan" 
or "it is like a whisk-broom", etc.

> I don't think dispensing with right view is possible.
> 
> What is the problem with the rendition: All this is unreal?

I see no problem with it. There's the letting go of clinging route; 
the "cutting through appearances" route. So many, many ways to slice 
the Dhamma. Re: the term "ditthi", I think Mike mentioned it 
referring to "miccha ditthi" but teachers I respect have taught me 
that any view at all is considered ditthi, to be discarded. Right 
View is the equivalent of no-view, it is beyond taking any position 
at all, as the sutta Herman quoted notes. What need is there for 
ditthi (speculation) of any kind when there is direct knowledge?
	

 	 

	
9845

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 2:01am
Subject: Re: [dsg] The noble nine fold path

 	
Hi, Robert -

In a message dated 12/5/01 1:05:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp@y... 
writes:


> Dear Howard,
> I'm flattered that you think any translation i make would be 
> acceptable. Unfortunately my pali is very weak and I would be just 
> relying on the Pali-English dictionary and my own intuition; not 
> reliable I'm afraid.
> If Herman gives us the url's we can all look at these translations, 
> though.
> Even if the best translation does turn out to be 'unreal' I think 
> this shouldn't be seized on without regard to the rest of the 
> Tipitaka. Sometimes rupa and the khandas are described as void 
> (sunna) false(tuccha),asara(essenceless) or compared with foam or a 
> mirage etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I agree. Such terms should be understood in the middle-way/emptiness 
sense only, and not in a nihilistic sense. I think they are very important, 
that they reflect the way things really are, and they help protect us against 
substantialist and eternalist views. But such terminology also constitutes 
dangerous medicine, which perhaps is why it isn't given so often, or in very 
large measure, by the Buddha.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
These descriptions assist us in contemplating the khandas > 
> so as to turn away from them, it does not mean that the khandas are 
> imaginary.
> 

> robert k.
> ===========================
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) 




	
9846

From: Robert Eddison <robedd@i...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 7:50am
Subject: Re: Welcome

 	
Wed, 26 Sep 2001 17:41:07 +0800 (CST)

Sarah wrote:

>Thank you very much indeed for your extremely helpful comments below, which I
>look forward to reading more carefully later. I'm sure I speak for everyone
>when I say that I'm really delighted that you've joined us here and really look
>forward to more of your very 'enlightened' contributions;-)
>
>I hope you're fully recovered now and when you've 'caught up' , I think we'd
>all be very interested to hear anything you wish to share about how your
>serious interest in the Tipitaka and Pali developed


Dear Sarah,

Thanks for the welcome. Now two months later I get around to replying! As I
mentioned in my e-mail to you, the visual impairment from my recent illness
prevents me from contributing except when I have someone to type for me. As
I live a reclusive life this is less often than I might wish.

By way of introduction: I am an Englishman but have lived in Iceland since
1994. I first encountered the Buddha's teaching when I was 14 in an
anthology of texts from different Buddhist traditions. Later I began
attending the zazen sessions of a Soto Zen group in my home town
(Nottingham). At weekends I would travel to Birmingham to study and
meditate under the guidance of the Burmese monk Dr. Rewata Dhamma.

Later I moved to Thailand for 9 years. I studied Pali with Sayadaw
Dhammananda at Wat Tha Ma O in Lampang, and then in Bangkok at Wat
Mahadhatu and Wat Benchamabophitr. My study has focussed mainly on the
Suttas. I have not gone into Abhidhamma or the Atthakathaa in a very
systematic fashion, but have often used them for reference to clarify
psychological terms and any doubtful matters.

I am currently working on an English translation of the canonical Jaataka
(i.e. only the verses, not the stories).

>(or anything else mundane such as where you live and so on).

Okay, the mundane stuff: I work as a freelance Icelandic-English
translator, mostly doing legal texts for the Icelandic parliament and the
occasional novel or film script. I am divorced and now live as an urban
recluse in downtown Reykjavik (or rather, semi-recluse since I do have a
couple of cats, Antisthenes and Monimus).

My other interests include the philosophy of law, Stoicism, Elizabethan
poetry, climbing glaciers, and (in non-reclusive moments) 'glima' --
Iceland's home-grown martial art -- an easily learned and rather primitive
style of wrestling that dates back to the 9th century.

Well, that's all for now.

With best wishes,

Robert
	
9847

From: Robert Eddison <robedd@i...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 7:47am
Subject: Re: Doctrinal Conflicts/ Re. more Abhidhamma...

 	
oreznoone@a...

>The term 'paramattha' does not occur in the suttas. (I hope to pursue some 
>questions about this here someday.)

I am puzzled as to just what you mean by this, since the term 'paramattha'
most definitely does occur in the Suttas, though not in the sense in which
it is used in the Commentaries.

Are you perhaps referring to paramattha sacca (truth in the highest sense)?
If so, I would agree that this term is absent in the Suttas, though I would
suggest that the notion is present. That is to say, the idea that something
may be true conventionally but not ultimately is inferrable from the
Suttas, even though it is expressed in different terms.

What the Commentaries call conventional truth (sammuti-sacca), the Suttas
call 'worldly consensus' (lokasamañña), 'worldly language' (lokanirutti),
'worldly usage' (lokavohaara), or 'worldly convention' (lokapaññatti).

What the Commentaries call truth in the highest sense (paramattha-sacca) is
indicated in several ways in the Suttas, but most unambiguously when the
Buddha prefaces a statement with "In truth and reality..." (saccato thetato).

E.g.

"....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs
to self...."
(Alagadduupama Sutta )

"In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found [i.e.
in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]."
(Yamaka Sutta)

Best wishes,

Robert
	
9848

From: Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 10:07am
Subject: Cambodia Ch 13, no. 3

 	
Cambodia ch 13, no 3.

People who listened at the time when the Sammåsambuddha had not yet finally
passed away, could understand immediately the characteristics of nåma and
rúpa. The reason was that they had developed understanding, that they had
listened and considered what they had learnt to a great extent. When we read
the life stories of those people we see that, before they could realize the
four noble truths at the moment of enlightenment, they had to study and
listen a great deal during many lives, so that they could become
³bahussuta². A person who is bahussuta (bahu is much, and suta is heard) is
someone who has listened and studied a great deal in order to understand
realities. As Khun Nipat has said, at that time there were no books.
Therefore, people listened with understanding and they did not think of
textbooks or different subjects written down in books. They heard about
realities that were appearing, they could investigate and understand them
immediately. Their study was based on listening and considering, they knew
that what they heard concerned the reality appearing at that very moment.
When the Buddha asked whether seeing was permanent or impermanent, they
answered, ³impermanent². They did not memorize this from a textbook, but
seeing was performing the function of seeing, and the paññå they had
developed was the condition for understanding the truth of the reality at
that moment. 

The word seeing that is translated differently in different languages, is in
Pali cakkhu-viññåna. Is seeing at this very moment permanent or impermanent?
People at the Buddha¹s time could answer that it was impermanent. It depends
on the level of paññå how someone can answer this question. People who had
developed paññå that could penetrate the truth could give the right answer.
Just a moment ago I asked Khun Jaran whether he knew hardness on the level
of the theory, pariyatti, or on the level of patipatti, the practice. One
should be sincere, truthful, when one considers this. When it is still
pariyatti, one takes hardness for the hardness of a table or a chair. When a
person has studied the Dhamma he knows that it is a kind of element that can
be experienced through the bodysense, a reality that is hardness. People at
the Buddha¹s time who answered the Buddha¹s question about realities being
permanent or impermanent could, when his discourse was finished, become a
sotåpanna or even an arahat. We may give the same answer as those people but
has pañña reached the same level as their paññå? It depends on conditions
what level paññå has reached. When satipatthåna arises one can begin to
understand the difference between sati of the level of dåna or síla and of
the level of satipatthåna. Sati of satipttìhåna has a characteristic that
arises and appears. Not a self, but sati is aware of the characteritistics
of realities. It is aware of the realities that naturally appear in daily
life. Paññå that arises and is conditioned by satipatthåna is the reality
that clearly understands those realities as they are. Paññå is different
from sati.

****




	
9849

From: Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 10:07am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Book by Law

 	
op 04-12-2001 07:33 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...:


> In another book I have by G.P. Malalsekera ‘The Pali Literature of Ceylon’, he
> refers to Law’s ‘The Life and Work of Buddhaghosa’ (maybe, the book you have,
> Nina?) in which he says the later ‘has a very interesting chapter on the
> origin
> of these commentaries.

Dear Sarah, yes, that is the book. At the time Buddhaghosa was in Sri Lanka
there were five very old commentaries of which he mentioned three in his Co
to the Vinaya. See also intro to "Survey". The names are known but they do
not exist anymore. Law also quotes from the Mahavamsa. What you quote is
also very interesting.
The Life and Work of Buddhaghosa, by B.C. Law. Pilgrims Books, ISBN
81-7624-054-0
and also distributed in Nepal: info@p... and also Web site:
<http://gfas.com/pilgrims >

Nina.
	
9850

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 11:28am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Is it only me?

 	
--- ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> Is it only my "from" line that has changed to my user ID? Or is this 
> a sophisticated way to teach me about Not-Self?
> In addition, every time I try to enter dsg, I am told I am a guest 
> and have to go through the whole routine of User ID and Password?
> 
> The only other theory I have concerns a malfunctioning toaster and a 
> possum in my ceiling - but I think that's coincidence..... :-)
> 
> metta,
> Christine

It's definitely the possum!

Robert ep.



	
9851

From: ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 0:25pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Is it only me?

 	
Dear Robert,

:-))) With 'possum paranoia' at its height in this household, it's 
not wise to encourage me..... There is nothing to compare with the 
sound of 'thundering possum feet' at 2.00 am jumping onto my metal 
roof (out of a tree), finding access into the ceiling, and conducting 
possum races all night....at least, I think that's what they are 
doing..... My pitiful pounding on the ceiling with a broom handle, 
only results in unfair criticism from my son who incorrectly feels I 
am more trouble than the possum.

metta,
Christine
--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote:
> 

> > The only other theory I have concerns a malfunctioning toaster 
and a 
> > possum in my ceiling - but I think that's coincidence..... :-)
> > 
> > metta,
> > Christine
> 
> It's definitely the possum!
> 
> Robert ep.
> 
> 
> 
	
9852

From: m. nease <mlnease@y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 3:33pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Doctrinal Conflicts/ Re. more Abhidhamma...

 	
Robert,

So very glad to hear from you again. I hope your
recovery is proceeding apace and that you will be able
to continue to correspond--your posts are among the
very best.

mike
--- Robert Eddison <robedd@i...> wrote:
> oreznoone@a...
> 
> >The term 'paramattha' does not occur in the suttas.
> (I hope to pursue some 
> >questions about this here someday.)
> 
> I am puzzled as to just what you mean by this, since
> the term 'paramattha'
> most definitely does occur in the Suttas, though not
> in the sense in which
> it is used in the Commentaries.
> 
> Are you perhaps referring to paramattha sacca (truth
> in the highest sense)?
> If so, I would agree that this term is absent in the
> Suttas, though I would
> suggest that the notion is present. That is to say,
> the idea that something
> may be true conventionally but not ultimately is
> inferrable from the
> Suttas, even though it is expressed in different
> terms.
> 
> What the Commentaries call conventional truth
> (sammuti-sacca), the Suttas
> call 'worldly consensus' (lokasamañña), 'worldly
> language' (lokanirutti),
> 'worldly usage' (lokavohaara), or 'worldly
> convention' (lokapaññatti).
> 
> What the Commentaries call truth in the highest
> sense (paramattha-sacca) is
> indicated in several ways in the Suttas, but most
> unambiguously when the
> Buddha prefaces a statement with "In truth and
> reality..." (saccato thetato).
> 
> E.g.
> 
> "....since in truth and reality there obtains
> neither self nor what belongs
> to self...."
> (Alagadduupama Sutta )
> 
> "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata
> is not to be found [i.e.
> in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]."
> (Yamaka Sutta)
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Robert

	
9853

From: Robert Eddison <robedd@i...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 2:09pm
Subject: Re: Doctrinal Conflicts/ Re. more Abhidhamma...

 	
I must apologise... the message I posted about paramattha sacca ought to
have been sent to the dhamma list, not the dhamma study group. Thank you to
Christine for notifying me of the error.

Robert

I wrote:

>>The term 'paramattha' does not occur in the suttas. (I hope to 
>pursue some 
>>questions about this here someday.)
>
>I am puzzled as to just what you mean by this, since the 

etc. etc.
	
9854

From: egberdina <hhofman@d...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 6:45pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] The noble nine fold path

 	
Dear Sarah, Dan, Howard, Robert K

I am glad that things have sorted themselves out. Thanks for the 
translators notes, Dan. 

I apologise for not having clearly referenced the texts I quoted. It 
makes a big difference when we are all talking about the same thing. 
Sorry about that.

Sarah, the noble ninefold fold path is the noble eight fold path 
preceded with what appeared to be a prerequisite "right translation". 
small attempt at wit. Sorry :-)

Metta

Herman


--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
> Dear Herman,
> 
> This time perhaps it's me being dense, but I can't quite see where 
your subject
> heading `The Noble Ninefold Path' comes from..;-)
> 
> --- hhofman@d... wrote: > Sarah and Mike,
> > 
> > The missing element in my study has obviously been....
> > 
> > right translation :-)
> 
> Of course, as we all know very well, it is the understanding of 
dhammas rather
> than any translation that is important. However, if we're relying 
on the Suttas
> and the Sutta translations available to understand the Buddha's 
word, the
> translation does take on some significance, don't you think? Often 
too, it
> reflects the understanding of the Pali and Teachings by the 
translator too.
> > 
> > I got those quotes from accesstoinsight. Thanissaro Bhikkhu and 
> > Nyanaponika Thera. They both have This is all unreal or all this 
is 
> > unreal. 
> > 
> > Right view in my understanding is not a view that is held. It is 
> > seeing what is there when clinging (ie clinging to held views) 
> > ceases. I don't think dispensing with right view is possible.
> 
> Indeed, rather than dispensing with it, it needs to be developed...
> 
> > What is the problem with the rendition: All this is unreal?
> 
> The reason I looked at another translation was because, to be 
honest, I didn't
> understand what the meaning was. What is unreal? Is this really an 
accurate
> translation of the Pali, I wonder?
> 
> > > > > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind
> > > > > and knows about the world: "This is all unreal,"
> > > > > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
> > > > > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 
> 
> Again, I may just be slow, but the following translation I gave for 
the same
> verse is immediately comprehensible to me and concords with the 
Pali Canon as I
> understand it:
> 
> > > 1. He who gives up anger which has arisen, as the snake poison 
> > diffused in the
> > > body is removed by antidotes, that monk gives up the Cycle of 
> > Existence as the
> > > snake sheds its old, decayed skin.
> 
> As I've mentioned before, I think it's wonderful to have quick 
internet access
> to the Suttas, but, I can't help hoping that some of the other 
translations
> will be available on-line soon.
> 
> Please know that these comments are not meant as any criticism of 
the hard work
> that has gone into putting these texts on line in order to spread 
the Dhamma.
> But as you asked.....
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Sarah

	
9855

From: egberdina <hhofman@d...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 6:52pm
Subject: Re: some more about metta

 	
Dear Christine,

I just wanted to thank you for posting this. I have found it very eye-
opening. 

Thanks again.

Herman


--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Christine Forsyth" <cforsyth@v...> 
wrote:
> Dear Sarah, and All,
> 
> Even though acknowledging (maybe... perhaps...probably...) that the 
> Canon sees metta as being directed outwards, here are some more 
> thoughts....
> In a mail responding to my question, around the time I posted to 
this 
> list, a recent teacher of mine sent a response - partly quoted 
below.
> I don't attribute it to him by name, as I haven't yet received any 
> other communication - he is travelling in India and is 
incommunicado 
> most of the time. 
> And as I sent him a virus last time, he may be wary of any post 
from 
> me! :-) I like the phrase 'the living tradition'...
> metta,
> Christine
> 
> "Because of the difficulty that most people find in radiating these 
> qualities
> equally to all, the living tradition came up with a solution that 
> prepares
> us for the full practice. It ensures that our practice is 
established 
> and
> balanced, so that we don't become disheartened at the sheer scale 
of 
> what
> we are trying to accomplish. Most people find the approach 
beneficial.
> 
> I had a meeting with Bhikkhu Bodhi at the Forest Hermitage in Sri 
> Lanka,
> last year, and raised this very point. [metta - self or other 
> directed] Aware that the canonical description
> is always outwardly directed, I was concerned that I may be relying 
> too
> heavily on Buddhaghosa's 6th century sectional approach when 
initially
> training others. Bhikkhu Bodhi's response was that he teaches metta 
in
> exactly the same way - with oneself first - because it works.
> <SNIP>
> The over-riding concern is that the training we
> are undertaking works in the optimal way for each of us. All of the 
> methods
> we are using aim at the canonical ideal, and that is why they have 
> been
> present in the tradition for so many centuries.
> 
> The very few people who can immediately radiate any of these 
> qualities to
> all, in a boundless way, without favouring or neglecting any 
sentient 
> being,
> are already fairly accomplished in the brahmaviharas. They should 
bask
> in that beautiful state and continue to work in it! Even the Buddha 
> continued
> to practice the brahmaviharas after his enlightenment. The rest of 
us 
> usually
> need to work with one of the skilful means that the tradition has 
> devised
> to get us nearer to that point. How speedily this comes about 
depends 
> on
> our past actions and the amount of energy we devote to the task. 
Many 
> people
> accomplish this in a year or two of steady work, some even sooner.
> 
> We must always remember that this is not a religion of the book: it 
> is a
> living tradition that relies on more than what is recorded in the 
> texts.
> It responds to the emerging needs of practitioners who sincerely 
wish 
> to
> arrive at the goal that the Buddha outlined. Anything that works to 
> bring
> an individual nearer to acquiring the skills that the Buddha deemed 
> necessary
> for awakening is a legitimate part of the Buddhist path. The texts 
> offer
> splendid advice and a reference point against which we can check 
for 
> wilfull
> distortions, but this does not preclude innovations in training 
> practices
> (even 6th century ones) providing that their aim is consonant with 
the
> teaching of the Buddha.
> 
> What others have written about the need to overcome any form of 
self-
> hatred
> in order to practice metta, etc., is also a pressing argument for 
the 
> inclusion
> of the preliminary reflection on oneself. As always, there is the 
need
> for balance: we don't want to enshrine Self (because this would be 
> wrong
> understanding according to the Dhamma), but neither do we want to 
> neglect
> our practical and emotional needs whilst we are treading this path."
	
9856

From: egberdina <hhofman@d...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 7:39pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
Dear Sarah,

Some questions re some points you make.

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
> Dear Christine,
> 
> 5. if we have the idea of wishing to develop more metta or being 
the person
> with lots of metta, this is the result of attachment. Attachment 
cannot lead
> directly to the development of wholesome states. 
> 
> 6. I don't understand there to be a time frame for accomplishing any
> development of wholesomeness. Are we concerned about results?
> 
> 7. Whenever there is an idea of `doing' or `working' 
or `undertaking' or
> `acquiring skills', I think it's useful to consider whether there 
is an idea of
> self and control again.
> 
> 8. When there is any concern to get rid of `hatred', is there any 
detachment
> from conditioned realities at that time?
> 

How do these points relate to the Padhana sutta (subtitled "exertion" 
in one translation and the other subtitled "the great struggle")

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp3-02.html

and the Utthana sutta (subtitled "On Vigilance" in one translation, 
and "Initiative" in the other one")

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp2-
10a.html

I will quote the Utthana version by John D Ireland.

"Rouse yourself! Sit up! What good is there in sleeping? For those 
afflicted by disease (suffering), struck by the arrow (craving), what 
sleep is there? 
"Rouse yourself! Sit up! Resolutely train yourself to attain peace.
[1] Do not let the king of death,[2] seeing you are careless, lead 
you astray and dominate you. 

"Go beyond this clinging,[3] to which devas and men are attached, and 
(the pleasures) they seek. Do not waste your opportunity. When the 
opportunity has passed they sorrow when consigned to Niraya-hell. 

"Negligence is a taint, and so is the (greater) negligence growing 
from it. By earnestness and understanding withdraw the arrow (of 
sensual passions)." 

Back to me again

There is no sense of passivity in this at all, which is what your 
points convey to me. There is striving, resoluteness, deliberate 
action here. 

Can you give examples from the suttas where the Buddha suggests that 
development of insight is a passive process, requiring no effort or 
determination?

All the best


Herman
	
9857

From: egberdina <hhofman@d...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 8:33pm
Subject: Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)

 	
Dear Christine,

My two bits.

There clearly is a self. Every cell of the body contains an identical 
copy of it.(genetic code). This master plan, instruction set whatever 
remains unchanged from conception to birth, adolescence, mid-life, 
old age , death. 

When parts from other selves are introduced the self will recognise 
them as not self and destroy them.

The body is a set of processes, governed by the (self) genetic code. 
It is when some critical processes cease that the body becomes a 
thing. The self does not have identity. It doesn't know anything, it 
is incapable of feeling, perceiving etc. The self is not the body, 
but it can be expressed as one, for a while. It isn't much. But given 
the right conditions, it is you , Sarah, Jon all the Roberts, the 
trees in the park, the chooks in the pen etc etc.

Identification with an expression of the self ie its form or process 
is a possibility, but will eventually lead to some cognitive 
dissonance. The self is not it's expression. And yes, the self is 
subject to conditions, including itself. 

What is a human being, and all other forms of life? A life support 
system for DNA.

Here endeth the lesson.

Metta

Herman


--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "ellaruthau" <cforsyth@v...> wrote:
> 
> Dear Robert,and All,
> 
> Sorry, anatta again....thinking about the puppet quotes, they 
> illustrate the impermanence of the body very well to me.... and 
raise 
> issues of who or what is in control..... every puppet is owned by a 
> puppet-master ...someone who pulls the strings.....makes it act, - 
> controls it.
> Equating the body with an arrow (shaft) also brings to mind that 
> there is an 'archer', who fits the arrow, and releases the bow-
> string, - aims it.
> I have also tried to understand this by thinking the 'life force' 
as 
> the combination of engine and petrol in a car, with the mind as 
the 
> ignition key......but, "whose" is the hand that turns the key in 
the 
> car?.... - makes it move.
> The ship is the one I like best, because an impersonal set of
> conditions creates weather systems, and causes the wind that moves 
the
> ship.....but then, . 'Something' decides direction and steers it.
> 
> After further thinking about puppets, dolls, archers, and ships, 
and 
> reading a little more, I feel part of the problem I am having with 
> Anatta is that the entire Western culture (literature, painting, 
> poetry, science, religion, law, politics) is threaded through with 
> the belief that there is a body which is impermanent and dies, 
> plus 'something' immaterial, the soul, which is capable of living 
> apart from the body after the bodys' death.( If this is not so, it
> is certainly going to affect the pleasure of reading - perhaps 
> literature will lose some of its richness .....God has already 
gone, 
> but imagine Donne without soul and death ....)
> 
> When I look at a dead body, whether a baby or an aged person, there 
> is no problem with realising that the body is Not-Self. But the 
> distinct impression made (even without signs of disease or 
deliberate 
> damage) is that 'something' has gone, is 
missing......the 'something' 
> that vitalised the body. Just as in part of your quote 'but by 
means 
> of their working together, this mental and bodily combination may 
> move about, stand up, and appear full of life and activity." With 
a 
> corpse, the body is still there, the 'something' (the mental part?) 
> is absent......
> But the Buddha didn't think of anything as separate or separable 
from 
> the body. Or did he?
> 
> Looking at the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (The Not-Self Characteristic) 
> sort of from the flip side, could it be inferred that the Buddha 
is 
> saying that for'something' to be considered as Self it would :
> 1. Not lead to affliction
> 2. Obey the person of whom it is the Self
> 3. have to be permanent i.e. Pleasant, permanent, not 
> subject to change.
> 
> And I've just found the brick wall.....A gate somewhere, maybe?
> 
> metta,
> Christine
> 
> --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Kirkpatrick 
> <robertkirkpatrick@r...> 
> > Robert: Absolutely Christine. The suttas 'are heavy with
> > condensed meaning'! I like puppet too. Here are some more
> > quotes :
> > From the VisuddhiMagga, chap. xi. And it is when the body is
> > impelled by the wind element that it performs its four functions
> > of walking, standing, sitting, or lying-down, or draws in and
> > stretches out its arms, or moves its hands and its feet. Thus
> > does this machine made of the four elements move like a puppet,
> > and deceives all foolish people with its femininity,
> > masculinity, etc"endquote.
> > 
> > From majjhima nikaya 82 p683 Bodhi
> > Behold a puppet here pranked out,
> > a body built from sores,
> > sick, an object of concern, where no stabilty abides
> > 
> > http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic3_n.htm
> > "Just as a wooden puppet though unsubstantial, lifeless and
> > inactive may by means of pulling strings be made to move about,
> > stand up, and appear full of life and activity; just so are mind
> > and body, as such, something empty, lifeless and inactive; but
> > by means of their mutual working together, this mental and
> > bodily combination may move about, stand up, and appear full of
> > life and activity."
> > 
> > from the Satipatthana sutta atthakatta (sections on modes of
> > deportment)"Just as a ship goes on by winds impelled,
> > Just as a shaft goes by the bowstring's force,
> > So goes this body in its forward course
> > Full driven by the vibrant thrust of air.
> > As to the puppet's back the dodge-thread's tied
> > So to the body-doll the mind is joined
> > And pulled by that the body moves, stands, sits.
> > Where is the living being that can stand,
> > Or walk, by force of its own inner strength,
> > Without conditions that give it support? "
> > 
> > ++++++++++ 
> > Christine: I wonder....in Buddhism, is Mara believed to be real?
> > or a projection 
> > of our own desires and impulses? 
> > ++++++++++++++
> > 
> > There are five kinds of Mara: the devaputta Mara (who confronted
> > Sela), the kilesa(defilements), kamma formations, Death Mara,
> > and the five aggregates Mara. I haven't met the first one (in
> > this life). The last one, the khandas, is one we cling to and
> > love but the khandas are like murderers waiting for the right
> > time to strike. One day they will and we will die; better to see
> > the danger of them now and so lessen clinging to them.
> > ++++++++++++
> >
	
9858

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 11:00pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] The noble nine fold path

 	
Hi Herman,

I see you've been given a new name too...does yahoo make them up or do you get
any say?

--- egberdina <hhofman@d...> wrote: > Dear Sarah, Dan, Howard,
Robert K
> 
> I am glad that things have sorted themselves out. Thanks for the 
> translators notes, Dan. 
> 
> I apologise for not having clearly referenced the texts I quoted. It 
> makes a big difference when we are all talking about the same thing. 
> Sorry about that.

well, I've learnt a lesson (I hope) to check more carefully too, so I'm pretty
happy about it;-)

> Sarah, the noble ninefold fold path is the noble eight fold path 
> preceded with what appeared to be a prerequisite "right translation". 
> small attempt at wit. Sorry :-)

Actually I think that's pretty funny and no need to be sorry at all......(I've
always needed to have jokes spelled out for me, though.....thanks...Reminds me
of school days when everyone else would be in 'fits' and I'd still be trying to
work out the joke on my way home;-)

Sarah

	
9859

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 11:11pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Book by Law

 	
Dear Nina,

--- Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> wrote: > op 04-12-2001 07:33 schreef
Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...:

> Dear Sarah, yes, that is the book. At the time Buddhaghosa was in Sri Lanka
> there were five very old commentaries of which he mentioned three in his Co
> to the Vinaya. See also intro to "Survey". The names are known but they do
> not exist anymore. Law also quotes from the Mahavamsa. What you quote is
> also very interesting.

Thanks Nina. We also have the Mahavamsa, so I may use this too....actually
I've never been very interested in these historical details, but the
discussions here have encouraged me... as the points on authenticity tend to
keep coming up and I realise I should know a little more. there is also quite a
lot of detail about the very old Singhalese commentaries in "The Pali Lit of
Ceylon' which I quoted from last time. Maybe I'll add more in due course but
amy trying to prevent it from sounding too academic or dry or unrelated from
present realities.

> The Life and Work of Buddhaghosa, by B.C. Law. Pilgrims Books, ISBN
> 81-7624-054-0
> and also distributed in Nepal: info@p... and also Web site:
> <http://gfas.com/pilgrims >

Thanks for the details....I'll add it to my Xmas list.....

Sarah

p.s. Herman, Christine, Dan....I just see yahoo gave me 'Schreef Sarah' at the
top of Nina's reply to me... do you think this is short for 'Screaming Chief Sarah'....???

	
9860

From: Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 11:12pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
Hello Herman,

Thanks for providing this two discourses.

Regards,
Victor
[snip]
> How do these points relate to the Padhana sutta (subtitled "exertion" 
> in one translation and the other subtitled "the great struggle")
> 
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp3-02.html
> 
> and the Utthana sutta (subtitled "On Vigilance" in one translation, 
> and "Initiative" in the other one")
> 
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp2-
> 10a.html
> 
[snip]
	
9861

From: Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 11:18pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
> 5. if we have the idea of wishing to develop more metta or being the
person
> with lots of metta, this is the result of attachment. Attachment cannot
lead
> directly to the development of wholesome states.

Hello Sarah,
I am not sure what is the point in the passage above.
As I understand it, developing the state of metta to oneself or others does
not imply that it is a result of attachment.
Regards,
Victor
	
9862

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 5, 2001 11:40pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Welcome

 	
Rob Ed

I was very sorry to hear (off-list) about the severity of your recent
illness. It sounded quite scary! Glad you've pulled through. Regarding
your resultant visual impairmant, have you considered using
Voice-activated dictation software (which I think can also read out
incoming messages)? That might be a workable solution. Tom Westheimer,
one of our lurking members, works with this stuff for a living and would
I'm sure be happy to help if you wanted to follow up.

I was interested to see your reference to Ven Dhammananda of Wat Tha Ma-Oh
in Lampang. I visited there fairly regularly for a while when
then-Bhikkhus Dhammadharo (Alan Driver) and Jetanando (Tadao Miyamoto, a
present list member) were resident and studying Pali. Ven Dhammananda was
a fascinting character and widely respected for his Pali skills, although
in failing health so I thought (late 1970's). 

Wishing you a speedy recovery.

Jon


--- Robert Eddison <robedd@i...> wrote: > Wed, 26 Sep 2001
17:41:07 +0800 (CST)
> 
> Sarah wrote:
> 
> >Thank you very much indeed for your extremely helpful comments below,
> which I
> >look forward to reading more carefully later. I'm sure I speak for
> everyone
> >when I say that I'm really delighted that you've joined us here and
> really look
> >forward to more of your very 'enlightened' contributions;-)
> >
> >I hope you're fully recovered now and when you've 'caught up' , I think
> we'd
> >all be very interested to hear anything you wish to share about how
> your
> >serious interest in the Tipitaka and Pali developed
> 
> 
> Dear Sarah,
> 
> Thanks for the welcome. Now two months later I get around to replying!
> As I
> mentioned in my e-mail to you, the visual impairment from my recent
> illness
> prevents me from contributing except when I have someone to type for me.
> As
> I live a reclusive life this is less often than I might wish.
> 
> By way of introduction: I am an Englishman but have lived in Iceland
> since
> 1994. I first encountered the Buddha's teaching when I was 14 in an
> anthology of texts from different Buddhist traditions. Later I began
> attending the zazen sessions of a Soto Zen group in my home town
> (Nottingham). At weekends I would travel to Birmingham to study and
> meditate under the guidance of the Burmese monk Dr. Rewata Dhamma.
> 
> Later I moved to Thailand for 9 years. I studied Pali with Sayadaw
> Dhammananda at Wat Tha Ma O in Lampang, and then in Bangkok at Wat
> Mahadhatu and Wat Benchamabophitr. My study has focussed mainly on the
> Suttas. I have not gone into Abhidhamma or the Atthakathaa in a very
> systematic fashion, but have often used them for reference to clarify
> psychological terms and any doubtful matters.
> 
> I am currently working on an English translation of the canonical
> Jaataka
> (i.e. only the verses, not the stories).
> 
> >(or anything else mundane such as where you live and so on).
> 
> Okay, the mundane stuff: I work as a freelance Icelandic-English
> translator, mostly doing legal texts for the Icelandic parliament and
> the
> occasional novel or film script. I am divorced and now live as an urban
> recluse in downtown Reykjavik (or rather, semi-recluse since I do have a
> couple of cats, Antisthenes and Monimus).
> 
> My other interests include the philosophy of law, Stoicism, Elizabethan
> poetry, climbing glaciers, and (in non-reclusive moments) 'glima' --
> Iceland's home-grown martial art -- an easily learned and rather
> primitive
> style of wrestling that dates back to the 9th century.
> 
> Well, that's all for now.
> 
> With best wishes,
> 
> Robert

	
9863

From: ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 0:07am
Subject: Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)

 	
Dear Herman,

Are you sure about this? I don't mean to sound impolite, but I have 
spent months and months trying to understand not-self (anatta) - and 
there really IS a self but all you need to do is not give it a 
particular identity?........so, really, there is a Self but not 
a 'some-one'.....Is that it?
That's fairly simple to understand......

Thanks,
metta,
Christine

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "egberdina" <hhofman@d...> wrote:
> Dear Christine,
> 
> My two bits.
> 
> There clearly is a self. Every cell of the body contains an 
identical 
> copy of it.(genetic code). This master plan, instruction set 
whatever 
> remains unchanged from conception to birth, adolescence, mid-life, 
> old age , death. 
> 
> When parts from other selves are introduced the self will recognise 
> them as not self and destroy them.
> 
> The body is a set of processes, governed by the (self) genetic 
code. 
> It is when some critical processes cease that the body becomes a 
> thing. The self does not have identity. It doesn't know anything, 
it 
> is incapable of feeling, perceiving etc. The self is not the body, 
> but it can be expressed as one, for a while. It isn't much. But 
given 
> the right conditions, it is you , Sarah, Jon all the Roberts, the 
> trees in the park, the chooks in the pen etc etc.
> 
> Identification with an expression of the self ie its form or 
process 
> is a possibility, but will eventually lead to some cognitive 
> dissonance. The self is not it's expression. And yes, the self is 
> subject to conditions, including itself. 
> 
> What is a human being, and all other forms of life? A life support 
> system for DNA.
> 
> Here endeth the lesson.
> 
> Metta
> 
> Herman
> 
> 
> --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "ellaruthau" <cforsyth@v...> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear Robert,and All,
> > 
> > Sorry, anatta again....thinking about the puppet quotes, they 
> > illustrate the impermanence of the body very well to me.... and 
> raise 
> > issues of who or what is in control..... every puppet is owned by 
a 
> > puppet-master ...someone who pulls the strings.....makes it act, -

> > controls it.
> > Equating the body with an arrow (shaft) also brings to mind that 
> > there is an 'archer', who fits the arrow, and releases the bow-
> > string, - aims it.
> > I have also tried to understand this by thinking the 'life force' 
> as 
> > the combination of engine and petrol in a car, with the mind as 
> the 
> > ignition key......but, "whose" is the hand that turns the key in 
> the 
> > car?.... - makes it move.
> > The ship is the one I like best, because an impersonal set of
> > conditions creates weather systems, and causes the wind that 
moves 
> the
> > ship.....but then, . 'Something' decides direction and steers it.
> > 
> > After further thinking about puppets, dolls, archers, and ships, 
> and 
> > reading a little more, I feel part of the problem I am having 
with 
> > Anatta is that the entire Western culture (literature, painting, 
> > poetry, science, religion, law, politics) is threaded through 
with 
> > the belief that there is a body which is impermanent and dies, 
> > plus 'something' immaterial, the soul, which is capable of living 
> > apart from the body after the bodys' death.( If this is not so, it
> > is certainly going to affect the pleasure of reading - perhaps 
> > literature will lose some of its richness .....God has already 
> gone, 
> > but imagine Donne without soul and death ....)
> > 
> > When I look at a dead body, whether a baby or an aged person, 
there 
> > is no problem with realising that the body is Not-Self. But the 
> > distinct impression made (even without signs of disease or 
> deliberate 
> > damage) is that 'something' has gone, is 
> missing......the 'something' 
> > that vitalised the body. Just as in part of your quote 'but by 
> means 
> > of their working together, this mental and bodily combination may 
> > move about, stand up, and appear full of life and activity." 
With 
> a 
> > corpse, the body is still there, the 'something' (the mental 
part?) 
> > is absent......
> > But the Buddha didn't think of anything as separate or separable 
> from 
> > the body. Or did he?
> > 
> > Looking at the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (The Not-Self 
Characteristic) 
> > sort of from the flip side, could it be inferred that the Buddha 
> is 
> > saying that for'something' to be considered as Self it would :
> > 1. Not lead to affliction
> > 2. Obey the person of whom it is the Self
> > 3. have to be permanent i.e. Pleasant, permanent, not 
> > subject to change.
> > 
> > And I've just found the brick wall.....A gate somewhere, maybe?
> > 
> > metta,
> > Christine
> > 
> > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Kirkpatrick 
> > <robertkirkpatrick@r...> 
> > > Robert: Absolutely Christine. The suttas 'are heavy with
> > > condensed meaning'! I like puppet too. Here are some more
> > > quotes :
> > > From the VisuddhiMagga, chap. xi. And it is when the body is
> > > impelled by the wind element that it performs its four functions
> > > of walking, standing, sitting, or lying-down, or draws in and
> > > stretches out its arms, or moves its hands and its feet. Thus
> > > does this machine made of the four elements move like a puppet,
> > > and deceives all foolish people with its femininity,
> > > masculinity, etc"endquote.
> > > 
> > > From majjhima nikaya 82 p683 Bodhi
> > > Behold a puppet here pranked out,
> > > a body built from sores,
> > > sick, an object of concern, where no stabilty abides
> > > 
> > > http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic3_n.htm
> > > "Just as a wooden puppet though unsubstantial, lifeless and
> > > inactive may by means of pulling strings be made to move about,
> > > stand up, and appear full of life and activity; just so are mind
> > > and body, as such, something empty, lifeless and inactive; but
> > > by means of their mutual working together, this mental and
> > > bodily combination may move about, stand up, and appear full of
> > > life and activity."
> > > 
> > > from the Satipatthana sutta atthakatta (sections on modes of
> > > deportment)"Just as a ship goes on by winds impelled,
> > > Just as a shaft goes by the bowstring's force,
> > > So goes this body in its forward course
> > > Full driven by the vibrant thrust of air.
> > > As to the puppet's back the dodge-thread's tied
> > > So to the body-doll the mind is joined
> > > And pulled by that the body moves, stands, sits.
> > > Where is the living being that can stand,
> > > Or walk, by force of its own inner strength,
> > > Without conditions that give it support? "
> > > 
> > > ++++++++++ 
> > > Christine: I wonder....in Buddhism, is Mara believed to be real?
> > > or a projection 
> > > of our own desires and impulses? 
> > > ++++++++++++++
> > > 
> > > There are five kinds of Mara: the devaputta Mara (who confronted
> > > Sela), the kilesa(defilements), kamma formations, Death Mara,
> > > and the five aggregates Mara. I haven't met the first one (in
> > > this life). The last one, the khandas, is one we cling to and
> > > love but the khandas are like murderers waiting for the right
> > > time to strike. One day they will and we will die; better to see
> > > the danger of them now and so lessen clinging to them.
> > > ++++++++++++
> > >
	
9864

From: Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 1:41am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)

 	
Hello Herman,

I think that the conception that self is genetic code, if I understand it
correctly, is quite interesting. However, genetic code is certainly
impermanent, subject to change, subject to mutation.
What is impermanent is stressful/unsatisfactory/dukkha. And what is
impermanent, stressful/unsatisfactory/dukkha, subject to change is to be
seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This
I am not. This is not my self." In short, genetic code is not self. How
would one resolve this cognitive dissonance?

Regards,
Victor

----- Original Message -----
From: "egberdina" <hhofman@d...>
To: <dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 11:33 PM
Subject: [dsg] Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)


> Dear Christine,
>
> My two bits.
>
> There clearly is a self. Every cell of the body contains an identical
> copy of it.(genetic code). This master plan, instruction set whatever
> remains unchanged from conception to birth, adolescence, mid-life,
> old age , death.
>
> When parts from other selves are introduced the self will recognise
> them as not self and destroy them.
>
> The body is a set of processes, governed by the (self) genetic code.
> It is when some critical processes cease that the body becomes a
> thing. The self does not have identity. It doesn't know anything, it
> is incapable of feeling, perceiving etc. The self is not the body,
> but it can be expressed as one, for a while. It isn't much. But given
> the right conditions, it is you , Sarah, Jon all the Roberts, the
> trees in the park, the chooks in the pen etc etc.
>
> Identification with an expression of the self ie its form or process
> is a possibility, but will eventually lead to some cognitive
> dissonance. The self is not it's expression. And yes, the self is
> subject to conditions, including itself.
>
> What is a human being, and all other forms of life? A life support
> system for DNA.
>
> Here endeth the lesson.
>
> Metta
>
> Herman
>
>
> --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "ellaruthau" <cforsyth@v...> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Robert,and All,
> >
> > Sorry, anatta again....thinking about the puppet quotes, they
> > illustrate the impermanence of the body very well to me.... and
> raise
> > issues of who or what is in control..... every puppet is owned by a
> > puppet-master ...someone who pulls the strings.....makes it act, -
> > controls it.
> > Equating the body with an arrow (shaft) also brings to mind that
> > there is an 'archer', who fits the arrow, and releases the bow-
> > string, - aims it.
> > I have also tried to understand this by thinking the 'life force'
> as
> > the combination of engine and petrol in a car, with the mind as
> the
> > ignition key......but, "whose" is the hand that turns the key in
> the
> > car?.... - makes it move.
> > The ship is the one I like best, because an impersonal set of
> > conditions creates weather systems, and causes the wind that moves
> the
> > ship.....but then, . 'Something' decides direction and steers it.
> >
> > After further thinking about puppets, dolls, archers, and ships,
> and
> > reading a little more, I feel part of the problem I am having with
> > Anatta is that the entire Western culture (literature, painting,
> > poetry, science, religion, law, politics) is threaded through with
> > the belief that there is a body which is impermanent and dies,
> > plus 'something' immaterial, the soul, which is capable of living
> > apart from the body after the bodys' death.( If this is not so, it
> > is certainly going to affect the pleasure of reading - perhaps
> > literature will lose some of its richness .....God has already
> gone,
> > but imagine Donne without soul and death ....)
> >
> > When I look at a dead body, whether a baby or an aged person, there
> > is no problem with realising that the body is Not-Self. But the
> > distinct impression made (even without signs of disease or
> deliberate
> > damage) is that 'something' has gone, is
> missing......the 'something'
> > that vitalised the body. Just as in part of your quote 'but by
> means
> > of their working together, this mental and bodily combination may
> > move about, stand up, and appear full of life and activity." With
> a
> > corpse, the body is still there, the 'something' (the mental part?)
> > is absent......
> > But the Buddha didn't think of anything as separate or separable
> from
> > the body. Or did he?
> >
> > Looking at the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (The Not-Self Characteristic)
> > sort of from the flip side, could it be inferred that the Buddha
> is
> > saying that for'something' to be considered as Self it would :
> > 1. Not lead to affliction
> > 2. Obey the person of whom it is the Self
> > 3. have to be permanent i.e. Pleasant, permanent, not
> > subject to change.
> >
> > And I've just found the brick wall.....A gate somewhere, maybe?
> >
> > metta,
> > Christine
> >
> > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Kirkpatrick
> > <robertkirkpatrick@r...>
> > > Robert: Absolutely Christine. The suttas 'are heavy with
> > > condensed meaning'! I like puppet too. Here are some more
> > > quotes :
> > > From the VisuddhiMagga, chap. xi. And it is when the body is
> > > impelled by the wind element that it performs its four functions
> > > of walking, standing, sitting, or lying-down, or draws in and
> > > stretches out its arms, or moves its hands and its feet. Thus
> > > does this machine made of the four elements move like a puppet,
> > > and deceives all foolish people with its femininity,
> > > masculinity, etc"endquote.
> > >
> > > From majjhima nikaya 82 p683 Bodhi
> > > Behold a puppet here pranked out,
> > > a body built from sores,
> > > sick, an object of concern, where no stabilty abides
> > >
> > > http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic3_n.htm
> > > "Just as a wooden puppet though unsubstantial, lifeless and
> > > inactive may by means of pulling strings be made to move about,
> > > stand up, and appear full of life and activity; just so are mind
> > > and body, as such, something empty, lifeless and inactive; but
> > > by means of their mutual working together, this mental and
> > > bodily combination may move about, stand up, and appear full of
> > > life and activity."
> > >
> > > from the Satipatthana sutta atthakatta (sections on modes of
> > > deportment)"Just as a ship goes on by winds impelled,
> > > Just as a shaft goes by the bowstring's force,
> > > So goes this body in its forward course
> > > Full driven by the vibrant thrust of air.
> > > As to the puppet's back the dodge-thread's tied
> > > So to the body-doll the mind is joined
> > > And pulled by that the body moves, stands, sits.
> > > Where is the living being that can stand,
> > > Or walk, by force of its own inner strength,
> > > Without conditions that give it support? "
> > >
> > > ++++++++++
> > > Christine: I wonder....in Buddhism, is Mara believed to be real?
> > > or a projection
> > > of our own desires and impulses?
> > > ++++++++++++++
> > >
> > > There are five kinds of Mara: the devaputta Mara (who confronted
> > > Sela), the kilesa(defilements), kamma formations, Death Mara,
> > > and the five aggregates Mara. I haven't met the first one (in
> > > this life). The last one, the khandas, is one we cling to and
> > > love but the khandas are like murderers waiting for the right
> > > time to strike. One day they will and we will die; better to see
> > > the danger of them now and so lessen clinging to them.
> > > ++++++++++++

	
9865

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 2:05am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Welcome

 	
Dear Rob Ed,

--- Robert Eddison <robedd@i...> wrote:
> Dear Sarah,
> 
> Thanks for the welcome. Now two months later I get around to replying!

No deadlines here.....

As I
> mentioned in my e-mail to you, the visual impairment from my recent illness
> prevents me from contributing except when I have someone to type for me. As
> I live a reclusive life this is less often than I might wish.

I’m sure I speak for everyone here when I wish you very well.....

> By way of introduction: I am an Englishman but have lived in Iceland since
> 1994. I first encountered the Buddha's teaching when I was 14 in an
> anthology of texts from different Buddhist traditions. Later I began
> attending the zazen sessions of a Soto Zen group in my home town
> (Nottingham). At weekends I would travel to Birmingham to study and
> meditate under the guidance of the Burmese monk Dr. Rewata Dhamma.

I also had some contact with Dr Rewata Dhamma in B’ham and more in London for a
while, when I lived there in the 70's. I used to buy quite a lot of copies of
‘What the Buddha Taught’ at one time too, to give to friends.

> Later I moved to Thailand for 9 years. I studied Pali with Sayadaw
> Dhammananda at Wat Tha Ma O in Lampang, and then in Bangkok at Wat
> Mahadhatu and Wat Benchamabophitr. My study has focussed mainly on the
> Suttas. I have not gone into Abhidhamma or the Atthakathaa in a very
> systematic fashion, but have often used them for reference to clarify
> psychological terms and any doubtful matters.

Yes, I also went to Wat Tha Ma O with K.Sujin, Jon and others once to
distribute robes and requisites to the monks and have dhamma
discussions.....Sounds like it was a wonderful place for studying Pali. When
were you there? You’ve obviously really considered the texts deeply.

> I am currently working on an English translation of the canonical Jaataka
> (i.e. only the verses, not the stories).

Feel free to post any here if you’d like any comments;-) 

> >(or anything else mundane such as where you live and so on).
> 
> Okay, the mundane stuff: I work as a freelance Icelandic-English
> translator, mostly doing legal texts for the Icelandic parliament and the
> occasional novel or film script. I am divorced and now live as an urban
> recluse in downtown Reykjavik (or rather, semi-recluse since I do have a
> couple of cats, Antisthenes and Monimus).
> 
> My other interests include the philosophy of law, Stoicism, Elizabethan
> poetry, climbing glaciers, and (in non-reclusive moments) 'glima' --
> Iceland's home-grown martial art -- an easily learned and rather primitive
> style of wrestling that dates back to the 9th century.

It all gets more and more interesting.....Rob Ep and Howard, maybe we should
look into this ‘glima’ (actually, we’ve all got quite enough on our plates
<sigh> ;-) Glacier climbing sounds very appealing too..We did just a little
glacier hiking in Switzerland in the summer..Hope you get strong and healthy
again soon, so you can get back to it.

Sarah


	
9866

From: Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 2:15am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)

 	
Hello Christine,

I think that if one knows how he or she found the brick wall, then one will
find the way out.

Regards,
Victor


----- Original Message -----
From: "ellaruthau" <cforsyth@v...>
To: <dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 3:11 AM
Subject: [dsg] Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)


>
> Dear Robert,and All,
>
> Sorry, anatta again....thinking about the puppet quotes, they
> illustrate the impermanence of the body very well to me.... and raise
> issues of who or what is in control..... every puppet is owned by a
> puppet-master ...someone who pulls the strings.....makes it act, -
> controls it.
> Equating the body with an arrow (shaft) also brings to mind that
> there is an 'archer', who fits the arrow, and releases the bow-
> string, - aims it.
> I have also tried to understand this by thinking the 'life force' as
> the combination of engine and petrol in a car, with the mind as the
> ignition key......but, "whose" is the hand that turns the key in the
> car?.... - makes it move.
> The ship is the one I like best, because an impersonal set of
> conditions creates weather systems, and causes the wind that moves the
> ship.....but then, . 'Something' decides direction and steers it.
>
> After further thinking about puppets, dolls, archers, and ships, and
> reading a little more, I feel part of the problem I am having with
> Anatta is that the entire Western culture (literature, painting,
> poetry, science, religion, law, politics) is threaded through with
> the belief that there is a body which is impermanent and dies,
> plus 'something' immaterial, the soul, which is capable of living
> apart from the body after the bodys' death.( If this is not so, it
> is certainly going to affect the pleasure of reading - perhaps
> literature will lose some of its richness .....God has already gone,
> but imagine Donne without soul and death ....)
>
> When I look at a dead body, whether a baby or an aged person, there
> is no problem with realising that the body is Not-Self. But the
> distinct impression made (even without signs of disease or deliberate
> damage) is that 'something' has gone, is missing......the 'something'
> that vitalised the body. Just as in part of your quote 'but by means
> of their working together, this mental and bodily combination may
> move about, stand up, and appear full of life and activity." With a
> corpse, the body is still there, the 'something' (the mental part?)
> is absent......
> But the Buddha didn't think of anything as separate or separable from
> the body. Or did he?
>
> Looking at the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (The Not-Self Characteristic)
> sort of from the flip side, could it be inferred that the Buddha is
> saying that for'something' to be considered as Self it would :
> 1. Not lead to affliction
> 2. Obey the person of whom it is the Self
> 3. have to be permanent i.e. Pleasant, permanent, not
> subject to change.
>
> And I've just found the brick wall.....A gate somewhere, maybe?
>
> metta,
> Christine
	
9867

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 4:19am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Welcome

 	
--- Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote: 
> I also had some contact with Dr Rewata Dhamma in B’ham and more in London for
> a
> while, when I lived there in the 70's. I used to buy quite a lot of copies of
> ‘What the Buddha Taught’ at one time too, to give to friends.


sorry, no connection....middle-aged sanna getting mixed up again. The book of
course was written by Walpola Rahula. 

Sarah

	
9868

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 5:17am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard)

 	
Rob Ep (and Howard)

I'm out of my depth in this discussion, but I would like to suggest that
the only means by which we can exchange experiences about the realities of
the present moment is by words (labels) that we use to designate those
realities.

The words themselves have no intrinsic meaning or value and are useful
only insofar as they allow us to inform each other about the realities
they are used to designate.

The discussion is about dhammas. The dhamma that we designate 'hardness'
is probably being experienced in some form at this very moment. We are
not referring to a philosophical concept of hardness but something that
appears regularly to everyone, a common human experience.

My two cents worth.

Jon

--- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > 
> --- upasaka@a... wrote:
> 
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > ... ALL that I meant was that hardness (or, better, any 
> > hardness-instance) has no parts. [Actually, as an aside, I don't
> really think 
> > there *is* a thing called "hardness" to be encountered, but there
> *are* 
> > hardness-instances which are encountered. The abstraction 'hardness'
> is, from 
> > my perspective, mere concept - but a concept that is grounded in
> direct 
> > experience.] 
> 
> Dear Howard,
> I thought I would pick up on this, since there are a few interesting
> issues
> contained therein.
> 
> When you say there are 'hardness-instances', I take you to mean that
> there is an
> experience of that which we then interpret as hardness, not that the
> abstraction
> 'hardness' itself is actually encountered.
> 
> I would say further that if we wanted to discuss the encounter with
> 'hardness' in
> phenomenal language we would need a lot more language that we don't
> have, and that
> even that language would obviously reach a limit, since language itself
> is an
> abstraction that does not directly describe anything. But we could say
> in a
> phenomenally styled language that in making contact with a particular
> surface that
> we encounter a moment of 'not-yielding', a moment of 'non-penetrating',
> a moment
> of 'smoothness', a moment of 'pushing back', a moment of 'firmness',
> etc., as we
> pick up various perceptual aspects from contact with an 'object'.
> 
> This kind of phenomenal language could go a long way to creating a
> description of
> what non-conceptual experience might be like, with actualities being
> approximated,
> rather than glossing them into overall impressions, such as 'hardness'
> as an
> abiding characteristic.
> 
> Anyway, I thought that might be worth talking about. My own
> undergraduate
> background, many years ago, in the phenomenology of Husserl and
> Merleau-Ponty
> seems very relevant to this idea, of finding a language that describes
> rather than
> defines experience. As far as Western philosophy goes, there are some
> beautiful
> descriptions of how this might work in the world of Merleau-Ponty, a
> truly poetic
> philosopher. 
> 
> Best,
> Robert Ep.
> 
> =========================

	
9869

From: rjkjp <rjkjp@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 5:27am
Subject: Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)

 	
---Dear Christine,
I think that sakkya-ditthi runs deeper than any cultural beliefs we 
have accumulated. It is part and parcel of this paticcasamupada 
(dependent origination), this everturning wheel we think of with 
fondness or regret as 'my life'. The puppet simile, like all similes, 
has it's limitations. The hand that 'guides' the puppets strings is 
at one moment desire (lobha) at another avijja (moha, ignorance) or 
metta (friendliness) or anger or fear or boredom or lust.
The understanding of this Sisyphean cycle is conditioned by hearing 
the words of a Sammasambuddha and leads away from the clinging to 
selfview. So I believe. 
best wishes
robert

In dhammastudygroup@y..., "ellaruthau" <cforsyth@v...> wrote:
> Dear Robert,and All,
> Sorry, anatta again....thinking about the puppet quotes, they 
> illustrate the impermanence of the body very well to me.... and 
raise 
> issues of who or what is in control..... every puppet is owned by a 
> puppet-master ...someone who pulls the strings.....makes it act, - 
> controls it.
> Equating the body with an arrow (shaft) also brings to mind that 
> there is an 'archer', who fits the arrow, and releases the bow-
> string, - aims it.
> I have also tried to understand this by thinking the 'life force' 
as 
> the combination of engine and petrol in a car, with the mind as 
the 
> ignition key......but, "whose" is the hand that turns the key in 
the 
> car?.... - makes it move.
> The ship is the one I like best, because an impersonal set of
> conditions creates weather systems, and causes the wind that moves 
the
> ship.....but then, . 'Something' decides direction and steers it.
> 
> +++++++++++++++
	
9870

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 5:29am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Interesting sutta

 	
Dan

Thanks for your kind words (below). Actually, the credit goes to you, in
that you must have previously developed the understading that enabled you
to make sense of what was heard again this time around. But I'm glad to
have been one of the conditions for that to have happened.

Thanks for your continued participation on the list. I find your posts
very refreshing and perceptive.

Jon

--- dalthorp@o... wrote: > Reading the sutta, I was just
struck by the similarity between the 
> language here and the language in Satipatthana sutta, "Breathing in 
> long, he understands: 'I breathe in long'..." When Buddha talks 
> about "he understands this" or "he understands that", is he talking 
> about a practice", or is he talking about understanding? In the SN II 
> sutta, the distinction between the "practice" and "understanding" 
> parts is striking. I found it interesting that the "understanding" 
> part did not sound at all like the "practice" part, yet it is written 
> in such a way that it looks like the understanding in the second half 
> is brought about by the investigations in the first half. Does 
> understanding arise from trying to train the mind to have reactions 
> that match descriptions of certain understandings found in the 
> suttas, a la the "practices" in the Satipatthana sutta (MN 10)? Or do 
> the understandings in the Satipatthana sutta arise more from the 
> types of thorough investigation discussed in the Parivimamsana sutta 
> (SN II, 12, 51)? 
> 
> In the Mulapariyaya sutta (MN 1), Buddha discusses what the world 
> looks like to people with varying degrees of wisdom, and in 
> Parivimamsana sutta Buddha discusses what the world looks like to an 
> arahant. Then, the language of the Satipatthana sutta mirrors those 
> suttas that are obvious descriptions and seems much more akin to 
> descriptions of types of understanding at reasonably deep levels 
> (though mostly not at a level of an arahant) than to "practices" 
> aimed at developing understanding. The Parivimamsana sutta suggests 
> that the development of wisdom isn't so much a matter of training the 
> mind to mimic the descriptions of wise mind, but more a matter of 
> thorough investigation of the moment. With proper investigation, 
> understanding will develop, perhaps slowly but develop nonetheless. 
> 
> If the descriptions in Satipatthana sutta and Parivimamsana sutta are 
> taken as exercises (e.g. training the mind to note "it is 
> impermanent" in response to sensation), does this hasten the 
> development of understanding or the arising of insight? Does this 
> play acting gradually develop into real understanding? Or does it 
> even more directly bring about sudden, real insight? All I can say is 
> that my understanding has grown markedly more in the past 1 year with 
> dsg (this is my 1-yr anniversary here) than in the previous 12-13 
> years of regular practice of Satipatthana sutta as exercise book--
> complete with intensive retreats [10 days to 4 weeks] each year from 
> 1988 through 1994 and daily sitting, one to two hours, in the 
> meantime [well, sometimes zero hours too :) ]. For that, I am 
> grateful to everyone at dsg, but especially to Sarah and Jon and 
> Robert K. Thanks, guys, for all your help. Keep up the good work!
> 
> 
> Dan
> 
> > > Does
> > > this mean that 
> > > understanding comes more through understanding and
> > > thorough 
> > > investigation rather than through training the mind
> > > to quickly say 
> > > things like "It is impermanent" in reaction to the
> > > various sensations?
> > 
> > Understanding is already complete after nibbaana, of
> > course. Before that, though, one of the condtions for
> > patipatti and pativedha to arise is pariyatti I
> > think--so the kind of reflection you describe (as long
> > as it isn't really, merely, 'quickly said') is of some
> > value even though not pativedha yet. Pariyatti,
> > patipatti, pativedha, right? have I missed your
> > point?

	
9871

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 1:09am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard)

 	
Hi, Jon -

I agree with all that you say in the following except for your opening 
clause "I'm out of my depth in this discussion". I think the direct, 
observational approach you express is completely in accord with our 
perspective on this issue.
As one extra clarification: "The" dhamma/phenomenon of hardness is, 
indeed, experienced all the time. Actually, all the time there are "hardness 
experiences/experiencings" occurring, always in combination with the 
experiencing of other characteristics (at least as part of a "train of 
experience", if not simultaneously). These hardness experiences are all quite 
similar, and, seeing that extreme similarity, we use the common name and 
concept 'hardness' for the content of all of them for the purpose of thinking 
about them and communicating those thoughts, which is exactly what concepts 
are always about. The "hardness experiences" truly occur as does our 
observing of the similarities among them. Where people go astray in this 
regard, I think, is when they go beyond dealing with the concept and name of 
'hardness' as simply a tool for thought and communication, and fall into 
thinking, usually subliminally, that there is some truly existing, single 
Platonic "thing" existing outside of time, place, and event of which each 
hardness experience is an instantiation, incarnation, or avatar {;-) .

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 12/6/01 8:19:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
jonoabb@y... writes:


> Rob Ep (and Howard)
> 
> I'm out of my depth in this discussion, but I would like to suggest that
> the only means by which we can exchange experiences about the realities of
> the present moment is by words (labels) that we use to designate those
> realities.
> 
> The words themselves have no intrinsic meaning or value and are useful
> only insofar as they allow us to inform each other about the realities
> they are used to designate.
> 
> The discussion is about dhammas. The dhamma that we designate 'hardness'
> is probably being experienced in some form at this very moment. We are
> not referring to a philosophical concept of hardness but something that
> appears regularly to everyone, a common human experience.
> 
> My two cents worth.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 


/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) 




	
9872

From: abhidhammika <abhidhammika@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 6:12am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Parinibbana Subcommentary To Upasaka Howard And Robert Epstein

 	
Dear Upasaka Howard And Robert Epstein

How are you?

Thank you for your responses to the First Part of Parinibbana 
Subcommentary.

Howard wrote:

"Thank you for all the foregoing detailed analysis. It strikes me 
from that analysis, that a possible meaning for 'apannattikabhaavo' 
might be "nonconceptual state of being". Is not one meaning 
of 'pa~n~nati' that of "concept"? If this is a possible reading, then 
it is possible that parinibbana may be a state not of "undefined 
reality" but, rather, a nonconceptual state of being, a state of 
direct knowing, unmediated by concept. What do you think?"


Robert Epstein also wrote:

"I of course like this idea, and will wait with you to hear of the 
possibility of this interpretation".

---------------------------

I will address your new interpretation in the subsequent parts of the 
Parinibbana Subcommentary.

In the meantime, I would appreaciate if you could define the 
term 'concept' in your interpretation as there are many meanings 
covered by it.

I would particularly like you to first convert the noun 
form 'concept' to its verb form 'conceive'. And then, please indicate 
your intended meaning of the verb 'conceive' which corresponds to the 
intended meaning of the term 'concept' in your new interpretation.

The conversion would look like 'concept' = 'conceiving' = your 
intended meaning.

In my reply in the subsequent parts of Parinibbana Subcommentary, I 
will convert the term 'paññatti' to its verb form. And then I will 
compare its available meanings with your intended meaning of concept 
as conceiving.

By undertaking those analyses, I will write my comment on your new 
interpretation. 

Fair enough?


With regards,


Suan Lu Zaw

http://www.bodhiology.org




--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:
> Hi, Suan -
> 
> In a message dated 12/3/01 10:11:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> abhidhammika@y... writes:
> 
> 
> > 
> > Dear Dhamma Friends
> > 
> > The following is the first part of Parinibbana Subcommentary 
written 
> > in response to the questions and statements of Upasaka Howard, 
Robert 
> > Epstein, and Mike Neace. This first part deals with Upasaka
> > Howard's question regarding the exact meaning of 
`Apannattikabhaavo - 
> > the state of undefined reality.' In the second part of the
> > subcommentary, I will directly address the statements of Robert 
> > Epstein. In that second part, I will also include the meaning of 
the 
> > last mind, which partly satisfies Howard's desire to know the 
exact 
> > meaning of consciousness. If space allowed, I will also respond 
to 
> > Mike's question regarding why the term `vatta' was translated as
> > machinary. Otherwise, Mike will have to wait for the third part 
of 
> > the subcommentary. 
> > 
> > 
> > 1. PARINIBBANA COMMENTARY PALI
> > 
> > "Parinibbutaa naama arahattapattito patthaaya kilesavattassa 
> > khepitattaa sa-upaadisesena, carimacittanirodhena 
khandhavattassa 
> > khepitattaa anupaadisesena caati dviihi parinibbaanehi 
> > parinibbutaa, anupaadaano viya padiipo apannattikabhaavaam 
gataati 
> > attho."
> > 
> > "`Parinibbutaa' is the ultimate cool by means of two-way complete 
> > extinguishments, one with the existential residues emptied of 
> > defilement machinery ever since attainment of Arahatta awakening, 
and 
> > the other without the existential residues emptied of 
psychophysical 
> > machinery by termination of the last mind (the dying 
consciousness). 
> > It has the meaning of reaching the state of the undefined reality 
> > like the lamp without fuel." 
> > 
> > 
> > Carimacittanirodho â€" termination of the last mind 
> > Apannattikabhaavo - the state of undefined reality
> > 
> > 
> > 2. PARINIBBANA SUBCOMMENTARY
> > 
> > Howard wrote:
> > 
> > "Certainly, taken at face value, this commentary suggests
> > parinibbana as a kind of nullity. A couple matters remain: (1) 
The 
> > exact meaning of Apannattikabhaavaam - the state of undefined 
> > reality, and the exact meaning of vi~n~nana, which I take as the 
> > dualistic operation of separating out an individualized object 
from 
> > the potential field of awareness, a special type of 
knowing/~nana."
> > 
> > 
> > The expression `apannattikabhaavo - the state of undefined
> > reality' has given both Howard and Robert Epstein an opportunity 
to 
> > undergo profound contemplation, as it would everybody else. 
> > 
> > Therefore, this unique expression has become a suitable topic for 
> > further analysis and elucidation as Buddhaghosa did not elaborate 
on 
> > it, at least on this occasion.
> > 
> > The expression `Apannattikabhaavo' can be broken up 
> > as `a+pannatti+ika+bhaavo'. 
> > 
> > The term `pannatti' has the same meaning as `paññatti'. 
Therefore, 
> > pannatti means a name, a convention, or a verbalization as 
`paññatti' 
> > would. We all know that a name can refer to either an existent 
> > phenomenon or a non-existent category such as God the Creator. No 
> > offense to theists amid the Buddhists! 
> > 
> > In Pali texts, the term that describes the opposite of a non-
existent 
> > category is `paramattho â€" a reality'. Examples of
realities are 
> > matter and mind. No offense to extremist Mahayanists amid the 
> > Theravadiis and scientists!
> > 
> > Now, let us look at the combination `a+pannatti'. The prefix
> > `a' in `apannatti' means `not' or `no' just like
> > the prefix `a' in the words `amoral' and `amorphous' giving the 
> > opposite meanings of `moral' and `morphous'. 
> > 
> > Thus, we get `not + name (or convention, or verbalization)'.
> > 
> > And, what about the bit `ika'? The suffix `ika' means `having or 
> > doing something that the preceding term indicates.'
> > 
> > Thus, the combination `pannatti+ika' means `having + name (or 
> > convention, or verbalization).' 
> > 
> > Now, when we add both the prefix and the suffix to the 
> > term `pannatti', we get the `apannattika â€" something
> > not having a name, something not of convention, something not of 
> > verbalization, or something undefined. 
> > 
> > The word `bhaava' denotes a state. Therefore, the 
> > expression `apannattikabhaavo' refers to the state of something 
> > unconventional, unverbalizable, or undefinable.
> > 
> > As we mentioned earlier above, the antonym of the term 
`paññatti' in 
> > the Pali texts, is the term `paramattho â€" a reality'. 
Therefore, the 
> > expression `apannattikabhaavo' means the state of something
> > existent, something real, but not subject to verbalization, or 
> > conventionalization.
> > 
> > The above analysis should satisfy Howard's request for the exact 
> > meaning of apannattikabhaavo â€" the state of undefined
reality.
> > 
> > Now, I will try to answer why Buddhaghosa described parinibbutaa 
as 
> > the state of undefined reality.
> > 
> > By using the espression `apannattikabhaavo - the state of
> > undefined reality', Buddhaghosa has killed two birds with one 
stone. 
> > We could toy with the idea of using the term `paramattho â€"
a
> > reality' instead of `apannatti'. But, that could deprive us of 
the 
> > ability to convey the meanings of unverbalizableness and 
> > undefinableness. Not only that handicap, paramattho could refer 
to 
> > other types of realities as well, which we can also verbalize and 
> > define easily. Therefore, it is a very clever choice of word that 
> > Buddhaghosa described parinibbutaa as `apannattikabhaavo - the 
state 
> > of undefined reality'.
> > 
> > Now, what is the meaning of undefinableness or 
unverbalizableness? 
> > Why did Buddhaghosa regarded parinibbutaa as being undefinable?
> > 
> > The world is programmed to think only in terms of stereotypes and 
> > stereotyping. It is programmed to verbalize only in terms of 
ready 
> > expressions and convenient vocabulary.
> > 
> > Our linguistic stereotypes include both existent and non-existent 
> > categories. But, all our verbalizable catagories refer only to 
either 
> > mind and mental (associates and) products, or matter and material 
> > things.
> > 
> > In short, we are programmed to define things and beings only in 
the 
> > terminology of mind and matter, the two main existential 
realities. 
> > This two-reality existential programming has conditioned us to 
regard 
> > anything outside psychophysical givens as nullity.
> > 
> > The Arahatta awakening that Gotama the Buddha has discovered is 
> > capable of demolishing our existential programming and allowing 
us to 
> > realize the third reality outside mind and matter. Here, the 
> > term `mind' includes mental associates (cetasikas) as well. 
Because 
> > this third reality is outside mind and matter, we cannot 
verbalize it 
> > in terms of psychophysical existences. Yet, this third reality 
exists 
> > as parinibbutaa, the ultimate cool. As Buddhaghosa has done, we 
can 
> > describe parinibbutaa only as complete extinguishment of 
defilements 
> > and psychophysical existence. 
> > 
> > Therefore, the meaning of undefinableness in the expression `the 
> > state of undefined reality' is that parinibbaana is an existence
> > that we cannot define in terms of mind and matter.
> > 
> ============================
> Thank you for all the foregoing detailed analysis. It 
strikes me from 
> that analysis, that a possible meaning for 'apannattikabhaavo' 
might be 
> "nonconceptual state of being". Is not one meaning of 'pa~n~nati' 
that of 
> "concept"? If this is a possible reading, then it is possible that 
> parinibbana may be a state not of "undefined reality" but, rather, 
a 
> nonconceptual state of being, a state of direct knowing, unmediated 
by 
> concept. What do you think?
> 
> With metta,
> Howard
> 


9873

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 1:26am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Parinibbana Subcommentary To Upasaka Howard And Robert Epstein

 	
Hi, Suan -

In a message dated 12/6/01 9:15:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
abhidhammika@y... writes:


> Dear Upasaka Howard And Robert Epstein
> 
> How are you?
> 
> Thank you for your responses to the First Part of Parinibbana 
> Subcommentary.
> 
> Howard wrote:
> 
> "Thank you for all the foregoing detailed analysis. It strikes me 
> from that analysis, that a possible meaning for 'apannattikabhaavo' 
> might be "nonconceptual state of being". Is not one meaning 
> of 'pa~n~nati' that of "concept"? If this is a possible reading, then 
> it is possible that parinibbana may be a state not of "undefined 
> reality" but, rather, a nonconceptual state of being, a state of 
> direct knowing, unmediated by concept. What do you think?"
> 
> 
> Robert Epstein also wrote:
> 
> "I of course like this idea, and will wait with you to hear of the 
> possibility of this interpretation".
> 
> ---------------------------
> 
> I will address your new interpretation in the subsequent parts of the 
> Parinibbana Subcommentary.
> 
> In the meantime, I would appreaciate if you could define the 
> term 'concept' in your interpretation as there are many meanings 
> covered by it.
> 
> I would particularly like you to first convert the noun 
> form 'concept' to its verb form 'conceive'. And then, please indicate 
> your intended meaning of the verb 'conceive' which corresponds to the 
> intended meaning of the term 'concept' in your new interpretation.
> 
> The conversion would look like 'concept' = 'conceiving' = your 
> intended meaning.
> 
> In my reply in the subsequent parts of Parinibbana Subcommentary, I 
> will convert the term 'paññatti' to its verb form. And then I will 
> compare its available meanings with your intended meaning of concept 
> as conceiving.
> 
> By undertaking those analyses, I will write my comment on your new 
> interpretation. 
> 
> Fair enough?
> 
> 
> With regards,
> 
> 
> Suan Lu Zaw
> 
> http://www.bodhiology.org
> 
> 
=================================
I'm not sure that I can abide exactly by your format. 
I understand by 'concept' a thought, or thought pattern, frequently 
with an associated name, which expresses a combination of experiences forged 
by the mind, such combination being mentally treated as a unit, and often 
reified. The experiences that are mentally combined into a concept are its 
"instances" and are subsumed by it. The operation of "conceiving" is the 
operation of constructing a concept. That is my understanding.

With metta,
Howard

/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 


9874

From: Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 10:08am
Subject: Cambodi Ch 13, no 4.

 	
Cambodia Ch 13, no 4.

Sati is the reality that is aware, it is not paññå. Sati has the function of
awareness from the beginning on, all the time. Whereas paññå has the
function of understanding the characteristics of realities while it is
gradually developed stage by stage. It depends on the degree paññå to what
extent the realities that appear are clearly understood. At this moment
everybody experiences hardness and knows that satipatthåna is aware of
hardness. However, the moment of understanding the characteristic of
hardness is extremely short; other realities appear and then there is
forgetfulness again. Thus, it will take a long time before there is firm
understanding of the characteristic of the reality appearing right now, and
before such understanding conditions the different stages of insight
knowledge, and even the stages of enlightenment of the sotåpanna and
eventually of arahatship. However, not only the reality of hardness should
be known, also the characteristics of other realities that appear should be
thoroughly known and understood. The level of theoretical understanding
stemming from listening is not sufficient, but sati should be aware over and
over again. We say that everything is dhamma, but if there has never been
awareness of what appears through the eyes at this moment, realities cannot
appear as just dhamma. We should begin to be aware of realities so that it
will become evident that everything is dhamma. Understanding can gradually
grow, and everybody will know for himself to what extent it has been
developed. We should be very sincere with regard to what we understand or
not yet understand. This is the true benefit of studying the Dhamma. People
who study but who have no awareness at all during their whole life are like
the ladle who serves the curry but does not know the taste. The next life
they have to listen again, they have to memorize what they heard, but if
they thoroughly study the realities that appear they will begin to
understand their characteristics. This is the true benefit of the study,
namely the study of the level of pariyatti and of the level of patipatti,
and this will lead to the level of paìivedha, the direct realization of the
truth. 

Pramesavara: You stress studying for the right purpose, namely, right
understanding of realities as they are at this very moment. It is very
beneficial to read your book ³A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas² as an
introduction to the study. I understand that the study of the dhammas really
has to be developed for a long time, it is cira kåla bhåvanå. We do not
expect to cause the arising of satipaììhåna at a particular time or even in
this life. 

Sujin: The study of the characteristics of realities has to be developed for
a long time. People should study so that they have first theoretical
understanding of realities and this will lead to direct understanding of the
characteristics of realities.

Pramesavara: Some people say that one should not study at all, that one
should only investigate realities.

Sujin: This is not right. We do not have paññå to the same extent as the
Sammåsambuddha who realized the truth through his enlightenment all by
himself, without having heard the Dhamma from someone else in his last life.
He considered and was aware of the characteristics of realities and in the
last watch of the night he attained enlightenment and thereby became the
Sammåsambuddha.

*******
Footnotes

1. At the moment of mindfulness of nåma and rúpa, there is training in
higher síla, the six doors are guarded, there is no transgression. There is
training in higher citta or concentration, because concentration, samådhi
cetasika, performs the function of one-pointedness on the nåma or rúpa that
appears. There is training in higher paññå that realizes nåma and rúpa as
they are and that can eventually eradicate defilements when enlightenment is
attained. At the moment of satipatthåna one does not take síla, samådhi or
paññå for self. 

***** 



	
9875

From: Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 10:08am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cambodia, Ch 13, no. 2: thank you Nina.

 	
op 05-12-2001 10:08 schreef jaranoh op jaranoh@y...:

> Hello Nina:
> 
> I can't thank you enough for posting these summaries. They are very
> good reminders of what we listened to sometime ago but almost forgot
> completely.
> 
>Hello Jaran , thank you for your kind encouragement. They will be on Zolag web
so that other webs can copy them. I hope that, when you have time, you can
write a post about your discussions in Bgk when you go over there from
Singapore. My best regards also to your father. Is he listening to TA?
Nina.
	
9876

From: egberdina <hhofman@d...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 2:22pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Book by Law

 	
Dear Sarah,

"Schreef" is Dutch for "wrote". I like screaming chief, though ... :-)

I think the names now being shown by Yahoo are the Yahoo logins, 
rather than the email addresses.

I guess now everybody knows my terrible secret, I use my grandmothers 
name as a login!

All the best


Herman

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
> Dear Nina,
> 
> --- Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> wrote: > op 04-12-2001 07:33 
schreef
> Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...:
> 
> p.s. Herman, Christine, Dan....I just see yahoo gave me 'Schreef 
Sarah' at the
> top of Nina's reply to me... do you think this is short 
for 'Screaming Chief Sarah'....???
>
	
9877

From: mlnease <mlnease@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 5:18pm
Subject: 'Discarding' Sammaadi.t.thi

 	
Hi Erik,

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rikpa21" <rikpa21@y...> wrote:

> Re: the term "ditthi", I think Mike mentioned it 
> referring to "miccha ditthi" but teachers I respect have taught me 
> that any view at all is considered ditthi, to be discarded. 

As I understand it, sammaadi.t.thi cannot arise with upaadaana (clinging) 
so how can it be 'discarded' (not to mention, by whom?) It can, though, 
arise with four or five of the other path-factors (this would be 
satipa.t.thaana) or with all seven (this would be maggacitta, I think). Even 
if it were possible to 'discard' these factors, would this be wise? Certainly 
not according to the words of the Buddha as preserved in the Pali texts. 
Of course one may also discard the dhammavinaya in favor of teachers 
or one's own intuition. Personally, I find the dhammavinaya confirmed by 
experience to be more reliable. 

> What need is there for 
> ditthi (speculation) of any kind when there is direct knowledge?

As I understand it, sammadi.t.thi is not speculation, and cannot arise with 
speculation, ever. There are many descriptions and explanations of 
sammadi.t.thi in the suttas (and elsewhere in the canon) and I don't think 
you'll find one including speculation.

Best wishes, Erik--hope to run into you again one day,

mike
	
9878

From: egberdina <hhofman@d...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 5:28pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)

 	
Dear Victor,

Thank you for your comments.

Yes, genetic code is subject to change, subject to conditions. 
Nothing is permanent, except for impermanency. Some things change 
very quickly, some more slowly. The code used to build your body 
remains unchanged during your life time. Soon it will be possible to 
make exact duplicates of you. They will look like you, think like 
you, feel like you, act like you to the extent that they are subject 
to the same condtions.

Certainly over time the five khandas arise, change and dissapear, but 
their arising and functioning and disappearing is controlled by 
genetic code. 

Is impermanence dukkha of itself, or is impermanence dukkha because 
there is clinging for states to stay the same? Thus causing the 
cognitive dissonance, confusing the wish with the reality?

Why does a self need to be permanent to be a self?

All the best 


Herman


--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Victor Yu" <victoryu@s...> wrote:
> Hello Herman,
> 
> I think that the conception that self is genetic code, if I 
understand it
> correctly, is quite interesting. However, genetic code is certainly
> impermanent, subject to change, subject to mutation.
> What is impermanent is stressful/unsatisfactory/dukkha. And what is
> impermanent, stressful/unsatisfactory/dukkha, subject to change is 
to be
> seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not 
mine. This
> I am not. This is not my self." In short, genetic code is not 
self. How
> would one resolve this cognitive dissonance?
> 
> Regards,
> Victor
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "egberdina" <hhofman@d...>
> To: <dhammastudygroup@y...>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 11:33 PM
> Subject: [dsg] Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)
> 
> 
> > Dear Christine,
> >
> > My two bits.
> >
> > There clearly is a self. Every cell of the body contains an 
identical
> > copy of it.(genetic code). This master plan, instruction set 
whatever
> > remains unchanged from conception to birth, adolescence, mid-life,
> > old age , death.
> >
> > When parts from other selves are introduced the self will 
recognise
> > them as not self and destroy them.
> >
> > The body is a set of processes, governed by the (self) genetic 
code.
> > It is when some critical processes cease that the body becomes a
> > thing. The self does not have identity. It doesn't know anything, 
it
> > is incapable of feeling, perceiving etc. The self is not the body,
> > but it can be expressed as one, for a while. It isn't much. But 
given
> > the right conditions, it is you , Sarah, Jon all the Roberts, the
> > trees in the park, the chooks in the pen etc etc.
> >
> > Identification with an expression of the self ie its form or 
process
> > is a possibility, but will eventually lead to some cognitive
> > dissonance. The self is not it's expression. And yes, the self is
> > subject to conditions, including itself.
> >
> > What is a human being, and all other forms of life? A life support
> > system for DNA.
> >
> > Here endeth the lesson.
> >
> > Metta
> >
> > Herman
> >
> >
> > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "ellaruthau" <cforsyth@v...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Robert,and All,
> > >
> > > Sorry, anatta again....thinking about the puppet quotes, they
> > > illustrate the impermanence of the body very well to me.... and
> > raise
> > > issues of who or what is in control..... every puppet is owned 
by a
> > > puppet-master ...someone who pulls the strings.....makes it 
act, -
> > > controls it.
> > > Equating the body with an arrow (shaft) also brings to mind that
> > > there is an 'archer', who fits the arrow, and releases the bow-
> > > string, - aims it.
> > > I have also tried to understand this by thinking the 'life 
force'
> > as
> > > the combination of engine and petrol in a car, with the mind as
> > the
> > > ignition key......but, "whose" is the hand that turns the key in
> > the
> > > car?.... - makes it move.
> > > The ship is the one I like best, because an impersonal set of
> > > conditions creates weather systems, and causes the wind that 
moves
> > the
> > > ship.....but then, . 'Something' decides direction and steers 
it.
> > >
> > > After further thinking about puppets, dolls, archers, and ships,
> > and
> > > reading a little more, I feel part of the problem I am having 
with
> > > Anatta is that the entire Western culture (literature, painting,
> > > poetry, science, religion, law, politics) is threaded through 
with
> > > the belief that there is a body which is impermanent and dies,
> > > plus 'something' immaterial, the soul, which is capable of 
living
> > > apart from the body after the bodys' death.( If this is not so, 
it
> > > is certainly going to affect the pleasure of reading - perhaps
> > > literature will lose some of its richness .....God has already
> > gone,
> > > but imagine Donne without soul and death ....)
> > >
> > > When I look at a dead body, whether a baby or an aged person, 
there
> > > is no problem with realising that the body is Not-Self. But the
> > > distinct impression made (even without signs of disease or
> > deliberate
> > > damage) is that 'something' has gone, is
> > missing......the 'something'
> > > that vitalised the body. Just as in part of your quote 'but by
> > means
> > > of their working together, this mental and bodily combination 
may
> > > move about, stand up, and appear full of life and activity." 
With
> > a
> > > corpse, the body is still there, the 'something' (the mental 
part?)
> > > is absent......
> > > But the Buddha didn't think of anything as separate or separable
> > from
> > > the body. Or did he?
> > >
> > > Looking at the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (The Not-Self 
Characteristic)
> > > sort of from the flip side, could it be inferred that the 
Buddha
> > is
> > > saying that for'something' to be considered as Self it would :
> > > 1. Not lead to affliction
> > > 2. Obey the person of whom it is the Self
> > > 3. have to be permanent i.e. Pleasant, permanent, not
> > > subject to change.
> > >
> > > And I've just found the brick wall.....A gate somewhere, maybe?
> > >
> > > metta,
> > > Christine
> > >
> > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Kirkpatrick
> > > <robertkirkpatrick@r...>
> > > > Robert: Absolutely Christine. The suttas 'are heavy with
> > > > condensed meaning'! I like puppet too. Here are some more
> > > > quotes :
> > > > From the VisuddhiMagga, chap. xi. And it is when the body is
> > > > impelled by the wind element that it performs its four 
functions
> > > > of walking, standing, sitting, or lying-down, or draws in and
> > > > stretches out its arms, or moves its hands and its feet. Thus
> > > > does this machine made of the four elements move like a 
puppet,
> > > > and deceives all foolish people with its femininity,
> > > > masculinity, etc"endquote.
> > > >
> > > > From majjhima nikaya 82 p683 Bodhi
> > > > Behold a puppet here pranked out,
> > > > a body built from sores,
> > > > sick, an object of concern, where no stabilty abides
> > > >
> > > > http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic3_n.htm
> > > > "Just as a wooden puppet though unsubstantial, lifeless and
> > > > inactive may by means of pulling strings be made to move 
about,
> > > > stand up, and appear full of life and activity; just so are 
mind
> > > > and body, as such, something empty, lifeless and inactive; but
> > > > by means of their mutual working together, this mental and
> > > > bodily combination may move about, stand up, and appear full 
of
> > > > life and activity."
> > > >
> > > > from the Satipatthana sutta atthakatta (sections on modes of
> > > > deportment)"Just as a ship goes on by winds impelled,
> > > > Just as a shaft goes by the bowstring's force,
> > > > So goes this body in its forward course
> > > > Full driven by the vibrant thrust of air.
> > > > As to the puppet's back the dodge-thread's tied
> > > > So to the body-doll the mind is joined
> > > > And pulled by that the body moves, stands, sits.
> > > > Where is the living being that can stand,
> > > > Or walk, by force of its own inner strength,
> > > > Without conditions that give it support? "
> > > >
> > > > ++++++++++
> > > > Christine: I wonder....in Buddhism, is Mara believed to be 
real?
> > > > or a projection
> > > > of our own desires and impulses?
> > > > ++++++++++++++
> > > >
> > > > There are five kinds of Mara: the devaputta Mara (who 
confronted
> > > > Sela), the kilesa(defilements), kamma formations, Death Mara,
> > > > and the five aggregates Mara. I haven't met the first one (in
> > > > this life). The last one, the khandas, is one we cling to and
> > > > love but the khandas are like murderers waiting for the right
> > > > time to strike. One day they will and we will die; better to 
see
> > > > the danger of them now and so lessen clinging to them.
> > > > ++++++++++++

	
9879

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 1:59pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Discarding' Sammaadi.t.thi

 	
Hi, Mike -

In a message dated 12/6/01 8:20:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
mlnease@y... writes:


> As I understand it, sammaadi.t.thi cannot arise with upaadaana (clinging) 
> so how can it be 'discarded' (not to mention, by whom?) 
=======================
Given that it cannot arise with clinging, then 'sammaadi.t.thi' must 
not refer to mundane right view, but rather to supermundane wisdom. Ordinary, 
conventional right view consisting of an intellectual grasp of, and assent 
to, the Buddhadhamma, as opposed to a direct *seeing* of it, certainly 
wouldn't preclude clinging to it. Just consider, for example, how much 
clinging to self, to the sat-dhamma, and to many other things are exhibited 
by some folks who have a genuine *belief* in the Buddha's teaching, but 
haven't directly seen it themselves as part of their own experience.

With metta,
Howard 

/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 




	
9880

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 10:50pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
Dear Herman and Victor,

Thank you for reading the points on metta (to Christine) carefully:

--- Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> wrote: 
<snip>
V: > Hello Sarah,
> I am not sure what is the point in the passage above.
> As I understand it, developing the state of metta to oneself or others does
> not imply that it is a result of attachment.
....................

Sarah:
The point was that at actual moments of metta, the citta is calm, it is
skilful.
At any moments of wishing for metta, awareness or other 'good' states or of
wanting to be the ‘wholesome person’, it shows the deep-rooted clinging to
self. At these moments the citta is not calm or skilful, but accompanied by
attachment. This is not the path of detachment and understanding.

********************
> --- egberdina <hhofman@d...> wrote: > Dear Sarah,
<snip>

H: > How do these points relate to the Padhana sutta (subtitled "exertion" 
> in one translation and the other subtitled "the great struggle")
> 
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp3-02.html
> 
> and the Utthana sutta (subtitled "On Vigilance" in one translation, 
> and "Initiative" in the other one")
> 
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp2-
> 10a.html
> 
> I will quote the Utthana version by John D Ireland.
> 
> "Rouse yourself! Sit up! What good is there in sleeping? For those 
> afflicted by disease (suffering), struck by the arrow (craving), what 
> sleep is there? 
> "Rouse yourself! Sit up! Resolutely train yourself to attain peace.

<snip>
H: > There is no sense of passivity in this at all, which is what your 
> points convey to me. There is striving, resoluteness, deliberate 
> action here. 
> 
> Can you give examples from the suttas where the Buddha suggests that 
> development of insight is a passive process, requiring no effort or 
> determination?

********************
Sarah:
However ‘rousing’ the suttas may sound and however much ‘striving’ is
encouraged, we should remember that all realities are not self. this doesn’t
mean that there shouldn’t be an urgency, but that there is no self to ‘exert’
or be energetic or control the phenomena at this moment.

Rather than adding anything new, I’d like to offer a few extracts from past
posts and hope you find them useful or worthy of further questions/comments:

********************
1.Jon:
You mention 'factors towards wisdom'. There is a short and pithy sutta on
this very subject (Anguttara Nikaya IV, 246 -- NDB trans. p. 124):

"These four things, O monks, are conducive to the growth of wisdom. What
four?
Association with superior persons, hearing the good Dhamma, proper
attention and practice in accordance with the Dhamma. These four things
are conducive to the growth of wisdom."

These 4 'things' are described elsewhere as 'factors' (factors for
stream-entry -- 'sotapattiyanga'). They are the same factors as are met
in so many contexts elsewhere in the suttas. Having the chance to listen
to and discuss the Dhamma with the help of one who can explain the
teachings to us, wise reflection (yoniso manasikara) on what we have heard
and understood, and applying that to our own experience of the present
moment. This is the development of the path, vipassana (literally,
'seeing clearly', = wisdom). 

There is no factor of 'one's effort' here, because effort of the right
kind is implicit in the moments of wholesomeness that draw us to listen
and discuss, to consider and apply.

It is worth noting that all 4 factors must continue to occur if wisdom is
to continue to develop. In particular, some my think that first 3 are
sort of 'once and for all' factors that one somehow gets beyond after a
certain stage. This would not be correct, according to my understanding. 
The need for continuing association with the good friend, which is the
only way to gain exposure to the listening and discussing that is also
needed, is evident from this passage from Samyutta Nikaya XLV, 2 (CDB
trans, p. 1524): 

"… by relying upon me as a good friend, Ananda, beings subject to birth
are freed from birth …. By this method it may be understood how the
entire holy life is good friendship"

"The entire holy life (ie. development of the path) is good friendship". 
Without continued association with good friends (= listening to,
discussion of Dhamma), progress cannot continue to be made. I emphasise
this because it indicates how kusala can be developed without the need for
the kind of deliberate intention or effort that you may think is
essential....<snip>> 

********************
2. Jon: 
When talking about the realities of existence as found in the teachings,
we need to bear in mind that the terms used to denote those realities do
not of course carry the same meaning and implications as their
conventional counterparts. <snip>

In the case of the mental factor that is viriya (energy, effort), these
attributes are as follows (from the Visuddhimagga ( XIV, 137)--

Description: Energy (viriya) is the state of one who, is vigorous (vira).
Characteristic: Its characteristic is marshalling (driving). 
Function: Its function is to consolidate conascent states (the
accompanying citta and cetasikas). 
Manifestation: It is manifested as non-collapse. 
Proximate cause: Its proximate cause is a sense of urgency; or its
proximate cause is grounds for the initiation of energy. 

We see from this that the function of viriya is to consolidate the citta
and cetasikas that it arises together with. So it is not energy 'towards
something', or 'to do something', in the sense that we associate with the
conventional concept of energy.

Its proximate cause is a 'sense of urgency'. This refers, in the case of
kusala energy, to the urgency of the need to develop kusala. If we see
the value in kusala, that can be the condition (proximate cause) for the
arising of kusala energy, ie. the energy that accompanies kusala citta.

.******************** 
3.Ken H.:
>..... Given this opportunity, we should act with the urgency of that
> proverbial fellow whose turban is on fire. But it is not effort of 
> the conventional kind that is called for. The right effort
> (samma-vayama), which leads to release from samsara, is an
> absolute reality; it is brought about, not by illusory beings, but by
> another absolute reality, right understanding (samma-ditthi). 

I********************
4.Jon:. 
In the case of right effort, that
function is the four-fold one so often encountered, and referred to in one
of Dan's recent posts as the 4 right strivings--

"The four right strivings--Herein a bhikkhu engenders wish, makes effort,
arouses energy, exerts the mind, strives for the non-arising of evil bad
states that have not arisen; engenders wish, makes effort, arouses energy,
exerts the mind, strives for the abandoning of evil bad states that have
arisen;..."

The effort being referred to here is not effort of the conventional kind,
because that inevitably involves the idea of a self (even though our aim
may be the development of the path as we understand it) but rather the
effort that accompanies a moment of satipatthana.

This of course puts a whole different gloss on the development of the
path, because it means that at moments of satipatthana all the necessary
factors are being developed, without the need for them to be developed
individually, as it were. Thus it is mindfulness that is watchful (guards
the senses) and 'exercises' effort - when it arises.

********************
5. Dan: 
Struggling to find a "method" with a formula of "do such-and-such in 
order to have such-and-such experience" is bound to be a dead end 
because ultimately any such ritual is impotent, and the search for the 
effective ritual, the silver bullet, THE "technique" is 
silabbataparamasa---a fetter that hinders liberation...... 
<snip>

........The problem is that once you start to say 
"I'm going to do this to effect that", the mythical "I" is created and 
all efforts go into elaborating on that "I", protecting that "I", 
gratifying that "I", and magnifying that "I". And that "I" is 
remarkably resisient and sneaky. Soon this very "I" starts building up 
an elaborate set of words and concepts and systems to "convince 
itself" that it really doesn't believe in itself, rejects itself. 

Instead of prescribing a ritual to guarantee enlightenment, the Buddha 
described the nature of reality and suggested that we carefully 
consider his words, not just intellectually, but as they apply to each 
moment in the day. 

If you want to sit quietly in the corner, eyes closed, and "meditate", 
or to walk back and forth at a snail's pace, noting the lifting, 
raising, moving, touching, placing of the foot, that's fine. It may 
even be helpful...perhaps. There is a danger, though, that 
that "practice" takes on the appearance of a "method" that liberates, 
at which point it becomes a dead end. 

********************
6: Jon:
When we read in the suttas about the Buddha urging his listeners to exert
effort, he must be taken as referring to moments of kusala citta -- it
would make a mockery of the teachings to read these passages as otherwise.
As we have seen, however, intention/effort to arouse kusala is not itself
necessarily kusala and, I would suggest (but speaking here purely from my
own experience), is unlikely to be so in practice. So the 'effort' to be
exerted which the Buddha refers to is the effort (ie. energy mental factor
-- viriya) that arises with kusala citta.

********************

Apologies if I have over-edited or snipped any vital information from anyone’s
posts. 

Best wishes,
Sarah



	
9881

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 11:34pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Is it only me?

 	
I know this is heading off-topic, and I'll desist after this, but I would suggest
putting your son in the room with the possum. That way you can get a good night's
sleep, and he can be faced with the choice --good for his development--as to
whether to 'go for' the broom or not.

This all has something to do with karma I think, just to make an on-topic
connection.

Robert Ep.

=======================

--- ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> wrote:
> 
> Dear Robert,
> 
> :-))) With 'possum paranoia' at its height in this household, it's 
> not wise to encourage me..... There is nothing to compare with the 
> sound of 'thundering possum feet' at 2.00 am jumping onto my metal 
> roof (out of a tree), finding access into the ceiling, and conducting 
> possum races all night....at least, I think that's what they are 
> doing..... My pitiful pounding on the ceiling with a broom handle, 
> only results in unfair criticism from my son who incorrectly feels I 
> am more trouble than the possum.
> 
> metta,
> Christine
> --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote:
> > 
> 
> > > The only other theory I have concerns a malfunctioning toaster 
> and a 
> > > possum in my ceiling - but I think that's coincidence..... :-)
> > > 
> > > metta,
> > > Christine
> > 
> > It's definitely the possum!
> > 
> > Robert ep.


	
9882

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 11:41pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)

 	
Christine,
I think some of this gets into terminology. If you say there is a self but it is
a set of processes, that is the same thing as saying, there is *not* a self,
there's just a bunch of processes. The definition of 'self' that I think is
rejected in Buddhism is 'self' as a particular identity or entity, the idea that
there is a lurking 'someone' within the processes that is a central processor or
experiencer of those processes. So if you want to define 'self' as the system of
kandhas as Herman does here, or if you want to define 'self' as an entity and say
it doesn't exist, this adds up to pretty much the same thing. The important thing
is the eventual insight into the absence of a '*real* self' somewhere inside the
body or consciousness. That is 'anatta' to me.

If you even try to imagine directly what exactly a 'self' would look like if there
were such a thing you will find it almost impossible to even formulate. The
'self' as an entity is an assumption that is based on confusion. It cannot really
be defined, except as one process or structure or another.

Best,
Robert Ep.

====================

--- ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> wrote:
> Dear Herman,
> 
> Are you sure about this? I don't mean to sound impolite, but I have 
> spent months and months trying to understand not-self (anatta) - and 
> there really IS a self but all you need to do is not give it a 
> particular identity?........so, really, there is a Self but not 
> a 'some-one'.....Is that it?
> That's fairly simple to understand......
> 
> Thanks,
> metta,
> Christine
> 
> --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "egberdina" <hhofman@d...> wrote:
> > Dear Christine,
> > 
> > My two bits.
> > 
> > There clearly is a self. Every cell of the body contains an 
> identical 
> > copy of it.(genetic code). This master plan, instruction set 
> whatever 
> > remains unchanged from conception to birth, adolescence, mid-life, 
> > old age , death. 
> > 
> > When parts from other selves are introduced the self will recognise 
> > them as not self and destroy them.
> > 
> > The body is a set of processes, governed by the (self) genetic 
> code. 
> > It is when some critical processes cease that the body becomes a 
> > thing. The self does not have identity. It doesn't know anything, 
> it 
> > is incapable of feeling, perceiving etc. The self is not the body, 
> > but it can be expressed as one, for a while. It isn't much. But 
> given 
> > the right conditions, it is you , Sarah, Jon all the Roberts, the 
> > trees in the park, the chooks in the pen etc etc.
> > 
> > Identification with an expression of the self ie its form or 
> process 
> > is a possibility, but will eventually lead to some cognitive 
> > dissonance. The self is not it's expression. And yes, the self is 
> > subject to conditions, including itself. 
> > 
> > What is a human being, and all other forms of life? A life support 
> > system for DNA.
> > 
> > Here endeth the lesson.
> > 
> > Metta
> > 
> > Herman
> > 
> > 
> > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "ellaruthau" <cforsyth@v...> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Dear Robert,and All,
> > > 
> > > Sorry, anatta again....thinking about the puppet quotes, they 
> > > illustrate the impermanence of the body very well to me.... and 
> > raise 
> > > issues of who or what is in control..... every puppet is owned by 
> a 
> > > puppet-master ...someone who pulls the strings.....makes it act, -
> 
> > > controls it.
> > > Equating the body with an arrow (shaft) also brings to mind that 
> > > there is an 'archer', who fits the arrow, and releases the bow-
> > > string, - aims it.
> > > I have also tried to understand this by thinking the 'life force' 
> > as 
> > > the combination of engine and petrol in a car, with the mind as 
> > the 
> > > ignition key......but, "whose" is the hand that turns the key in 
> > the 
> > > car?.... - makes it move.
> > > The ship is the one I like best, because an impersonal set of
> > > conditions creates weather systems, and causes the wind that 
> moves 
> > the
> > > ship.....but then, . 'Something' decides direction and steers it.
> > > 
> > > After further thinking about puppets, dolls, archers, and ships, 
> > and 
> > > reading a little more, I feel part of the problem I am having 
> with 
> > > Anatta is that the entire Western culture (literature, painting, 
> > > poetry, science, religion, law, politics) is threaded through 
> with 
> > > the belief that there is a body which is impermanent and dies, 
> > > plus 'something' immaterial, the soul, which is capable of living 
> > > apart from the body after the bodys' death.( If this is not so, it
> > > is certainly going to affect the pleasure of reading - perhaps 
> > > literature will lose some of its richness .....God has already 
> > gone, 
> > > but imagine Donne without soul and death ....)
> > > 
> > > When I look at a dead body, whether a baby or an aged person, 
> there 
> > > is no problem with realising that the body is Not-Self. But the 
> > > distinct impression made (even without signs of disease or 
> > deliberate 
> > > damage) is that 'something' has gone, is 
> > missing......the 'something' 
> > > that vitalised the body. Just as in part of your quote 'but by 
> > means 
> > > of their working together, this mental and bodily combination may 
> > > move about, stand up, and appear full of life and activity." 
> With 
> > a 
> > > corpse, the body is still there, the 'something' (the mental 
> part?) 
> > > is absent......
> > > But the Buddha didn't think of anything as separate or separable 
> > from 
> > > the body. Or did he?
> > > 
> > > Looking at the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (The Not-Self 
> Characteristic) 
> > > sort of from the flip side, could it be inferred that the Buddha 
> > is 
> > > saying that for'something' to be considered as Self it would :
> > > 1. Not lead to affliction
> > > 2. Obey the person of whom it is the Self
> > > 3. have to be permanent i.e. Pleasant, permanent, not 
> > > subject to change.
> > > 
> > > And I've just found the brick wall.....A gate somewhere, maybe?
> > > 
> > > metta,
> > > Christine
> > > 
> > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Kirkpatrick 
> > > <robertkirkpatrick@r...> 
> > > > Robert: Absolutely Christine. The suttas 'are heavy with
> > > > condensed meaning'! I like puppet too. Here are some more
> > > > quotes :
> > > > From the VisuddhiMagga, chap. xi. And it is when the body is
> > > > impelled by the wind element that it performs its four functions
> > > > of walking, standing, sitting, or lying-down, or draws in and
> > > > stretches out its arms, or moves its hands and its feet. Thus
> > > > does this machine made of the four elements move like a puppet,
> > > > and deceives all foolish people with its femininity,
> > > > masculinity, etc"endquote.
> > > > 
> > > > From majjhima nikaya 82 p683 Bodhi
> > > > Behold a puppet here pranked out,
> > > > a body built from sores,
> > > > sick, an object of concern, where no stabilty abides
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic3_n.htm
> > > > "Just as a wooden puppet though unsubstantial, lifeless and
> > > > inactive may by means of pulling strings be made to move about,
> > > > stand up, and appear full of life and activity; just so are mind
> > > > and body, as such, something empty, lifeless and inactive; but
> > > > by means of their mutual working together, this mental and
> > > > bodily combination may move about, stand up, and appear full of
> > > > life and activity."
> > > > 
> > > > from the Satipatthana sutta atthakatta (sections on modes of
> > > > deportment)"Just as a ship goes on by winds impelled,
> > > > Just as a shaft goes by the bowstring's force,
> > > > So goes this body in its forward course
> > > > Full driven by the vibrant thrust of air.
> > > > As to the puppet's back the dodge-thread's tied
> > > > So to the body-doll the mind is joined
> > > > And pulled by that the body moves, stands, sits.
> > > > Where is the living being that can stand,
> > > > Or walk, by force of its own inner strength,
> > > > Without conditions that give it support? "
> > > > 
> > > > ++++++++++ 
> > > > Christine: I wonder....in Buddhism, is Mara believed to be real?
> > > > or a projection 
> > > > of our own desires and impulses? 
> > > > ++++++++++++++
> > > > 
> > > > There are five kinds of Mara: the devaputta Mara (who confronted
> > > > Sela), the kilesa(defilements), kamma formations, Death Mara,
> > > > and the five aggregates Mara. I haven't met the first one (in
> > > > this life). The last one, the khandas, is one we cling to and
> > > > love but the khandas are like murderers waiting for the right
> > > > time to strike. One day they will and we will die; better to see
> > > > the danger of them now and so lessen clinging to them.
> > > > ++++++++++++


	
9883

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 11:44pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard)

 	
--- Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> wrote:
> Rob Ep (and Howard)
> 
> I'm out of my depth in this discussion, but I would like to suggest that
> the only means by which we can exchange experiences about the realities of
> the present moment is by words (labels) that we use to designate those
> realities.
> 
> The words themselves have no intrinsic meaning or value and are useful
> only insofar as they allow us to inform each other about the realities
> they are used to designate.
> 
> The discussion is about dhammas. The dhamma that we designate 'hardness'
> is probably being experienced in some form at this very moment. We are
> not referring to a philosophical concept of hardness but something that
> appears regularly to everyone, a common human experience.
> 
> My two cents worth.
> 
> Jon

Are you saying that there's no value in trying to describe what the actual
experience of hardness is like, as opposed to the concept? I would think that
such a language would direct awareness to look at the actual experience and would
be of interest.

Since we are dealing with language anyway, why not use it to expose the difference
between concept and experience to some extent?

Robert Ep.

=======================


> --- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > 
> > --- upasaka@a... wrote:
> > 
> > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > > ... ALL that I meant was that hardness (or, better, any 
> > > hardness-instance) has no parts. [Actually, as an aside, I don't
> > really think 
> > > there *is* a thing called "hardness" to be encountered, but there
> > *are* 
> > > hardness-instances which are encountered. The abstraction 'hardness'
> > is, from 
> > > my perspective, mere concept - but a concept that is grounded in
> > direct 
> > > experience.] 
> > 
> > Dear Howard,
> > I thought I would pick up on this, since there are a few interesting
> > issues
> > contained therein.
> > 
> > When you say there are 'hardness-instances', I take you to mean that
> > there is an
> > experience of that which we then interpret as hardness, not that the
> > abstraction
> > 'hardness' itself is actually encountered.
> > 
> > I would say further that if we wanted to discuss the encounter with
> > 'hardness' in
> > phenomenal language we would need a lot more language that we don't
> > have, and that
> > even that language would obviously reach a limit, since language itself
> > is an
> > abstraction that does not directly describe anything. But we could say
> > in a
> > phenomenally styled language that in making contact with a particular
> > surface that
> > we encounter a moment of 'not-yielding', a moment of 'non-penetrating',
> > a moment
> > of 'smoothness', a moment of 'pushing back', a moment of 'firmness',
> > etc., as we
> > pick up various perceptual aspects from contact with an 'object'.
> > 
> > This kind of phenomenal language could go a long way to creating a
> > description of
> > what non-conceptual experience might be like, with actualities being
> > approximated,
> > rather than glossing them into overall impressions, such as 'hardness'
> > as an
> > abiding characteristic.
> > 
> > Anyway, I thought that might be worth talking about. My own
> > undergraduate
> > background, many years ago, in the phenomenology of Husserl and
> > Merleau-Ponty
> > seems very relevant to this idea, of finding a language that describes
> > rather than
> > defines experience. As far as Western philosophy goes, there are some
> > beautiful
> > descriptions of how this might work in the world of Merleau-Ponty, a
> > truly poetic
> > philosopher. 
> > 
> > Best,
> > Robert Ep.
> > 
> > =========================


	
9884

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 6, 2001 11:47pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Parinibbana Subcommentary To Upasaka Howard And Robert Epstein

 	
Dear Suan,
I for one most appreciate your efforts to not only give a commentary on this
material, but to take into account the ways in which we are receiving it. That is
quite helpful and a lot of hard work on your part, so thanks very much! It is a
very interesting exchange to me.

Best,
Robert Ep.




--- abhidhammika <abhidhammika@y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Upasaka Howard And Robert Epstein
> 
> How are you?
> 
> Thank you for your responses to the First Part of Parinibbana 
> Subcommentary.
> 
> Howard wrote:
> 
> "Thank you for all the foregoing detailed analysis. It strikes me 
> from that analysis, that a possible meaning for 'apannattikabhaavo' 
> might be "nonconceptual state of being". Is not one meaning 
> of 'pa~n~nati' that of "concept"? If this is a possible reading, then 
> it is possible that parinibbana may be a state not of "undefined 
> reality" but, rather, a nonconceptual state of being, a state of 
> direct knowing, unmediated by concept. What do you think?"
> 
> 
> Robert Epstein also wrote:
> 
> "I of course like this idea, and will wait with you to hear of the 
> possibility of this interpretation".
> 
> ---------------------------
> 
> I will address your new interpretation in the subsequent parts of the 
> Parinibbana Subcommentary.
> 
> In the meantime, I would appreaciate if you could define the 
> term 'concept' in your interpretation as there are many meanings 
> covered by it.
> 
> I would particularly like you to first convert the noun 
> form 'concept' to its verb form 'conceive'. And then, please indicate 
> your intended meaning of the verb 'conceive' which corresponds to the 
> intended meaning of the term 'concept' in your new interpretation.
> 
> The conversion would look like 'concept' = 'conceiving' = your 
> intended meaning.
> 
> In my reply in the subsequent parts of Parinibbana Subcommentary, I 
> will convert the term 'paññatti' to its verb form. And then I will 
> compare its available meanings with your intended meaning of concept 
> as conceiving.
> 
> By undertaking those analyses, I will write my comment on your new 
> interpretation. 
> 
> Fair enough?
> 
> 
> With regards,
> 
> 
> Suan Lu Zaw
> 
> http://www.bodhiology.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:
> > Hi, Suan -
> > 
> > In a message dated 12/3/01 10:11:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> > abhidhammika@y... writes:
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Dear Dhamma Friends
> > > 
> > > The following is the first part of Parinibbana Subcommentary 
> written 
> > > in response to the questions and statements of Upasaka Howard, 
> Robert 
> > > Epstein, and Mike Neace. This first part deals with Upasaka
> > > Howard's question regarding the exact meaning of 
> `Apannattikabhaavo - 
> > > the state of undefined reality.' In the second part of the
> > > subcommentary, I will directly address the statements of Robert 
> > > Epstein. In that second part, I will also include the meaning of 
> the 
> > > last mind, which partly satisfies Howard's desire to know the 
> exact 
> > > meaning of consciousness. If space allowed, I will also respond 
> to 
> > > Mike's question regarding why the term `vatta' was translated as
> > > machinary. Otherwise, Mike will have to wait for the third part 
> of 
> > > the subcommentary. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 1. PARINIBBANA COMMENTARY PALI
> > > 
> > > "Parinibbutaa naama arahattapattito patthaaya kilesavattassa 
> > > khepitattaa sa-upaadisesena, carimacittanirodhena 
> khandhavattassa 
> > > khepitattaa anupaadisesena caati dviihi parinibbaanehi 
> > > parinibbutaa, anupaadaano viya padiipo apannattikabhaavaam 
> gataati 
> > > attho."
> > > 
> > > "`Parinibbutaa' is the ultimate cool by means of two-way complete 
> > > extinguishments, one with the existential residues emptied of 
> > > defilement machinery ever since attainment of Arahatta awakening, 
> and 
> > > the other without the existential residues emptied of 
> psychophysical 
> > > machinery by termination of the last mind (the dying 
> consciousness). 
> > > It has the meaning of reaching the state of the undefined reality 
> > > like the lamp without fuel." 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Carimacittanirodho â€" termination of the last mind 
> > > Apannattikabhaavo - the state of undefined reality
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 2. PARINIBBANA SUBCOMMENTARY
> > > 
> > > Howard wrote:
> > > 
> > > "Certainly, taken at face value, this commentary suggests
> > > parinibbana as a kind of nullity. A couple matters remain: (1) 
> The 
> > > exact meaning of Apannattikabhaavaam - the state of undefined 
> > > reality, and the exact meaning of vi~n~nana, which I take as the 
> > > dualistic operation of separating out an individualized object 
> from 
> > > the potential field of awareness, a special type of 
> knowing/~nana."
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The expression `apannattikabhaavo - the state of undefined
> > > reality' has given both Howard and Robert Epstein an opportunity 
> to 
> > > undergo profound contemplation, as it would everybody else. 
> > > 
> > > Therefore, this unique expression has become a suitable topic for 
> > > further analysis and elucidation as Buddhaghosa did not elaborate 
> on 
> > > it, at least on this occasion.
> > > 
> > > The expression `Apannattikabhaavo' can be broken up 
> > > as `a+pannatti+ika+bhaavo'. 
> > > 
> > > The term `pannatti' has the same meaning as `paññatti'. 
> Therefore, 
> > > pannatti means a name, a convention, or a verbalization as 
> `paññatti' 
> > > would. We all know that a name can refer to either an existent 
> > > phenomenon or a non-existent category such as God the Creator. No 
> > > offense to theists amid the Buddhists! 
> > > 
> > > In Pali texts, the term that describes the opposite of a non-
> existent 
> > > category is `paramattho â€" a reality'. Examples of
> realities are 
> > > matter and mind. No offense to extremist Mahayanists amid the 
> > > Theravadiis and scientists!
> > > 
> > > Now, let us look at the combination `a+pannatti'. The prefix
> > > `a' in `apannatti' means `not' or `no' just like
> > > the prefix `a' in the words `amoral' and `amorphous' giving the 
> > > opposite meanings of `moral' and `morphous'. 
> > > 
> > > Thus, we get `not + name (or convention, or verbalization)'.
> > > 
> > > And, what about the bit `ika'? The suffix `ika' means `having or 
> > > doing something that the preceding term indicates.'
> > > 
> > > Thus, the combination `pannatti+ika' means `having + name (or 
> > > convention, or verbalization).' 
> > > 
> > > Now, when we add both the prefix and the suffix to the 
> > > term `pannatti', we get the `apannattika â€" something
> > > not having a name, something not of convention, something not of 
> > > verbalization, or something undefined. 
> > > 
> > > The word `bhaava' denotes a state. Therefore, the 
> > > expression `apannattikabhaavo' refers to the state of something 
> > > unconventional, unverbalizable, or undefinable.
> > > 
> > > As we mentioned earlier above, the antonym of the term 
> `paññatti' in 
> > > the Pali texts, is the term `paramattho â€" a reality'. 
> Therefore, the 
> > > expression `apannattikabhaavo' means the state of something
> > > existent, something real, but not subject to verbalization, or 
> > > conventionalization.
> > > 
> > > The above analysis should satisfy Howard's request for the exact 
> > > meaning of apannattikabhaavo â€" the state of undefined
> reality.
> > > 
> > > Now, I will try to answer why Buddhaghosa described parinibbutaa 
> as 
> > > the state of undefined reality.
> > > 
> > > By using the espression `apannattikabhaavo - the state of
> > > undefined reality', Buddhaghosa has killed two birds with one 
> stone. 
> > > We could toy with the idea of using the term `paramattho â€"
> a
> > > reality' instead of `apannatti'. But, that could deprive us of 
> the 
> > > ability to convey the meanings of unverbalizableness and 
> > > undefinableness. Not only that handicap, paramattho could refer 
> to 
> > > other types of realities as well, which we can also verbalize and 
> > > define easily. Therefore, it is a very clever choice of word that 
> > > Buddhaghosa described parinibbutaa as `apannattikabhaavo - the 
> state 
> > > of undefined reality'.
> > > 
> > > Now, what is the meaning of undefinableness or 
> unverbalizableness? 
> > > Why did Buddhaghosa regarded parinibbutaa as being undefinable?
> > > 
> > > The world is programmed to think only in terms of stereotypes and 
> > > stereotyping. It is programmed to verbalize only in terms of 
> ready 
> > > expressions and convenient vocabulary.
> > > 
> > > Our linguistic stereotypes include both existent and non-existent 
> > > categories. But, all our verbalizable catagories refer only to 
> either 
> > > mind and mental (associates and) products, or matter and material 
> > > things.
> > > 
> > > In short, we are programmed to define things and beings only in 
> the 
> > > terminology of mind and matter, the two main existential 
> realities. 
> > > This two-reality existential programming has conditioned us to 
> regard 
> > > anything outside psychophysical givens as nullity.
> > > 
> > > The Arahatta awakening that Gotama the Buddha has discovered is 
> > > capable of demolishing our existential programming and allowing 
> us to 
> > > realize the third reality outside mind and matter. Here, the 
> > > term `mind' includes mental associates (cetasikas) as well. 
> Because 
> > > this third reality is outside mind and matter, we cannot 
> verbalize it 
> > > in terms of psychophysical existences. Yet, this third reality 
> exists 
> > > as parinibbutaa, the ultimate cool. As Buddhaghosa has done, we 
> can 
> > > describe parinibbutaa only as complete extinguishment of 
> defilements 
> > > and psychophysical existence. 
> > > 
> > > Therefore, the meaning of undefinableness in the expression `the 
> > > state of undefined reality' is that parinibbaana is an existence
> > > that we cannot define in terms of mind and matter.
> > > 
> > ============================
> > Thank you for all the foregoing detailed analysis. It 
> strikes me from 
> > that analysis, that a possible meaning for 'apannattikabhaavo' 
> might be 
> > "nonconceptual state of being". Is not one meaning of 'pa~n~nati' 
> that of 
> > "concept"? If this is a possible reading, then it is possible that 
> > parinibbana may be a state not of "undefined reality" but, rather, 
> a 
> > nonconceptual state of being, a state of direct knowing, unmediated 
> by 
> > concept. What do you think?
> > 
> > With metta,
> > Howard


	
9885

From: m. nease <mlnease@y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 0:37am
Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Discarding' Sammaadi.t.thi

 	
Hi Howard,

--- upasaka@a... wrote:

> mlnease@y... writes:
> 
> > As I understand it, sammaadi.t.thi cannot arise
> with upaadaana (clinging) 
> > so how can it be 'discarded' (not to mention, by
> whom?) 
> =======================
> Given that it cannot arise with clinging,
> then 'sammaadi.t.thi' must 
> not refer to mundane right view, but rather to
> supermundane wisdom. 

Good point Howard. No doubt I'm failing to bridge the
gap between samutti and vimutti--as usual...!

> Ordinary, 
> conventional right view consisting of an
> intellectual grasp of, and assent 
> to, the Buddhadhamma, as opposed to a direct
> *seeing* of it, certainly 
> wouldn't preclude clinging to it. 

I do take your point. I guess it might be better to
say that, ultimately, 'vohara' right view is precluded
by 'paramattha' right view. So, still not necessary
to 'discard' even conventional right view (pa~n~natti)
I think--it is already precluded in a moment of
vimutti right view (I think--because sati can't take
pa~n~natti as an aarammana). Up until that point
vohara right view is still essential, I think.

> Just consider, for
> example, how much 
> clinging to self, to the sat-dhamma, and to many
> other things are exhibited 
> by some folks who have a genuine *belief* in the
> Buddha's teaching, but 
> haven't directly seen it themselves as part of their
> own experience.

For 'me' there is clinging to self nearly every moment
(certainly for every moment of 'me'), so I do take
this point too. Don't think I'm familiar with
'sat-dhamma'--?

Cheers,

mike

p.s. As I understand it, mundane right view refers
not to conventional right view but to right view
arising with four or five of the other
path-factors--i.e., satipatthaana. If so we have
three here: Conceptual, satipatthaana and maggacitta.
I may well be wrong about these technical details, though...

	
9886

From: ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 0:48am
Subject: Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)

 	
Dear Robert,

Thanks for all your help with my struggles with the 'not-self' - even 
Sisyphus must have taken a rest from the endless and ineffective 
task. Perhaps anatta is my large stone to roll for a while longer.

I'm hoping it's a bit like skiing. Not learning to ski until I was 
an adult, and then only going for five days a year seemed to doom me 
to little progress. But I found whatever standard I was at the end 
of one holiday, I had always improved by the afternoon of the first 
day of the next years holiday. Some not conscious process keeps 
chewing over things and assimilating them......

metta,
Christine
--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rjkjp" <rjkjp@y...> wrote:
> ---Dear Christine,
> I think that sakkya-ditthi runs deeper than any cultural beliefs we 
> have accumulated. It is part and parcel of this paticcasamupada 
> (dependent origination), this everturning wheel we think of with 
> fondness or regret as 'my life'. The puppet simile, like all 
similes, 
> has it's limitations. The hand that 'guides' the puppets strings is 
> at one moment desire (lobha) at another avijja (moha, ignorance) or 
> metta (friendliness) or anger or fear or boredom or lust.
> The understanding of this Sisyphean cycle is conditioned by 
hearing 
> the words of a Sammasambuddha and leads away from the clinging to 
> selfview. So I believe. 
> best wishes
> robert
> 
> In dhammastudygroup@y..., "ellaruthau" <cforsyth@v...> wrote:
> > Dear Robert,and All,
> > Sorry, anatta again....thinking about the puppet quotes, they 
> > illustrate the impermanence of the body very well to me.... and 
> raise 
> > issues of who or what is in control..... every puppet is owned by 
a 
> > puppet-master ...someone who pulls the strings.....makes it act, -

> > controls it.
> > Equating the body with an arrow (shaft) also brings to mind that 
> > there is an 'archer', who fits the arrow, and releases the bow-
> > string, - aims it.
> > I have also tried to understand this by thinking the 'life force' 
> as 
> > the combination of engine and petrol in a car, with the mind as 
> the 
> > ignition key......but, "whose" is the hand that turns the key in 
> the 
> > car?.... - makes it move.
> > The ship is the one I like best, because an impersonal set of
> > conditions creates weather systems, and causes the wind that 
moves 
> the
> > ship.....but then, . 'Something' decides direction and steers it.
> > 
> > +++++++++++++++
	
9887

From: ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 0:59am
Subject: [dsg] Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)

 	
Hello Victor,

I'll think about the brick wall.....I'm very good at backtracking :-) 
Always seem to be heading up blind alleys......
I feel I have been quite unfair to you in the past :-)(recalling the 
Catechism remark) I have now decided to take the words "This is not 
mine, This I am not, This is not myself" as a sort of koan.....
Maybe that'll bear more fruit than conscious searching, maybe it'll 
all work together, maybe it won't.......
Thanks Victor,
metta,
Christine
--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Victor Yu" <victoryu@s...> wrote:
> Hello Christine,
> 
> I think that if one knows how he or she found the brick wall, then 
one will
> find the way out.
> 
> Regards,
> Victor
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ellaruthau" <cforsyth@v...>
> To: <dhammastudygroup@y...>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 3:11 AM
> Subject: [dsg] Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)
> 
> 
> >
> > Dear Robert,and All,
> >
> > Sorry, anatta again....thinking about the puppet quotes, they
> > illustrate the impermanence of the body very well to me.... and 
raise
> > issues of who or what is in control..... every puppet is owned by 
a
> > puppet-master ...someone who pulls the strings.....makes it act, -
> > controls it.
> > Equating the body with an arrow (shaft) also brings to mind that
> > there is an 'archer', who fits the arrow, and releases the bow-
> > string, - aims it.
> > I have also tried to understand this by thinking the 'life force' 
as
> > the combination of engine and petrol in a car, with the mind as 
the
> > ignition key......but, "whose" is the hand that turns the key in 
the
> > car?.... - makes it move.
> > The ship is the one I like best, because an impersonal set of
> > conditions creates weather systems, and causes the wind that 
moves the
> > ship.....but then, . 'Something' decides direction and steers it.
> >
> > After further thinking about puppets, dolls, archers, and ships, 
and
> > reading a little more, I feel part of the problem I am having with
> > Anatta is that the entire Western culture (literature, painting,
> > poetry, science, religion, law, politics) is threaded through with
> > the belief that there is a body which is impermanent and dies,
> > plus 'something' immaterial, the soul, which is capable of living
> > apart from the body after the bodys' death.( If this is not so, it
> > is certainly going to affect the pleasure of reading - perhaps
> > literature will lose some of its richness .....God has already 
gone,
> > but imagine Donne without soul and death ....)
> >
> > When I look at a dead body, whether a baby or an aged person, 
there
> > is no problem with realising that the body is Not-Self. But the
> > distinct impression made (even without signs of disease or 
deliberate
> > damage) is that 'something' has gone, is 
missing......the 'something'
> > that vitalised the body. Just as in part of your quote 'but by 
means
> > of their working together, this mental and bodily combination may
> > move about, stand up, and appear full of life and activity." 
With a
> > corpse, the body is still there, the 'something' (the mental 
part?)
> > is absent......
> > But the Buddha didn't think of anything as separate or separable 
from
> > the body. Or did he?
> >
> > Looking at the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (The Not-Self Characteristic)
> > sort of from the flip side, could it be inferred that the Buddha 
is
> > saying that for'something' to be considered as Self it would :
> > 1. Not lead to affliction
> > 2. Obey the person of whom it is the Self
> > 3. have to be permanent i.e. Pleasant, permanent, not
> > subject to change.
> >
> > And I've just found the brick wall.....A gate somewhere, maybe?
> >
> > metta,
> > Christine
	
9888

From: ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 1:12am
Subject: [dsg] Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)

 	
Robert,

Thanks for this, it is helpful. I think trying to define a self as an 
actual entity by flipping over what the Buddha had said was not-self, 
is the brick wall I found....as you say an assumption that is based 
on confusion'.

And on the Possum kamma issue :-) - I am way past 'making' my son do 
anything he doesn't want to do. (Twenty five years old, 6'3'' and 90 
kg.) So, the possums and I(did I mention there is more than one) have 
to work out our kamma together......

metta,
Christine
--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote:
> Christine,
> I think some of this gets into terminology. If you say there is a 
self but it is
> a set of processes, that is the same thing as saying, there is 
*not* a self,
> there's just a bunch of processes. The definition of 'self' that I 
think is
> rejected in Buddhism is 'self' as a particular identity or entity, 
the idea that
> there is a lurking 'someone' within the processes that is a central 
processor or
> experiencer of those processes. So if you want to define 'self' as 
the system of
> kandhas as Herman does here, or if you want to define 'self' as an 
entity and say
> it doesn't exist, this adds up to pretty much the same thing. The 
important thing
> is the eventual insight into the absence of a '*real* self' 
somewhere inside the
> body or consciousness. That is 'anatta' to me.
> 
> If you even try to imagine directly what exactly a 'self' would 
look like if there
> were such a thing you will find it almost impossible to even 
formulate. The
> 'self' as an entity is an assumption that is based on confusion. 
It cannot really
> be defined, except as one process or structure or another.
> 
> Best,
> Robert Ep.
> 
> ====================
> 
> --- ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> wrote:
> > Dear Herman,
> > 
> > Are you sure about this? I don't mean to sound impolite, but I 
have 
> > spent months and months trying to understand not-self (anatta) - 
and 
> > there really IS a self but all you need to do is not give it a 
> > particular identity?........so, really, there is a Self but not 
> > a 'some-one'.....Is that it?
> > That's fairly simple to understand......
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > metta,
> > Christine
> > 
> > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "egberdina" <hhofman@d...> wrote:
> > > Dear Christine,
> > > 
> > > My two bits.
> > > 
> > > There clearly is a self. Every cell of the body contains an 
> > identical 
> > > copy of it.(genetic code). This master plan, instruction set 
> > whatever 
> > > remains unchanged from conception to birth, adolescence, mid-
life, 
> > > old age , death. 
> > > 
> > > When parts from other selves are introduced the self will 
recognise 
> > > them as not self and destroy them.
> > > 
> > > The body is a set of processes, governed by the (self) genetic 
> > code. 
> > > It is when some critical processes cease that the body becomes 
a 
> > > thing. The self does not have identity. It doesn't know 
anything, 
> > it 
> > > is incapable of feeling, perceiving etc. The self is not the 
body, 
> > > but it can be expressed as one, for a while. It isn't much. But 
> > given 
> > > the right conditions, it is you , Sarah, Jon all the Roberts, 
the 
> > > trees in the park, the chooks in the pen etc etc.
> > > 
> > > Identification with an expression of the self ie its form or 
> > process 
> > > is a possibility, but will eventually lead to some cognitive 
> > > dissonance. The self is not it's expression. And yes, the self 
is 
> > > subject to conditions, including itself. 
> > > 
> > > What is a human being, and all other forms of life? A life 
support 
> > > system for DNA.
> > > 
> > > Here endeth the lesson.
> > > 
> > > Metta
> > > 
> > > Herman
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "ellaruthau" <cforsyth@v...> 
wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Dear Robert,and All,
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, anatta again....thinking about the puppet quotes, they 
> > > > illustrate the impermanence of the body very well to me.... 
and 
> > > raise 
> > > > issues of who or what is in control..... every puppet is 
owned by 
> > a 
> > > > puppet-master ...someone who pulls the strings.....makes it 
act, -
> > 
> > > > controls it.
> > > > Equating the body with an arrow (shaft) also brings to mind 
that 
> > > > there is an 'archer', who fits the arrow, and releases the 
bow-
> > > > string, - aims it.
> > > > I have also tried to understand this by thinking the 'life 
force' 
> > > as 
> > > > the combination of engine and petrol in a car, with the mind 
as 
> > > the 
> > > > ignition key......but, "whose" is the hand that turns the key 
in 
> > > the 
> > > > car?.... - makes it move.
> > > > The ship is the one I like best, because an impersonal set 
of
> > > > conditions creates weather systems, and causes the wind that 
> > moves 
> > > the
> > > > ship.....but then, . 'Something' decides direction and steers 
it.
> > > > 
> > > > After further thinking about puppets, dolls, archers, and 
ships, 
> > > and 
> > > > reading a little more, I feel part of the problem I am having 
> > with 
> > > > Anatta is that the entire Western culture (literature, 
painting, 
> > > > poetry, science, religion, law, politics) is threaded through 
> > with 
> > > > the belief that there is a body which is impermanent and 
dies, 
> > > > plus 'something' immaterial, the soul, which is capable of 
living 
> > > > apart from the body after the bodys' death.( If this is not 
so, it
> > > > is certainly going to affect the pleasure of reading - 
perhaps 
> > > > literature will lose some of its richness .....God has 
already 
> > > gone, 
> > > > but imagine Donne without soul and death ....)
> > > > 
> > > > When I look at a dead body, whether a baby or an aged person, 
> > there 
> > > > is no problem with realising that the body is Not-Self. But 
the 
> > > > distinct impression made (even without signs of disease or 
> > > deliberate 
> > > > damage) is that 'something' has gone, is 
> > > missing......the 'something' 
> > > > that vitalised the body. Just as in part of your quote 'but 
by 
> > > means 
> > > > of their working together, this mental and bodily combination 
may 
> > > > move about, stand up, and appear full of life and activity." 
> > With 
> > > a 
> > > > corpse, the body is still there, the 'something' (the mental 
> > part?) 
> > > > is absent......
> > > > But the Buddha didn't think of anything as separate or 
separable 
> > > from 
> > > > the body. Or did he?
> > > > 
> > > > Looking at the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (The Not-Self 
> > Characteristic) 
> > > > sort of from the flip side, could it be inferred that the 
Buddha 
> > > is 
> > > > saying that for'something' to be considered as Self it 
would :
> > > > 1. Not lead to affliction
> > > > 2. Obey the person of whom it is the Self
> > > > 3. have to be permanent i.e. Pleasant, permanent, 
not 
> > > > subject to change.
> > > > 
> > > > And I've just found the brick wall.....A gate somewhere, 
maybe?
> > > > 
> > > > metta,
> > > > Christine
> > > > 
	
9889

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 1:49am
Subject: Re: [dsg] metta, kamma, social conscience and vipassana

 	
--- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > 
> --- Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
> 
> > And good to chat again.....now I need to attend to 'my patient' (Jon's
> just
> > come home after some minor surgery on his head.....)
> 
> Oh geez, talk about arising conditions. 
> I'm glad that neither of us takes our family members to be 'merely
> illusions'. 
> <g>
> And please wish him the best!

Thanks, Rob. I always knew that being thick-skulled would work to my
advantage one day!

Jon

	
9890

From: rjkjp <rjkjp@y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 1:56am
Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Discarding' Sammaadi.t.thi

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:
> Hi, Mike -
> 
> In a message dated 12/6/01 8:20:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> mlnease@y... writes:
> 
> 
> > As I understand it, sammaadi.t.thi cannot arise with upaadaana 
(clinging) 
> > so how can it be 'discarded' (not to mention, by whom?) 
> =======================
> Given that it cannot arise with clinging, 
then 'sammaadi.t.thi' must 
> not refer to mundane right view, but rather to supermundane wisdom. 
Ordinary, 
> conventional right view consisting of an intellectual grasp of, and 
assent 
> to, the Buddhadhamma, as opposed to a direct *seeing* of it, 
certainly 
> wouldn't preclude clinging to it. Just consider, for example, how 
much 
> clinging to self, to the sat-dhamma, and to many other things are 
exhibited 
> by some folks who have a genuine *belief* in the Buddha's teaching, 
but 
> haven't directly seen it themselves as part of their own experience.
> 
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Howard,
We tend to have the idea that we really exist; even after we heard 
Dhamma alot. But I think it is good to consider that life lasts only 
for the briefest moment: the robert who began writing this post 
vanished forever billions of lifetimes ago. Some of those 
brief 'lives' there may have been samma-ditthi of some level, while 
in other 'lives' there may have been just ignorance or even miccha-
ditthi, this is all happening in minutes or seconds . Because there 
are conditioning factors such as asevena paccaya and upanissaya 
paccaya there can be the accumulation of both good and bad factors 
such as samma and miccha ditthi. But they can't arise together even 
though, until path momen,t miccha-ditthi is latent ( but gradually 
being erased by right seeing).
best wishes
robert
	
9891

From: egberdina <hhofman@d...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 2:48am
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
Dear Sarah,

Comments interspersed below:

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
> Dear Herman and Victor,
> 
> > 
> > Can you give examples from the suttas where the Buddha suggests 
that 
> > development of insight is a passive process, requiring no effort 
or 
> > determination?
> 
> ********************
> Sarah:
> However `rousing' the suttas may sound and however much `striving' 
is
> encouraged, we should remember that all realities are not self. 
this doesn't
> mean that there shouldn't be an urgency, but that there is no self 
to `exert'
> or be energetic or control the phenomena at this moment.

H:
I do not understand anything when concepts of self and not-self are 
used in the same context. Does anyone else? 

"We should remember that all realities are not-self". I really don't 
know what to make of that line. Who should remember? Is there control 
over what is remembered? And given the not-self that that particular 
who, who is trying to remember that he/she is a not-self, what is 
shoulding?

If you are going to tell me about conventional realities and absolute 
realities, could I be so bold and ask you to rewrite "We should 
remember that all realities are not-self" in absolute terms only.

Thanks either way, screaming chief :-)


Herman
	
9892

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 4:29am
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
Dear Egberdina's Grandson (or namas and rupas if you want only absolute terms
here too;-)

--- egberdina <hhofman@d...> wrote:

> If you are going to tell me about conventional realities and absolute 
> realities, could I be so bold and ask you to rewrite "We should 
> remember that all realities are not-self" in absolute terms only.
> 

"Understanding (panna) knows whatever citta (consciousness such as seeing or
hearing), cetasika (mental factor such as like, dislike or feeling) or rupa
(physical reality which doesn't experience such as sound or hardness) appears
as anatta (not self)". 

> Thanks either way, screaming chief :-)

Hope it helps

rgds,
More namas and rupas (or screaming chief just to you only....;-)

	
9893

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 0:22am
Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Discarding' Sammaadi.t.thi

 	
Hi, Mike -

In a message dated 12/7/01 3:39:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
mlnease@y... writes:


> p.s. As I understand it, mundane right view refers
> not to conventional right view but to right view
> arising with four or five of the other
> path-factors--i.e., satipatthaana. If so we have
> three here: Conceptual, satipatthaana and maggacitta.
> I may well be wrong about these technical details, though...
> 
> 
==========================
I was being sloppy, conflating the latter two, I'm afraid. I agree 
that it makes sense to distinguish the three. 
I suspect that the middle one of the three, "sub-maggic" wisdom, also 
only occurs in a clinging-free state, though it might be *succeeded* by a 
state involving strong desire. Wisdom arises only in an equanimous state, as 
I understand it.

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) 




	
9894

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 0:40am
Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Discarding' Sammaadi.t.thi

 	
Gotcha! Thanks, Robert.

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 12/7/01 4:58:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp@y... 
writes:


> Dear Howard,
> We tend to have the idea that we really exist; even after we heard 
> Dhamma alot. But I think it is good to consider that life lasts only 
> for the briefest moment: the robert who began writing this post 
> vanished forever billions of lifetimes ago. Some of those 
> brief 'lives' there may have been samma-ditthi of some level, while 
> in other 'lives' there may have been just ignorance or even miccha-
> ditthi, this is all happening in minutes or seconds . Because there 
> are conditioning factors such as asevena paccaya and upanissaya 
> paccaya there can be the accumulation of both good and bad factors 
> such as samma and miccha ditthi. But they can't arise together even 
> though, until path momen,t miccha-ditthi is latent ( but gradually 
> being erased by right seeing).
> best wishes
> robert
> 


/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) 




	
9895

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 7:47am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)

 	
--- ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> wrote:
> Robert,
> 
> Thanks for this, it is helpful. I think trying to define a self as an 
> actual entity by flipping over what the Buddha had said was not-self, 
> is the brick wall I found....as you say an assumption that is based 
> on confusion'.
> 
> And on the Possum kamma issue :-) - I am way past 'making' my son do 
> anything he doesn't want to do. (Twenty five years old, 6'3'' and 90 
> kg.) So, the possums and I(did I mention there is more than one) have 
> to work out our kamma together......
> 
> metta,
> Christine

probably for the best. : }

Robert Ep.



	
9896

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 7:47am
Subject: Re: [dsg] metta, kamma, social conscience and vipassana

 	
--- Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> wrote:
> --- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > 
> > --- Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
> > 
> > > And good to chat again.....now I need to attend to 'my patient' (Jon's
> > just
> > > come home after some minor surgery on his head.....)
> > 
> > Oh geez, talk about arising conditions. 
> > I'm glad that neither of us takes our family members to be 'merely
> > illusions'. 
> > <g>
> > And please wish him the best!
> 
> Thanks, Rob. I always knew that being thick-skulled would work to my
> advantage one day!
> 
> Jon

ha ha! hope you recuperate well and quickly.

Robert Ep.



	
9897

From: <srnsk@a...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 3:31am
Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Discarding' Sammaadi.t.thi

 	
Hi Mike, Howard and everyone:


> p.s. As I understand it, mundane right view refers
> not to conventional right view but to right view
> arising with four or five of the other
> path-factors--i.e., satipatthaana. If so we have
> three here: Conceptual, satipatthaana and maggacitta.
> I may well be wrong about these technical details, though...
> 
> 

Let me share my opinion a little bit. 

I think, sammaditthi means purely panna cetasika. Michaditthi means ditthi 
cetasika, which as you mentioned, always arises with fixing or clinging 
(lobha cetasika) and also moha as well. My understanding is moha is a 
completely opposite of panna. Moha arises with every akusala citta. So panna 
is an opposite of moha, and michadithi is a subset in lobha-mula-citta which 
is also a subset of akusala citta(have to have moha in it).

Not all kusula citta accompany with panna. Panna itself has various levels, 
dhana, sila and bhavana. I think, for one who not attain lokuttara level, 
their panna is not lokuttara panna. Mean sammaditthi is there but not at the 
level of lokuttara yet. Once enter the stream (sotapan), micha-ditthi is 
completely eradicated but moha still can be there. So no more wrong view but 
still with ignorance(moha).

Not all akusala citta are accomapied with michaditthi as well. At the moment 
of dosa, there is no clinging , no michaditthi. But if we take or grasp that 
aramana, citta or cetasika as ours, as entities or as self, that later moment 
can be lobha as well as micha-ditthi

So, with panna there cannot be michaditthi or even moha, both 
lokeya(mundane!) and lokuttara(supramundane!). 

To me ditthi means fixing of view, for example as mentioned in ditthi 62 in 
Promachala sutta or sakayaditthi 20 as mentioned in Punnama sutta about 
khandha, upadhana and causes of sakayaditthi.

Just my opinion.


Hope everything going well, Mike.

Num



	
9898

From: Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 10:05am
Subject: Cambodia, Ch 14, no 1

 	
Cambodian Lectures, by A. Sujin. no. 1

Chapter 14.

Dhamma Discussion in Hotel Gaggalok, Siem Reap (Part IV)

Pramesavara: Is it necessary to read your book ³A Survey of Paramattha
Dhammas² entirely?

Sujin: No matter what we read, the aim should be the understanding of
realities. We may have read a great deal, the Tipitaka and the Commentaries,
but we should take part of Dhamma discussions and it should be emhasized
from now on that dhamma, reality, appears at this very moment. We heard
about realities while we listened to the Dhamma, but they are appearing now.
Someone can test his understanding of all that he has learnt, by finding out
whether he can really understand the characteristics of realities that are
appearing now, or not yet. Generally there are two ways of study: by way of
repeating and memorizing and by way of testing or verifying. As to the way
of repeating or memorizing, we should forego that method. Some people
believe that they should repeat for themselves what they learnt, but this
leads only to remembering what was learnt, not to understanding it.
Memorizing the subjects one learnt takes a long time, and moreover, when
someone does not understand what he learnt he is bound to forget it, and
thus it is not useful.

At this moment realities are appearing. What do we learn? We learn to
understand the dhammas that are real at this moment, and we should not
forget that this is our goal. Some people learn the Dhamma by repetition and
memorizing, and then they check their knowledge. Others memorize what they
learnt but do not check their knowledge. Others again do not repeat,
memorize or check their knowledge, they just study but do not consider the
goal of their study. The goal is the understanding of the truth of the
realities that are appearing. If someone understands the goal, he will not
study what is beyond his ability to understand. Our understanding is not of
the degree of the understanding of the Sammåsambuddha. The Buddha taught in
his great wisdom the three parts of the Tipitaka in all details during
fortyfive years. All people read the same scriptures, but why do they
practise in different ways? Their practice shows whether they understand the
goal of their study or not. It shows whether they comprehend the way to
reach this goal, the real understanding of realities, or not. When we study
different subjects of the Tipitaka, of the Vinaya, the Book of Discipline,
the Suttanta or the Abhidhamma, we should know for ourselves to what degree
we can understand what we have read. Can we understand only a little or is
our understanding the same as the paññå of the Sammåsambuddha? Do we study
in order to acquire theoretical knowledge, or do we see that the
understanding we gain from the study will help us to clearly know realities
as they are? For example, we may understand the object-condition,
årammana-paccaya which is one condition among the conditions for realities.
Anything that citta cognizes is the object of citta, it conditions the citta
by being its object. An object is what citta is cognizing or experiencing,
and this pertains to this very moment now. The object is an important
condition for citta, citta cannot do without it. If there is no object that
can be known by citta, citta cannot arise. If sound does not impinge on the
earsense, hearing cannot arise. Thus, the object, that which citta cognizes,
is a condition for the arising of citta by being its object. Citta is the
element, the reality that experiences, and there must be an object that can
be known so that citta can arise at that moment. A simile can help us to
understand this better. Just as a disabled person has no strength to stand
up by himself but needs something he can hold on to and by which he can pull
himself up so that his body can stand erect, evenso is the object the
condition for the arising of citta. It is helpful to understand this
condition, and when people gradually study the other conditions with right
understanding it will help them to understand the realities at this moment.
In this way there are conditions for sammå-sati to arise and to be aware of
their characteristics. However, if a person just memorizes what he reads in
the texts but he is not able to understand the characteristics of the
realities that 
are appearing, his study is not useful.
	
9899

From: Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 10:05am
Subject: FW: [abhidhamma] Three Questions on Abh.

 	
Dear friends, I forward this, because some of you may be interested in these
issues. 
----------
Van: Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...>
Datum: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 11:13:48 +0100
Aan: <abhidhamma@yahoogroups.com>
Onderwerp: Re: [abhidhamma] Three Questions

06-12-2001 01:02 wrote Ranjith Pushpakumara
ranjith.pushpakumara@c...:

>>Question 3. 
>> "each citta conditions the next citta"
>> 
>> If each citta conditions the next citta to come, where is the opportunity
>> for one to exercise the free-will?
> I agree with the idea that each chitta arise due to conditions. But if there
> is an unbroken linkage of conditioning the successor by the predecessor,
> Wouldn't that make the beings 'fully automated machines by the kamma'?

Dear Ranjith, starting with your Q 3:

Each citta that falls away conditions the arising of next one, this is one
of the many conditions for citta: anantara-paccaya, contiguity condition. If
our life would not be an unbroken series of cittas, we could not stay alive.
Cittas arise and fall away extremely fast. We see only what appears through
the eyes, but it seems that we see and immediately know this or that person
is there, this or that thing, and that we also at the same time have like or
dislike of what we see. In reality there are countless moments of cittas
succeeding one another. The fact that many impressions seem to occur all at
the same time shows that cittas arise and fall away, succeeding one another
extremely fast. 
Because cittas arise in succession, without a pause in between, there can be
accumulation of good and bad qualities, kusala cetasikas and akusala
cetasikas, from moment to moment, from one life to the next one. Attachment,
aversion, metta, pa~n~naa, these can be accumulated so that there are
conditions for their arising again and again. This is another type of
condition: natural strong dependance-condition, pakatupanissaya-paccaya. If
as a child you were taught generosity, generosity is accumulated, because
each citta is succeeded by a next one, and thus, there are conditions for
the arising again of generosity. There is no person who is good or bad,
there are cittas accompanied by cetasikas arising because of their own
conditions.
Where is the free will or right effort, are we automatic machines? Not at
all. We are not helpless victims of fate, as someone thought. Understanding
of our life can be developed, and this is because of the Dhamma the Buddha
realized through his enlightenment and taught for fortyfive years.
Conditions for pa~n~naa can be accumulated by listening, carefully
considering and by mindfulness of nama and rupa. We cannot control
mindfulness, sati, it is anatta, and if we try to do this there is lobha, a
factor which hinders the arising of sati. Just listening and investigation
of what occurs in our life now can condition the arising of sati. We can
study the Dhamma but, as A. Sujin reminded us very often, we should study
with the right purpose: to have more understanding of this moment now, of
seeing now, attachment now, anger now. Otherwise our study is useless. Thus,
we should ask ourselves: how is this or that point of the Abhidhamma related
to this moment now?
Intention or volition, cetana, is a cetasika arising with each citta, and
when kusala citta arises volition is kusala, when akusala citta arises,
volition is akusala. Since cittas arise and fall away in succession
extremely rapidly, can we say to ourselves, I want to have kusala cetana at
this very moment? Is it not better to see cetana as a conditioned reality?
If we understand conditions, free will does not have to be an issue anymore.
It is the same with effort. There is right effort, but it is a cetasika, not
us. It arises because of conditions.
You mention kamma, and this is another type of condition. Kusala kamma and
akusala kamma are also accumulated and can produce results later on by way
of rebirth, or by way of vipakacittas that experience pleasant or unpleasant
objects through the senses. Kamma-condition is a type of condition different
from natural strong dependence-condition that causes us to be attached now
or to be angry now.

R: Question 1 :The following statement is found in your article "Listening
to Dhamma
Chapter II ,The Meaning of Dhamma";

"Seeing-consciousness and its accompanying cetasikas "dwell in the eye", the
eye is their place of dependence and the place where they originate:
seeing-consciousness arises at the eyebase; hearing-consciousness arises at
the ear-base and the other sense-cognitions arise at their respective
bases." 
When you say, "seeing-consciousness arises at the eyebase" what did you mean
by the "'eyebase"? which physical organs make up the eyebase?

The Visuddhi Magga says that the seat (base) of the mind is heart. (My
ignorant consciousness does not agree with Visuddhimagga for it!).

According to your view, there are six such 'bases' for six types of
consciousness and their associated chethasikas.

I am in a difficult situation with above differences in understanding. Can
you please help?

Nina: the eyebase is a rúpa that is eyesense, it is sensitive to visible
object or colour, it can receive that object when it impinges on the
eyesense and then there are conditions for the arising of seeing. Seeing
must arise at a physical base, because we are nama and rupa, it does not
arise in the air, outside the body. The physical base is the eyebase. It
functions also as doorway, not only for seeing-consciousness, but also for
the other cittas arising in that process. These cittas also need a physical
place of origin and that is not the eyebase. It is a kind of rupa called in
the commentary the heartbase. In the Patthana it is referred to as "that
rupa", it is not named heartbase. It is a reality, a rupa, and it is not
important how it is named. We do not have to pinpoint where it is exactly
located, near the heart. In India A. Sujin reminded us many times not to
cling to names and terms, it is the understanding of the reality that
matters. The Buddha realized the truth without needing names or words, but
he used words to explain realities she said.
Thus, seeing arises when the right conditions are present, and the rúpas
which condition it are eyesense and colour or visible object. What about
this moment, shouldn't we verify this at this moment? There is seeing now,
but not self who sees. Can we make seeing arise? It has arisen already
because of conditions. I have to remind myself too: do I really consider and
investigate this? We have to see, we have to hear, because there are
conditions, no I who can cause their arising. If we (reminding myself) do
not consider this again and again we cannot understand the meaning of
anatta. 
When cittas are classified by way of doorway, we can speak of six classes,
but, as you know there are 89 or 121 cittas in all. They need a physical
base, place of origin.The five sense-cognitions have as base the five
senses, and all the other cittas have as their base the heartbase. The
heartbase is not the mind-door, that is a citta, the last citta before the
mind-door process starts. Only for the sense-cognitions of seeing, hearing,
etc. base (vatthu) and doorway (dvaara) are the same kind of rupa. Thus,
when we classify cittas as sixfold (but this is not the only classification)
we have to think of doorways, not bases.

>Question 2: 
> 
N: "When a pleasant visible object is experienced attachment is likely to
> arise and when an unpleasant object is experienced aversion is likely to
> arise and this happens already during the eye-door process, before we
> think of the meaning of what we experience".
> 
Ranjith: At the Chakku-dwra-vajjana chitthakshan, the rupa presented at the
door
> hasn't been identified by the sanna as yet. Therefore, there can not
> determination (that happens only at Votthapana) as 'pleasant' or
> 'unpleasant'. If this is the case, the statement " this happens already
> during the eye-door process, before we think of the meaning of what we
> experience" may not be valid.

Nina: Let us look at daily life. When we experience a disgusting odour,
aversion can arise before it is known as the smell of this or that. When a
delicious morsel of food is on the tongue: attachment before knowing it is
the flavour of this or that. We are sitting on a soft chair. The rupa that
is softness may appear through the bodysense: attachment arises already, but
we may not even realize that there is attachment, for example just now while
we are sitting. Shall we check this? Many moments of akusala cittas arise
but we do not even notice them. As I explained, cittas arise so extremely
fast, it seems that many impressions occur all at the same time. But there
are different realities each with their own characteristic. We do not have
to think of sa~n~naa or of votthapana. True, after votthapanacitta there are
javana cittas which can be kusala or akusala. These cittas arise because of
accumulated conditions. We don't have to do anything to have lobha or dosa,
they arise already. Citta knows, not we. After odour or flavour is
experienced during the sense-door process it is experienced through the
mind-door, and again there can be aversion or attachment. It is still not
known what kind of odour or flavour it is. That is known afterwards in other
mind-door processes which experience concepts.
Instead of lobha or dosa understanding, pa~n~nå can arise, also in
sense-door processes. It all depends on conditions, not on us.
When there are the right conditions, listening, considering, pa~n~naa works
its way, A. Sujin reminded us in India. She also said that the development
of pa~n~naa can be very natural, one can learn about one's own
accumulations. We can take life easy, not as an excuse for akusala, but we
should not have anxiety about it. Lobha arises because it is accumulated,
otherwise it would not arise. People say that they dislike it, but this is
not true. Can we live without lobha? We have to be sincere, truthful. It is
good to know one's accumulations. She said: "If akusala does not arise, how
can one know that one still has it?" Thus, we can learn from our akusala.
This is the way to develop understanding.

Nina. 
> 



	
9900

From: ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 11:44am
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
Dear Egberdina,

You wrote:"Who should remember? Is there control 
over what is remembered? And given the not-self that that particular 
who, who is trying to remember that he/she is a not-self, what is 
shoulding?"

This is very serious.....you are beginning to sound like 
me.......maybe a sophisticated computer virus (W32.possum@mm....)
Deep breaths now....in with the good....out with the bad

Cheers,
Ellaruthau

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "egberdina" <hhofman@d...> wrote:
> Dear Sarah,
> 
> Comments interspersed below:
> 
> --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
> > Dear Herman and Victor,
> > 
> > > 
> > > Can you give examples from the suttas where the Buddha suggests 
> that 
> > > development of insight is a passive process, requiring no 
effort 
> or 
> > > determination?
> > 
> > ********************
> > Sarah:
> > However `rousing' the suttas may sound and however much 
`striving' 
> is
> > encouraged, we should remember that all realities are not self. 
> this doesn't
> > mean that there shouldn't be an urgency, but that there is no 
self 
> to `exert'
> > or be energetic or control the phenomena at this moment.
> 
> H:
> I do not understand anything when concepts of self and not-self are 
> used in the same context. Does anyone else? 
> 
> "We should remember that all realities are not-self". I really 
don't 
> know what to make of that line. Who should remember? Is there 
control 
> over what is remembered? And given the not-self that that 
particular 
> who, who is trying to remember that he/she is a not-self, what is 
> shoulding?
> 
> If you are going to tell me about conventional realities and 
absolute 
> realities, could I be so bold and ask you to rewrite "We should 
> remember that all realities are not-self" in absolute terms only.
> 
> Thanks either way, screaming chief :-)
> 
> 
> Herman
	
9901

From: m. nease <mlnease@y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 3:39pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Discarding' Sammaadi.t.thi

 	
Hi Howard,

--- upasaka@a... wrote:

> ==========================
> I was being sloppy, conflating the latter
> two, I'm afraid. I agree 
> that it makes sense to distinguish the three. 
> I suspect that the middle one of the three,
> "sub-maggic" wisdom, also 
> only occurs in a clinging-free state, though it
> might be *succeeded* by a 
> state involving strong desire. 

Yes, and preceded too, I think--by pretty much any
state at all.

> Wisdom arises only in
> an equanimous state, as 
> I understand it.

That's the way I see it too. A conventional way of
saying this, I think, is that 'wisdom detaches'--this
dispenses with the question, I think, of 'who 'lets
go''?

mike

	
9902

From: m. nease <mlnease@y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 3:50pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Discarding' Sammaadi.t.thi

 	
Hi Num,

--- srnsk@a... wrote:

> Let me share my opinion a little bit. 
> 
> I think, sammaditthi means purely panna cetasika. 
> Michaditthi means ditthi 
> cetasika, which as you mentioned, always arises with
> fixing or clinging 
> (lobha cetasika) and also moha as well. My
> understanding is moha is a 
> completely opposite of panna. Moha arises with every
> akusala citta. So panna 
> is an opposite of moha, and michadithi is a subset
> in lobha-mula-citta which 
> is also a subset of akusala citta (have to have moha
> in it).

This is a really interesting way of looking at it--it
sounds right to me.

> Not all kusula citta accompany with panna. Panna
> itself has various levels, 
> dhana, sila and bhavana. 

I understand daana, siila or bhaavanaa as arising with
all kusala--but is this also true of pa~n~naa? Can't
pa~n~naa also arise, say, with vipaaka or kiriya
citta?

> I think, for one who not
> attain lokuttara level, 
> their panna is not lokuttara panna. 

Right--but can be satipa.t.thaana, I think.

> Mean sammaditthi
> is there but not at the 
> level of lokuttara yet. Once enter the stream
> (sotapan), micha-ditthi is 
> completely eradicated but moha still can be there.
> So no more wrong view but 
> still with ignorance(moha).

Right!

> Not all akusala citta are accomapied with
> michaditthi as well. At the moment 
> of dosa, there is no clinging , no michaditthi. But
> if we take or grasp that 
> aramana, citta or cetasika as ours, as entities or
> as self, that later moment 
> can be lobha as well as micha-ditthi

Yes...

> So, with panna there cannot be michaditthi or even
> moha, both 
> lokeya(mundane!) and lokuttara(supramundane!). 

Right again, I think.

> To me ditthi means fixing of view, for example as
> mentioned in ditthi 62 in 
> Promachala sutta or sakayaditthi 20 as mentioned in
> Punnama sutta about 
> khandha, upadhana and causes of sakayaditthi.

I'll have a look--thanks for the citations.

> Just my opinion.

Good ones I think (meaning according with the
dhammavinaya, as I understand it).

> Hope everything going well, Mike.

Going well, thanks Num. I should know more this
afternoon and will keep you posted.

mike

	
9903

From: onco111 <dalthorp@o...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 7:21pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Discarding' Sammaadi.t.thi

 	
> > Wisdom arises only in
> > an equanimous state, as 
> > I understand it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "equanimous" here. What then of the 
distincion between the sense sphere sobhana cittas associated with 
wisdom and accompanied by joy vs. accompanied by equanimity? And what 
of the fine-material jhanas accompanied by rapture and/or happiness 
(piti and sukkha) vs. the fine-material jhana accompanied by 
equanimity? Pañña accompanies all these states but piti, sukkha, 
somanassa aren't exactly equanimity. 

Hmmm... Different aspects of equanimity (upekkha), some of which must 
accompany wisdom (viz. equanimity qua detachment), some of which may 
not (viz. equanimity qua neutral feeling).

Onco111 (a.k.a. Dan)
	

9904

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 2:33pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Discarding' Sammaadi.t.thi

 	
Hi, Dan -

In a message dated 12/7/01 10:23:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
dalthorp@o... writes:


> 
> > > Wisdom arises only in
> > > an equanimous state, as 
> > > I understand it.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "equanimous" here. What then of the 
> distincion between the sense sphere sobhana cittas associated with 
> wisdom and accompanied by joy vs. accompanied by equanimity? And what 
> of the fine-material jhanas accompanied by rapture and/or happiness 
> (piti and sukkha) vs. the fine-material jhana accompanied by 
> equanimity? Pañña accompanies all these states but piti, sukkha, 
> somanassa aren't exactly equanimity. 
> 
> Hmmm... Different aspects of equanimity (upekkha), some of which must 
> accompany wisdom (viz. equanimity qua detachment), some of which may 
> not (viz. equanimity qua neutral feeling).
> 
> Onco111 (a.k.a. Dan)
> 
> 
===========================
I'm thinking of equanimity as detachment/unrufflability/satisfaction, 
being free of craving and of aversion.

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) 







9905

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 8:40pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Self' as object of discernment (was, Eightfold Path (esp. right effort))

 	
Rob ep

--- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > 
[Jon:]
> > Let me suggest something that you may well wish to take issue with. 
> > Without the direct awareness of the characteristic of a present
> reality
> > (dhamma) at a given moment, any 'understanding' of anatta at that or
> any
> > other moment is understanding at the thinking level. In other words,
> I am
> > suggesting that, regardless of the depth of one's pondering over
> anatta
> > and one's ability to relate that concept to one's 'self' or the
> > experiences of the present moment, it is thinking only and so is
> > understanding at a purely conceptual level.
[Rob:]
> Let me just ask you on the way, do you think that one's 'self' can be
> the object
> of discernment to see the principle of anatta at play in the present
> moment? Can
> one look to the 'self' to see that it is really not an entity but a
> thought-form?

I think that what the Buddha had to say about 'no-self' is very complex. 
If I had to try and summarise the Buddha’s message on the subject, I would
say it was that whatever we take or could possibly take for 'self' cannot
truly be said to be 'self'.

The term 'not-self' was used by the Buddha to explain about dhammas. 
'Dhammas' in this context has the specific meaning of 'realities', as
distinct from concepts. While concepts are entirely a creation of the
mind, realities have an individual characteristic (or 'essence') and
perform a specific function. Every dhamma is impermanent, unsatisfactory
and 'not-self' and so, in addition to its unique individual
characteristic, shares these attributes as characteristics in common.

The dhammas that are said to be 'not-self' are not only those dhammas that
we think of as 'me' (our body, feelings, thoughts, mind etc) but also
anything and everything in the world around us. This indicates I think
that the (wrong) concept of self the Buddha was talking about is not
limited to the concept of 'the self that is me'.

To answer your question, it is my understanding that only at moments when
a 'dhamma' is the object of awareness or understanding can there be a
direct appreciation of the aspect of 'not-self' in the sense that the
Buddha talked about it. At other moments, for example even if we were to
reflect deeply how the idea we have of 'ourself' is really a creation of
our imagination and not verifiable in any meaningful sense, there can be
nothing more than a level of intellectual understanding aboout the
concept, a kind of thinking rather than a knowing by direct experience. I
do not mean to disparage such thinking, simply to indicate that it should
not be taken for the development of the path taught by the Buddha.

To summarise, I see the understanding of 'not-self' as being directly
linked to the teaching on satipatthana, and not realisable by other means.

Hope this answers your question.

Jon


	
9906

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 8:47pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Eightfold Path (esp. right effort)

 	
Rob Ep

--- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > 
> I don't mean to be dense, Jon, but I'm not sure exactly what you are or
> aren't
> taking exception to in my discussion below. If the 'separate factors to
> be
> developed' theory is wrong, then it is just as wrong for people who
> think they're
> Buddhists. If I am aware of anatta as a concept, as you describe, and
> this will
> not help to develop satipatthana, then how am I better off than a
> mundanely aware
> non-Buddhist?

Rob, the conclusion you have drawn is exactly the point I was trying to
make ;-)), but you have put it rather more succinctly than I ever could. 
Being 'aware of the concept of anatta' is a level of intellectual
understanding. Of a wholly different level is the understanding of
realities by direct experience that sees each reality as having the
characteristic of 'not-self'. This understanding does not follow
automatically from an awareness of the concept of anatta.

Of course, the person who has heard of this aspect of the teaching at
least has the opportunity to go on and develop that understanding, so
obviously familiarity with the concept of anatta is an indispensable step
in the process; but this in itself is not sufficient to condition
understanding of a quality or strength different to that of the person who
has not heard of the concept.

The crucial difference between awareness of the concept of anatta and an
understanding of anatta by direct experience of realities is, of course,
the understanding of the characteristic of a presently appearing reality. 
For the latter to occur, the correct conditions must be in place. There
must be the right reflection on what has been heard or read, and its
relating to the experience of the present moment – a wholly different set
of conditions than are required to give rise to an awareness of the
concept of anatta.

> I think that what you are saying implies that there are no true
> pracitioners of
> Buddhism who have not entered the supra-mundane level. All else,
> whether Buddhist
> or non-Buddhist is just conventional effort that has nothing really to
> do with the
> Buddha's teachings.
> 
> You seem to be saying here that even being subjected to the teachings of
> the
> suttas will not help if one is still conceptualizing. Thus this seems
> to put the
> mundane Buddhist on the same par as the mundane non-Buddhist.

Well, not quite. What I'm saying is, there is the person who has not
heard of anatta, then there is the person who has become aware of the
concept of anatta but has not understood correctly the means of
development of satipatthana, and then the person who has by the
development of satipatthana/vipassana gained some realisation of anatta as
a characteristic of dhammas. Each can be seen as a different stage of
development.

The crucial difference between the 2nd and 3rd of these types is, as I
have said above, the understanding of the characteristic of a presently
appearing reality, in other words, mundane right view. This quality of
understanding cannot arise simply from 'conceptualising' about the
teachings, no matter how ‘deep’ that conceptualizing may be.

> I would tend to have a less severe view of mundane efforts, whether
> Buddhist or
> non-Buddhist and tend to think that they are gradually leading to an
> ability to
> really discern the characteristics of the moment with satipatthana. 
> Moments of
> mindfulness, of sati, should in either case gradually accumulate to
> allow for
> satipatthana, real insight, and in those moments the truth of anatta,
> anicca and
> dukkha should perhaps be visible to the experiencer.

Perhaps our point of difference here is whether a person who has never
heard the teaching can have any moments of satipatthana.

> I tend to think that the Buddha found real and actual principles that
> exist 'in
> nature', and therefore, anyone who practices discernment for a period of
> time
> should eventually get some glimpse of this. I would certainly think
> that reading
> the Suttas and knowing 'what to look for' conceptually should help the
> focus and
> speed up the time that one might see the truth of these principles in
> actual
> living observation.
> 
> Anyway, I am really not sure what the conclusion of this is, but I think
> that the
> mundane path leads slowly to the supra-mundane path, and that the
> non-Buddhist
> mundan path may be a lot less efficient than the Buddhist mundane path,
> but that
> even this path, if followed sincerely, *may* eventually open a door to
> an
> understanding of non-entity, impermanence, and the universal nature of
> dissatisfaction or suffering.

Well, since we are fortunate enough to have met the Buddha's teachings in
this lifetime we perhaps don't need to speculate on whether or to what
extent someone who hasn't is able to develop the same understanding. We
can focus our efforts on discussing exactly what that path is, as taught
by the Buddha ;-)) ;-)).

> Whaddaya think?
> 
> And if this is not true, how *do* the supra-mundane path factors ever
> 'kick in'?

I of course would agree that the supramundane path factors can only arise
as the culmination of the development of the mundane path factors. Hence
my interest in discussing this aspect of the teachings ;-))

> Good talking to you, and I mean that! I like this topic.
> 
> Best,
> Robert Ep.

Me too, Rob.

Jon


	
9907

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 8:48pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimate realities

 	
Ken O (and Howard)

--- Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> wrote: > Hi Jon
> 
> I would prefer to change the word of ultimate maybe to fundamental or
> empirical, or root 

Yes, this may be a useful way to think of it, and seems to fit the
description given for 'paramattha'. The only problem is the literal
meaning of the word 'paramattha'. For an explanation of the Pali term,
see the following explanation from the commentary summary in CMA:

"Ultimate realities are things that exist by reason of their own extrinsic
nature (sabhaava). These are the dhammas: the final, irreducible
components of existence, the ultimate entities which result from a
correctly performed analysis of experience. Hence the word ‘paramattha’
is applied to them, which is derived from ‘parama’ = ultimate, highest,
final, and ‘attha’ = reality, thing."

I suppose the main thing is that we understand the meaning of what is
being said, regardless of the term used to convey that meaning.

I have copied below the entire section from which the passage above is
taken. It contains some useful observations on the difference between
concepts and realities, and also on the question of why realities are not
normally apparent to us as they really are (this was the subject of some
recent posts on another thread).

Jon

CMA, Ch 1
#2 
The things contained in the Abhidhamma are fourfold from the standpoint of
ultimate reality (paramatthato): consciousness (citta), mental factors
(cetasika), matter (rupa), and Nibbana.

Guide to #2 
According to the Abhidhamma philosophy, there are 2 kinds of realities—the
conventional (sammuti) and the ultimate (paramattha). Conventional
realities are the referents of ordinary conceptual thought (pannatti) and
conventional modes of expression (vohaara). They include such entities as
living beings, men, women, animals, and the apparently stable persisting
objects that constitute our unanalyzed picture of the world. The
Abhidhamma philosophy maintains that these notions do not possess ultimate
validity, for the objects which they signify [ie. the living beings, men,
women, animals etc] do not exist in their own right as irreducible
realities. Their mode of being is conceptual, not actual. They are
products of mental construction (parikappanaa), not realities existing by
reason of their own nature.

Ultimate realities, in contrast, are things that exist by reason of their
own extrinsic nature (sabhaava). These are the dhammas: the final,
irreducible components of existence, the ultimate entities which result
from a correctly performed analysis of experience. Hence the word
‘paramattha’ is applied to them, which is derived from ‘parama’ =
ultimate, highest, final, and ‘attha’ = reality, thing.

Ultimate realities are not only the ultimate existents, but are also the
ultimate objects of right knowledge. As one extracts oil from sesame
seed, so one can extract the ultimate realities from the conventional
realities. Concepts do not possess ultimacy. It is the objective
actualities that lie behind our conceptual constructs – the dhammas – that
form the ultimate realities of the Abhidhamma.

Ultimate realities are so subtle and profound that an ordinary person
cannot see them. His mind is obscured by concepts. Only by means of wise
attention to things (yoniso manasikara) can one see beyond the concepts. 
Thus ‘paramattha’ is described as that which belongs to the domain of
ultimate or supreme knowledge.
[ends]



	
9908

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 8:54pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Pacceka Buddha (was, Eightfold Path (esp. right effort))

 	
Howard

--- upasaka@a... wrote: 
> Hi, Jon -

> Jon, I've read the dictionary entry you post below, and it seems
> to me 
> to say just the opposite. According to it, a paccekabuddha would NOT
> have 
> heard the Dhamma in a previous lifetime. It states "This is a term for
> an 
> Arahat who has realized Nibbána without having heard the Buddha's
> doctrine 
> from others. He comprehends the 4 Noble Truths individually (pacceka), 
> independent of any teacher, by his own effort."
> 
> With metta,
> Howard

I read the passage you quote as referring to the Pacceka Buddha not having
heard the Dhamma *in the lifetime in which he attains final
enlightenment*. Certainly, that is how I have always understood the
position. Otherwise, his achievement of attaining arahatship would be
even more remarkable than that of the Buddha!

In the entry (below) it refers to an aspiration uttered before a Perfect
Buddha. Can I persuade you that this confirms my understanding on this
point?

Of course, this question has a bearing on our other thread concerning the
development of the path-factors other than by one who has heard the
doctrine in that lifetime. I understand now your reference to 'pure'
paccekabuddhas (but for reasons already given do not share your
understanding on this point).

Jon

> > Pacceka-buddha: 
> > An 'Independently Enlightened One'; or Separately or Individually
> > (=pacceka) Enlightened One (renderings by 'Silent' or 'Private Buddha'
> are
> > not very apt). 
> > This is a term for an Arahat who has realized Nibbána without having
> heard
> > the Buddha's doctrine from others. He comprehends the 4 Noble Truths
> > individually (pacceka), independent of any teacher, by his own effort.
> He
> > has, however, not the capacity to proclaim the Teaching effectively to
> > others, and therefore does not become a 'Teacher of Gods and Men', a
> > Perfect or Universal Buddha (sammá-sambuddha).
> > Paccekabuddhas are described as frugal of speech, cherishing solitude.
> > According to tradition, they do not arise while the Teaching of a
> Perfect
> > Buddha is known; but for achieving their rank after many aeons of
> effort,
> > they have to utter an aspiration before a Perfect Buddha.
> > Canonical references are few:
> > - Pug. 29 (defin.);
> > - A. II, 56;
> > - in M. 116, names of many Paccekabuddhas are given;
> > - in D. 16 they are said to be worthy of a thúpa (dagoba);
> > - the Treasure-Store Sutta (Nidhikhandha Sutta, Khp.) mentions
> > pacceka-bodhi;
> > - the C. Nidd. ascribes to individual Paccekabuddhas the verses of
> the
> > Rhinoceros Sutta (Khaggavisána Sutta, Sn.) 


	
9909

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 9:00pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Eightfold Path (esp. right view)

 	
Howard

> -----------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I am quite certain that in numerous suttas right concentration is
> 
> defined as the attainment of the jhanas. A prominent example is the 
> Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, the Buddha's very first sutta. It is really
> 
> quite explicit.
> On the other hand, the Buddha is not consistent in his
> definitions of 
> right concentration. In accordance with your understanding is the
> following 
> definition in the Maha-Cattarisaka Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya:
> "Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its supports
> & 
> requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven 
> factors -- right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right 
> livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness -- is called noble right 
> concentration with its supports & requisite conditions." 
> ----------------------------------------------------

I am familiar with the passages your refer to, Howard. But I do not take
the Buddha's meaning there to be that *right concentration of the Noble
Eightfold Path is to be developed by undertaking the development of
mundane jhana (and not otherwise)*, which is the generally held
interpretation nowadays. This interpretation, which is implicit rather
than express, does not in my view fit with the context of the Eightfold
Path as one of the 4 Noble Truths, and also is not supported by other
passages in the suttas that specifically spell out the factors that must
be developed if enlightenment is to be attained.

My own reading of these elaborations of the factors of the Noble Eightfold
Path is that they are descriptive of what is happening at the path-moment.
Thus the factor that is right concentration tells us that at a moment of
path consciousness right concentration has effect with an intensity
equivalent to that of a moment of jhana, and similarly, at the same moment
right effort is functioning to rouse and support kusala and overcome
akusala in the manner described by the 4 padhanas.

This interpretation is I think supported by the commentaries. I will try
to expand on this in a later post.

Jon

> P.S. This is amusing, Jon! I just noticed the number of the sutta you
> quote 
> below! It happens to be the Maha-Cattarisaka Sutta, the *very same*
> sutta I 
> quote "in your favor" above! ;-))

Just goes to show what they say about great minds, then, Howard ;;-)


	
9910

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 9:10pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Eightfold Path (esp. right view)

 	
Howard

--- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Jon -
> Actually, upon rereading this, I feel the need to reconsider my 
> statement that the above quoted material is an alternative definition of
> 
> right concentration. It is, more specifically a definition of *noble
> right 
> concentration with its supports & requisite conditions*, the emphasis
> being 
> mine. Yet I can't completely withdraw the previous statement, for this
> *does* 
> assert that right concentration has "right view, right resolve, right
> speech, 
> right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness" as
> "its 
> supports & requisite conditions". I don't think that the Buddha ever 
> indicates that right view is a prerequisite for attaining absorption by 
> traditional concentration on a single, relatively unchanging meditation 
> object such as a kasina, nor do I think that it is. On the other hand,
> in 
> many places, attaining the jhanas is exactly the Buddha's definition of
> right 
> concentration. On the face of it, this seems to be a bit of a problem. 
> There *is* one possible ploy which I could see as a "solution" to
> this 
> dilemma: Sayadaw U Pandita, a Burmese monk and meditation teacher, uses
> the 
> term 'vipassana jhana' to describe states of absorption that arise
> through 
> vipassana bhavana, these states being similar and somewhat parallel to
> the 
> absorptive states of samatha bhavana, and the implication in the
> Sayadaw's 
> writings is that it is *this* sort of jhana that is true Buddhist jhana.

What is being discussed here seems to be very simlar to the following
passage from CMA dealing with types of consciousness. The key part is in
the last paragraph: “ ... all path and fruition cittas are considered
types of jhana consciousness .. because they occur in the mode of closely
contemplating their object with full absorption, like the mundane jhanas,
and because they possess the jhana factors with an intensity corresponding
to their counterparts in the mundane jhanas”. (Although it is largely
self-explanatory, I have added some observations of my own -- these are
referenced by the numbers in square brackets).

So maybe it shouldn’t be seen as just a ‘ploy’??

Jon

CMA Ch. I, Guide (ie. summary of commentary) to ##30-31

“All meditators reach the supramundane paths and fruits through the
development of wisdom (panna) – insight into the three characteristics of
impermanence, suffering, and non-self. [1] However, they differ among
themselves in the degree of their development of concentration (samadhi).

“Those who develop insight without a basis of jhana are called
practitioners of bare insight (sukkhavipassaka). [2] When they reach the
path and fruit, their path and fruition cittas occur at a level
corresponding to the first jhana. [3]

“Those who develop insight on the basis of jhana attain a path and fruit
which corresponds to the level of jhana they had attained before reaching
the path...

“For bare insight meditator and jhana meditator alike, all path and
fruition cittas are considered types of jhana consciousness. They are so
considered because they occur in the mode of closely contemplating their
object with full absorption, like the mundane jhanas, and because they
possess the jhana factors with an intensity corresponding to their
counterparts in the mundane jhanas.” [4] 
[ends]
===================================

Jon's notes:
1. It is the development of understanding of the characteristics of
reality, rather than any other factor, that brings the attainment of the
path/enlightenment/8-fold path citta (magga citta).
2. Magga citta can be attained without the previus development of
concentration to the level of mundane jhana.
3. However, even for the sukkhavipassaka the concentration accompanying
the moment of path citta *‘corresponds to’* the first level of jhana.
4. The concentration accompanying magga citta is said to ‘correspond to’
jhana because the magga citta experiences its object with same full
absorption and intensity of other factors as the jhana citta.


	
9911

From: Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> 
Date: Fri Dec 7, 2001 9:59pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)

 	
Hello Christine,

I looked up the word "catechism" in the dictionary and found that this word
is full of connotations. I think 'catechism' is a very interesting word.

I hope everything works out for you. :-)

Regards and thanks,
Victor

----- Original Message -----
From: "ellaruthau" <cforsyth@v...>
To: <dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:59 AM
Subject: [dsg] Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)


> Hello Victor,
>
> I'll think about the brick wall.....I'm very good at backtracking :-)
> Always seem to be heading up blind alleys......
> I feel I have been quite unfair to you in the past :-)(recalling the
> Catechism remark) I have now decided to take the words "This is not
> mine, This I am not, This is not myself" as a sort of koan.....
> Maybe that'll bear more fruit than conscious searching, maybe it'll
> all work together, maybe it won't.......
> Thanks Victor,
> metta,
> Christine
> --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Victor Yu" <victoryu@s...> wrote:
> > Hello Christine,
> >
> > I think that if one knows how he or she found the brick wall, then
> one will
> > find the way out.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Victor
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "ellaruthau" <cforsyth@v...>
> > To: <dhammastudygroup@y...>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 3:11 AM
> > Subject: [dsg] Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Dear Robert,and All,
> > >
> > > Sorry, anatta again....thinking about the puppet quotes, they
> > > illustrate the impermanence of the body very well to me.... and
> raise
> > > issues of who or what is in control..... every puppet is owned by
> a
> > > puppet-master ...someone who pulls the strings.....makes it act, -
> > > controls it.
> > > Equating the body with an arrow (shaft) also brings to mind that
> > > there is an 'archer', who fits the arrow, and releases the bow-
> > > string, - aims it.
> > > I have also tried to understand this by thinking the 'life force'
> as
> > > the combination of engine and petrol in a car, with the mind as
> the
> > > ignition key......but, "whose" is the hand that turns the key in
> the
> > > car?.... - makes it move.
> > > The ship is the one I like best, because an impersonal set of
> > > conditions creates weather systems, and causes the wind that
> moves the
> > > ship.....but then, . 'Something' decides direction and steers it.
> > >
> > > After further thinking about puppets, dolls, archers, and ships,
> and
> > > reading a little more, I feel part of the problem I am having with
> > > Anatta is that the entire Western culture (literature, painting,
> > > poetry, science, religion, law, politics) is threaded through with
> > > the belief that there is a body which is impermanent and dies,
> > > plus 'something' immaterial, the soul, which is capable of living
> > > apart from the body after the bodys' death.( If this is not so, it
> > > is certainly going to affect the pleasure of reading - perhaps
> > > literature will lose some of its richness .....God has already
> gone,
> > > but imagine Donne without soul and death ....)
> > >
> > > When I look at a dead body, whether a baby or an aged person,
> there
> > > is no problem with realising that the body is Not-Self. But the
> > > distinct impression made (even without signs of disease or
> deliberate
> > > damage) is that 'something' has gone, is
> missing......the 'something'
> > > that vitalised the body. Just as in part of your quote 'but by
> means
> > > of their working together, this mental and bodily combination may
> > > move about, stand up, and appear full of life and activity."
> With a
> > > corpse, the body is still there, the 'something' (the mental
> part?)
> > > is absent......
> > > But the Buddha didn't think of anything as separate or separable
> from
> > > the body. Or did he?
> > >
> > > Looking at the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (The Not-Self Characteristic)
> > > sort of from the flip side, could it be inferred that the Buddha
> is
> > > saying that for'something' to be considered as Self it would :
> > > 1. Not lead to affliction
> > > 2. Obey the person of whom it is the Self
> > > 3. have to be permanent i.e. Pleasant, permanent, not
> > > subject to change.
> > >
> > > And I've just found the brick wall.....A gate somewhere, maybe?
> > >
> > > metta,
> > > Christine
	
9912

From: egberdina <hhofman@d...> 
Date: Sat Dec 8, 2001 2:10am
Subject: Re: FW: [abhidhamma] Three Questions on Abh.

 	
Dear Nina,

Thank you for posting the Cambodia series, and this one. It is food 
for thought. Which leads me to a question. You say: "Conditions for 
pa~n~naa can be accumulated by listening, carefully considering and 
by mindfulness of nama and rupa."

What are the conditions that can lead to listening, carefully 
considering and mindfulness. Is there the option of choosing to 
listen and what to listen to, choosing to carefully consider and what 
to consider, choosing to be mindful and what to be mindful of?

Wishing you well,


Herman
	
9913

From: egberdina <hhofman@d...> 
Date: Sat Dec 8, 2001 2:16am
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
Dear Ellaruthau,

There's nothing quite like stirring the possum, is there :-)

Catch ya later,

Egberdina

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "ellaruthau" <cforsyth@v...> wrote:
> Dear Egberdina,
> 
> You wrote:"Who should remember? Is there control 
> over what is remembered? And given the not-self that that 
particular 
> who, who is trying to remember that he/she is a not-self, what is 
> shoulding?"
> 
> This is very serious.....you are beginning to sound like 
> me.......maybe a sophisticated computer virus (W32.possum@mm....)
> Deep breaths now....in with the good....out with the bad
> 
> Cheers,
> Ellaruthau
>
	
9914

From: egberdina <hhofman@d...> 
Date: Sat Dec 8, 2001 2:29am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Eightfold Path (esp. right effort)

 	
Jon,

There has been discussion previously re the self-realised or self 
awakened Buddha.

To me this discussion conveyed that at some point of time, when there 
was no Dhamma to be had, there was still the possibility of 
development of the path.

You say: "Perhaps our point of difference here is whether a person 
who has never heard the teaching can have any moments of 
satipatthana."

Is there a contradiction here? Whaddya reckon?

How's the noggin?

All the best

Herman
	
9915

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Dec 8, 2001 2:43am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Eightfold Path (esp. right effort)

 	
Hi, Jon and Rob -

I think this is a VERY useful discussion. (I copy your post below, 
Jon.) I think you do a great job in clarifying your position. It happens to 
be a position with which I concur, Jon. 
On the one point of the need for having heard the Dhamma, at least to 
some extent, there arises the question of paccekabuddhas. The usual 
definition of the term is of one who attains full enlightenment completely by 
his own efforts, without having ever heard the Dhamma, and, for some reason, 
never quite explained, being unable to teach it to others. The notion 
confuses me in several respects. One of these is why the inability to teach. 
Is it total? Or is it merely that without having mastered the perfections of 
a buddha, he isn't up to the task of presenting the Dhamma to a world in 
which it is currently completely unknown? Another question is whether the 
condition of not having heard the Dhamma really doesn't refer only to the 
present lifetime. I recall having read that certain followers of an earlier 
Buddha had vowed to become paccekabuddhas, in contradistinction to others 
some of whom had vowed to become arahats, some to become budddas, and some to 
become a first or second lieutenant of a Buddha, filling the roles assumed by 
Venerables Sariputta and Moggalana (sp?) under the Buddha of the current 
dispensation. It seems contradictory for a disciple of a Buddha to vow to 
become a paccekabuddha. 

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 12/7/01 11:48:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
jonoabb@y... writes:


> Rob Ep
> 
> --- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > 
> > I don't mean to be dense, Jon, but I'm not sure exactly what you are or
> > aren't
> > taking exception to in my discussion below. If the 'separate factors to
> > be
> > developed' theory is wrong, then it is just as wrong for people who
> > think they're
> > Buddhists. If I am aware of anatta as a concept, as you describe, and
> > this will
> > not help to develop satipatthana, then how am I better off than a
> > mundanely aware
> > non-Buddhist?
> 
> Rob, the conclusion you have drawn is exactly the point I was trying to
> make ;-)), but you have put it rather more succinctly than I ever could. 
> Being 'aware of the concept of anatta' is a level of intellectual
> understanding. Of a wholly different level is the understanding of
> realities by direct experience that sees each reality as having the
> characteristic of 'not-self'. This understanding does not follow
> automatically from an awareness of the concept of anatta.
> 
> Of course, the person who has heard of this aspect of the teaching at
> least has the opportunity to go on and develop that understanding, so
> obviously familiarity with the concept of anatta is an indispensable step
> in the process; but this in itself is not sufficient to condition
> understanding of a quality or strength different to that of the person who
> has not heard of the concept.
> 
> The crucial difference between awareness of the concept of anatta and an
> understanding of anatta by direct experience of realities is, of course,
> the understanding of the characteristic of a presently appearing reality. 
> For the latter to occur, the correct conditions must be in place. There
> must be the right reflection on what has been heard or read, and its
> relating to the experience of the present moment – a wholly different set
> of conditions than are required to give rise to an awareness of the
> concept of anatta.
> 
> > I think that what you are saying implies that there are no true
> > pracitioners of
> > Buddhism who have not entered the supra-mundane level. All else,
> > whether Buddhist
> > or non-Buddhist is just conventional effort that has nothing really to
> > do with the
> > Buddha's teachings.
> > 
> > You seem to be saying here that even being subjected to the teachings of
> > the
> > suttas will not help if one is still conceptualizing. Thus this seems
> > to put the
> > mundane Buddhist on the same par as the mundane non-Buddhist.
> 
> Well, not quite. What I'm saying is, there is the person who has not
> heard of anatta, then there is the person who has become aware of the
> concept of anatta but has not understood correctly the means of
> development of satipatthana, and then the person who has by the
> development of satipatthana/vipassana gained some realisation of anatta as
> a characteristic of dhammas. Each can be seen as a different stage of
> development.
> 
> The crucial difference between the 2nd and 3rd of these types is, as I
> have said above, the understanding of the characteristic of a presently
> appearing reality, in other words, mundane right view. This quality of
> understanding cannot arise simply from 'conceptualising' about the
> teachings, no matter how ‘deep’ that conceptualizing may be.
> 
> > I would tend to have a less severe view of mundane efforts, whether
> > Buddhist or
> > non-Buddhist and tend to think that they are gradually leading to an
> > ability to
> > really discern the characteristics of the moment with satipatthana. 
> > Moments of
> > mindfulness, of sati, should in either case gradually accumulate to
> > allow for
> > satipatthana, real insight, and in those moments the truth of anatta,
> > anicca and
> > dukkha should perhaps be visible to the experiencer.
> 
> Perhaps our point of difference here is whether a person who has never
> heard the teaching can have any moments of satipatthana.
> 
> > I tend to think that the Buddha found real and actual principles that
> > exist 'in
> > nature', and therefore, anyone who practices discernment for a period of
> > time
> > should eventually get some glimpse of this. I would certainly think
> > that reading
> > the Suttas and knowing 'what to look for' conceptually should help the
> > focus and
> > speed up the time that one might see the truth of these principles in
> > actual
> > living observation.
> > 
> > Anyway, I am really not sure what the conclusion of this is, but I think
> > that the
> > mundane path leads slowly to the supra-mundane path, and that the
> > non-Buddhist
> > mundan path may be a lot less efficient than the Buddhist mundane path,
> > but that
> > even this path, if followed sincerely, *may* eventually open a door to
> > an
> > understanding of non-entity, impermanence, and the universal nature of
> > dissatisfaction or suffering.
> 
> Well, since we are fortunate enough to have met the Buddha's teachings in
> this lifetime we perhaps don't need to speculate on whether or to what
> extent someone who hasn't is able to develop the same understanding. We
> can focus our efforts on discussing exactly what that path is, as taught
> by the Buddha ;-)) ;-)).
> 
> > Whaddaya think?
> > 
> > And if this is not true, how *do* the supra-mundane path factors ever
> > 'kick in'?
> 
> I of course would agree that the supramundane path factors can only arise
> as the culmination of the development of the mundane path factors. Hence
> my interest in discussing this aspect of the teachings ;-))
> 
> > Good talking to you, and I mean that! I like this topic.
> > 
> > Best,
> > Robert Ep.
> 
> Me too, Rob.
> 
> Jon
> 


/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) 




	
9916

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Dec 8, 2001 3:04am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Pacceka Buddha (was, Eightfold Path (esp. right effort))

 	
Hi, Jon -

Coincidentally, I just sent off a post about this a few minutes ago. 
Yes, I think you must be correct. It must be so that the provision of not 
having heard the Dhamma refers only to the current lifetime. On the other 
hand, Sakyamuni had not heard the Dhamma during his lifetime, and he was not 
a paccekabuddha. So, what distinguishes a Buddha from a paccekabuddha, the 
perfections and the corresponding ability to present the Dhamma to a world in 
which it is unknown?

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 12/7/01 11:55:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
jonoabb@y... writes:


> 
> Howard
> 
> --- upasaka@a... wrote: 
> > Hi, Jon -
> 
> > Jon, I've read the dictionary entry you post below, and it seems
> > to me 
> > to say just the opposite. According to it, a paccekabuddha would NOT
> > have 
> > heard the Dhamma in a previous lifetime. It states "This is a term for
> > an 
> > Arahat who has realized Nibbána without having heard the Buddha's
> > doctrine 
> > from others. He comprehends the 4 Noble Truths individually (pacceka), 
> > independent of any teacher, by his own effort."
> > 
> > With metta,
> > Howard
> 
> I read the passage you quote as referring to the Pacceka Buddha not having
> heard the Dhamma *in the lifetime in which he attains final
> enlightenment*. Certainly, that is how I have always understood the
> position. Otherwise, his achievement of attaining arahatship would be
> even more remarkable than that of the Buddha!
> 
> In the entry (below) it refers to an aspiration uttered before a Perfect
> Buddha. Can I persuade you that this confirms my understanding on this
> point?
> 
> Of course, this question has a bearing on our other thread concerning the
> development of the path-factors other than by one who has heard the
> doctrine in that lifetime. I understand now your reference to 'pure'
> paccekabuddhas (but for reasons already given do not share your
> understanding on this point).
> 
> Jon
> 
> 


/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) 




	
9917

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Dec 8, 2001 3:08am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Eightfold Path (esp. right view)

 	
Hi, Jon -

In a message dated 12/8/01 12:11:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
jonoabb@y... writes:


> What is being discussed here seems to be very simlar to the following
> passage from CMA dealing with types of consciousness. The key part is in
> the last paragraph: “ ... all path and fruition cittas are considered
> types of jhana consciousness .. because they occur in the mode of closely
> contemplating their object with full absorption, like the mundane jhanas,
> and because they possess the jhana factors with an intensity corresponding
> to their counterparts in the mundane jhanas�. (Although it is largely
> self-explanatory, I have added some observations of my own -- these are
> referenced by the numbers in square brackets).
> 
> So maybe it shouldn’t be seen as just a ‘ploy’??
===============================
Indeed!

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) 




	
9918

From: <srnsk@a...> 
Date: Sat Dec 8, 2001 3:57am
Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Discarding' Sammaadi.t.thi

 	
Hi Mike,


> I understand daana, siila or bhaavanaa as arising with
> all kusala--but is this also true of pa~n~naa? Can't
> pa~n~naa also arise, say, with vipaaka or kiriya
> citta?
> 

From my reading, Pa~n~naa can arise in vipaaka and kiriya citta as well. For 
example in tihetuka patisandhi-vipaaka buggala. So every bhavaga citta in 
that lifetime is tihetuka kusala vipaaka. Which means sati cetasika and 
pa~n~na cetasika are also there in bhavaga moment, but as a vipaaka jati. As 
I I understand, that sati is not the sati in level of satipatthana. Both sati 
and pa~n~na in satipatthana are in kusala javana vithi, not in vipaaka.

Again, my opinion. (I mean please consider it carfully (yonisomanasikara). If 
I miss sth, pls do add. If sth is wrong, pls do correct.)

Appreciate,


Num


	
9919

From: Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Sat Dec 8, 2001 10:33am
Subject: Cambodia Ch 14, no 2

 	
Cambodia, Ch 14, no 2

Pramesavara: When we study, the goal is not memorizing, is that right?

Sujin: Khun Jack will remember that last time we were in America I said to
him that he began to be interested in understanding satipaììhåna, because
there was the foundation of understanding that could condition the arising
of satipaììhåna. The Buddha generally taught satipaììhåna when the listeners
had already sufficient understanding of the Dhamma. People who have
understanding of the Dhamma should continue developing satipaììhåna, that
is, awareness of the characteristics of realities. This is actually the
development of paññå with the aim of penetrating the truth of the realities
that are the noble Truths. If people only speak all the time about the
concepts of dhammas without any understanding of satipaììhåna, satipaììhåna
cannot arise.

Pramesavara: Our group of people in America who are studying the Dhamma have
no teacher. We help each other to read your book ³A Survey of Paramattha
Dhammas² as a foundation, but we do not read the Tipiìaka and the
Commentaries. Is this all right?

Sujin: But that is studying concepts of dhammas. Khun Anop thinks that both
the recordings of discussions and this book are helpful.

Anop: I believe that someone should listen and consider the Dhamma so that
he will understand it. Reading helps one¹s understanding in certain aspects,
but I believe that listening to the recordings is most important.

Sujin: The book ³A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas² is a collection of some
parts of Dhamma lectures and it deals with only a very small part of the
Dhamma. There are also the Vinaya, Book of Discipline, and the Suttanta, but
some people do not read these. I think that it is not sufficient just to
study my book, because
in my lectures I explain only a very small part of the Dhamma. I want
everybody to come into contact with the original Tipiìaka, and to study it
completely. I introduced in my book only those parts that people would be
able to gradually understand. When they have understood those they can read
the scriptures by themselves and in that way their understanding will become
more thorough. They should not neglect reading by themselves.

Phemsombat: I listen many times to your recordings from beginning to end. If
I only read your book but I do not listen to the recordings, my
understanding will not be as good. It is best to do both.

Fongchan: If someone listens to recordings and reads, but does not consider
the realities that are appearing, it will not help much.

Pramesavara: It is not possible to consider realities without having studied
the Dhamma.

Amara: Everybody should begin at the foundation, namely, knowing what
satipaììhåna is. When someone has understood this he can develop paññå, but
it depends on his accumulations to what extent he can develop it. When
someone has right understanding and he develops paññå, he can attain
enlightenment. If he studies a great deal but does not consider and is not
aware of the characteristics of realities, he will not understand realities
as they are.

Pramesavara: The many explanations I receive from reading and from listening
to the Dhamma are not the same as the explanations from Acharn Sujin
personally.

Sujin: People may not understand what reading implies. I have read the
Tipiìaka. But I leave out those parts which I believe to be beyond my
awareness and understanding. If they are beyond my understanding I am not
interested in them. Only those parts are beneficial that help me to
understand the realities that are appearing. I am interested to study and
consider realities so that right understanding can become clearer. We are
inclined to overlook the realities of our daily life and then they are not
of any benefit to us. Events of daily life can remind us of realities, they
can condition sati that sees the benefit of detachment. We can see the great
compassion of the Buddha who did not avoid uttering short, uncomplicated
statements that are not difficult to understand but that deal with daily
life, in order to remind people of the truth. He spoke in that way because
he knew that people¹s accumulated inclinations are very different. As to my
own study, I read the subjects that I can understand. If someone gives me
any text that I cannot completely understand, I do not try to understand all
of it. If people only memorize or just read texts, they receive no benefit
from them. However, if there is a subject of Dhamma that is useful, even if
it is a very short text, I will study and consider that subject until I
clearly understand it. This is of a far greater benefit.




	
9920

From: Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> 
Date: Sat Dec 8, 2001 11:03am
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
But understanding (panna) is not self. Do you understand that?

Regards,
Victor

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sarah" <sarahdhhk@y...>
To: <dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 7:29 AM
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta


> Dear Egberdina's Grandson (or namas and rupas if you want only absolute
terms
> here too;-)
>
> --- egberdina <hhofman@d...> wrote:
>
> > If you are going to tell me about conventional realities and absolute
> > realities, could I be so bold and ask you to rewrite "We should
> > remember that all realities are not-self" in absolute terms only.
> >
>
> "Understanding (panna) knows whatever citta (consciousness such as seeing
or
> hearing), cetasika (mental factor such as like, dislike or feeling) or
rupa
> (physical reality which doesn't experience such as sound or hardness)
appears
> as anatta (not self)".
>
> > Thanks either way, screaming chief :-)
>
> Hope it helps
>
> rgds,
> More namas and rupas (or screaming chief just to you only....;-)
	
9921

From: m. nease <mlnease@y...> 
Date: Sat Dec 8, 2001 2:56pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Discarding' Sammaadi.t.thi

 	
Hi Dan,

--- onco111 <dalthorp@o...> wrote:

> > > Wisdom arises only in
> > > an equanimous state, as 
> > > I understand it.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "equanimous" here.
> What then of the 
> distincion between the sense sphere sobhana cittas
> associated with 
> wisdom and accompanied by joy vs. accompanied by
> equanimity? And what 
> of the fine-material jhanas accompanied by rapture
> and/or happiness 
> (piti and sukkha) vs. the fine-material jhana
> accompanied by 
> equanimity? Pañña accompanies all these states but
> piti, sukkha, 
> somanassa aren't exactly equanimity. 

Right you are and over my head, I'm afraid--guess I'll
have to get out my copy of 'Cetasikas'.

I recall a post (from Jon?) a couple of months back
about the different meanings of upekkhaa--I'll have a
look and see if it helps.

> Hmmm... Different aspects of equanimity (upekkha),
> some of which must 
> accompany wisdom (viz. equanimity qua detachment),
> some of which may 
> not (viz. equanimity qua neutral feeling).

Maybe so--dunno yet!

mike

	
9922

From: m. nease <mlnease@y...> 
Date: Sat Dec 8, 2001 3:41pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Discarding' Sammaadi.t.thi

 	
Hi Num,

--- srnsk@a... wrote:

> > I understand daana, siila or bhaavanaa as arising
> with
> > all kusala--but is this also true of pa~n~naa? 
> Can't
> > pa~n~naa also arise, say, with vipaaka or kiriya
> > citta?
> 
> From my reading, Pa~n~naa can arise in vipaaka and
> kiriya citta as well. 

This is what I thought.

> For 
> example in tihetuka patisandhi-vipaaka buggala. So
> every bhavaga citta in 
> that lifetime is tihetuka kusala vipaaka. Which
> means sati cetasika and 
> pa~n~na cetasika are also there in bhavaga moment,
> but as a vipaaka jati. 

Yes, that does seem to make sense. The sati and
pa~n~naa are obviously latent in the bhavanga though I
think--so maybe accumulated kamma rather than vipaaka?

> As 
> I I understand, that sati is not the sati in level
> of satipatthana. Both sati 
> and pa~n~na in satipatthana are in kusala javana
> vithi, not in vipaaka.

An interesting distinction--I'll try to remember to
ask A. Sujin about it.

> Again, my opinion. (I mean please consider it
> carfully (yonisomanasikara). If 
> I miss sth, pls do add. If sth is wrong, pls do
> correct.)

This is all very interesting--but I wouldn't presume
to correct you. I have a lot more confidence in your
opinions than in my own.

> Appreciate,

Back at you, Sir,

mike

	
9923

From: mlnease <mlnease@y...> 
Date: Sat Dec 8, 2001 4:32pm
Subject: Re: 'Discarding' Sammaadi.t.thi

 	
Hi Dan,

Here's the post I was thinking of, actually from Kom, not Jon (6264). I st= 
ill 
haven't figured out it this helps to clarify or not...!

Here is a list of upekkha definition: 
(http://www.dhammastudy.com/paramat5.html):

There are 10 kinds of upekkha (indifference), namely

Chalagupekkha, the tatramajjhattata-cetasika which is indifferent to 
the 6 arammana of the arahanta, who has eradicated all kilesa. 

Brahmaviharupekkha, the tatramajjhattata-cetasika which is 
indifferent to all entities. 

Bojjhagupekkha, the tatramajjhattata-cetasika which is one of the 
components that make enlightenment possible. 

Viriyupekkha, the viriya-cetasika which is right perseverance which 
is not too tense nor too lax in the development of bhavana. 

Sankharupekkha, the panna-cetasika that is indifferent when the 
realization of the tilakkhana of the sankhara-dhamma. 

Vedanupekkha, the vedana-cetasika that does not feel unhappy or 
happy. 

Vipassanupekkha, the panna-cetasika that is neutral in the 
consideration of the arammana that arises from causes and conditions. 

Tatramajjhattatupekkha, the tatramajjhattata-cetasika that is 
neutral, not biased or partial. 

Jhanupekkha, the tatramajjhattata-cetasika in the jhana which 
attenuates the preoccupation by other dhamma which renders the peace 
less steadfast. This intends especially the tatiyajjhana (from the 
perspective of the 4 rupa-jhana), which has abandoned piti. 

Parisuddhupekkha, the tatramajjhattata-cetasika in the 
catutthajjhana (from the perspective of the 4 rupa-jhana), which is 
completely peaceful and cleansed from all adversaries, without any 
further function to abandon the elements of jhana. 

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" <dalthorp@o...> wrote:
> > > Wisdom arises only in
> > > an equanimous state, as 
> > > I understand it.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "equanimous" here. What then of the 
> distincion between the sense sphere sobhana cittas associated with 
> wisdom and accompanied by joy vs. accompanied by equanimity? And 
what 
> of the fine-material jhanas accompanied by rapture and/or happiness 
> (piti and sukkha) vs. the fine-material jhana accompanied by 
> equanimity? Pañña accompanies all these states but piti, sukkha, 
> somanassa aren't exactly equanimity. 
> 
> Hmmm... Different aspects of equanimity (upekkha), some of which must 
> accompany wisdom (viz. equanimity qua detachment), some of which 
may 
> not (viz. equanimity qua neutral feeling).
> 
> Onco111 (a.k.a. Dan)
	
9924

From: <srnsk@a...> 
Date: Sat Dec 8, 2001 4:31pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Discarding' Sammaadi.t.thi

 	
Hi again Mike,

<< There are 10 kinds of upekkha (indifference) >>

I think these 10 are kusala upekkha only. There also akusala upekkha called, 
a~nanupekkha, which is moha cetasika. Indifference because of moha. In 
mohamulacitta, there is only upekkha-vedana-jati.

Num
	
9925

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Sat Dec 8, 2001 9:56pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Self' as object of discernment (was, Eightfold Path (esp. right effort))

 	
--- Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> wrote:

> To answer your question, it is my understanding that only at moments when
> a 'dhamma' is the object of awareness or understanding can there be a
> direct appreciation of the aspect of 'not-self' in the sense that the
> Buddha talked about it. At other moments, for example even if we were to
> reflect deeply how the idea we have of 'ourself' is really a creation of
> our imagination and not verifiable in any meaningful sense, there can be
> nothing more than a level of intellectual understanding aboout the
> concept, a kind of thinking rather than a knowing by direct experience. I
> do not mean to disparage such thinking, simply to indicate that it should
> not be taken for the development of the path taught by the Buddha.
> 
> To summarise, I see the understanding of 'not-self' as being directly
> linked to the teaching on satipatthana, and not realisable by other means.
> 
> Hope this answers your question.
> 
> Jon

Hi Jon,
Thanks for your answer.

The Buddha does, however, include seeing Mind as Mind, and the objects of Mind as
objects of Mind as part of the path of discernment. If 'concepts', including
self-concept, is not an eligible 'object of Mind', what do the objects of Mind
include that are eligible for satipatthana?

Thanks,
Robert Ep.



	
9926

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Sat Dec 8, 2001 10:11pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Eightfold Path (esp. right effort)

 	
--- Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> wrote:

> I of course would agree that the supramundane path factors can only arise
> as the culmination of the development of the mundane path factors. Hence
> my interest in discussing this aspect of the teachings ;-))

Okay, I know you've talked about this many times before, but perhaps this would be
a good time for a summary of the following, a small outline maybe:

1/ How does reading and understanding the suttas lead to mundane Right
View/Understanding.

2/ How does mundane Right View/Understanding lay the groundwork for the
Supramundane Path Factors to arise.

Thanks,
Robert Ep.

	
9927

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Sat Dec 8, 2001 10:26pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimate realities

 	
A question or two, Jon.
Is there a difference between a dhamma and a rupa? What is their relationship?

In either case, is the conclusion I am reaching correct, that according to the
Abhidhamma commentaries, physical objects as they actually exist and appear in the
moment are the the only things that are real, and that can be referred to as
'entities'?

If that is the case, as it seems, how can one account for the momentary [anicca]
nature of dhammas in terms of their 'entity' status. My understanding is that
anything that is temporary [partaking of annica] does not partake of entity in the
sense that it is constantly changing and does not last for more than the moment in
any given form? And how does one account then for the fact that cittas are also
momentary, yet do not rate entity status merely because they are not physical?

What is the basis for this, if true?

Thanks,
Robert Ep.

==================

--- Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> wrote:
> Ken O (and Howard)
> 
> --- Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> wrote: > Hi Jon
> > 
> > I would prefer to change the word of ultimate maybe to fundamental or
> > empirical, or root 
> 
> Yes, this may be a useful way to think of it, and seems to fit the
> description given for 'paramattha'. The only problem is the literal
> meaning of the word 'paramattha'. For an explanation of the Pali term,
> see the following explanation from the commentary summary in CMA:
> 
> "Ultimate realities are things that exist by reason of their own extrinsic
> nature (sabhaava). These are the dhammas: the final, irreducible
> components of existence, the ultimate entities which result from a
> correctly performed analysis of experience. Hence the word ‘paramattha’
> is applied to them, which is derived from ‘parama’ = ultimate, highest,
> final, and ‘attha’ = reality, thing."
> 
> I suppose the main thing is that we understand the meaning of what is
> being said, regardless of the term used to convey that meaning.
> 
> I have copied below the entire section from which the passage above is
> taken. It contains some useful observations on the difference between
> concepts and realities, and also on the question of why realities are not
> normally apparent to us as they really are (this was the subject of some
> recent posts on another thread).
> 
> Jon
> 
> CMA, Ch 1
> #2 
> The things contained in the Abhidhamma are fourfold from the standpoint of
> ultimate reality (paramatthato): consciousness (citta), mental factors
> (cetasika), matter (rupa), and Nibbana.
> 
> Guide to #2 
> According to the Abhidhamma philosophy, there are 2 kinds of realities—the
> conventional (sammuti) and the ultimate (paramattha). Conventional
> realities are the referents of ordinary conceptual thought (pannatti) and
> conventional modes of expression (vohaara). They include such entities as
> living beings, men, women, animals, and the apparently stable persisting
> objects that constitute our unanalyzed picture of the world. The
> Abhidhamma philosophy maintains that these notions do not possess ultimate
> validity, for the objects which they signify [ie. the living beings, men,
> women, animals etc] do not exist in their own right as irreducible
> realities. Their mode of being is conceptual, not actual. They are
> products of mental construction (parikappanaa), not realities existing by
> reason of their own nature.
> 
> Ultimate realities, in contrast, are things that exist by reason of their
> own extrinsic nature (sabhaava). These are the dhammas: the final,
> irreducible components of existence, the ultimate entities which result
> from a correctly performed analysis of experience. Hence the word
> ‘paramattha’ is applied to them, which is derived from ‘parama’ =
> ultimate, highest, final, and ‘attha’ = reality, thing.
> 
> Ultimate realities are not only the ultimate existents, but are also the
> ultimate objects of right knowledge. As one extracts oil from sesame
> seed, so one can extract the ultimate realities from the conventional
> realities. Concepts do not possess ultimacy. It is the objective
> actualities that lie behind our conceptual constructs – the dhammas – that
> form the ultimate realities of the Abhidhamma.
> 
> Ultimate realities are so subtle and profound that an ordinary person
> cannot see them. His mind is obscured by concepts. Only by means of wise
> attention to things (yoniso manasikara) can one see beyond the concepts. 
> Thus ‘paramattha’ is described as that which belongs to the domain of
> ultimate or supreme knowledge.
> [ends]


	
9928

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Sat Dec 8, 2001 10:32pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Discarding' Sammaadi.t.thi

 	
Dear Num & Mike (& Howard)

--- srnsk@a... wrote: > Hi again Mike,
> 
> << There are 10 kinds of upekkha (indifference) >>
> 
> I think these 10 are kusala upekkha only. There also akusala upekkha called,
> 
> a~nanupekkha, which is moha cetasika. Indifference because of moha. In 
> mohamulacitta, there is only upekkha-vedana-jati.
> 
> Num
> 

I’ve just checked ‘Useful Posts’ under ‘Equanimity as there was a good thread
going for a while. Kom also mentions that upekkha is not always kusala (post
6255) and Jon gives a good summary here in post 6266 (July 14th):
(signing off, Sarah)

******************** 
< Jon’s post requoted in full>

Tori

> --- Tori Korshak <vkorshak@b...> wrote:
> Thank you for this, but I am puzzled. 

As well you might be! This is not an easy area to get a grasp of. As Kom
mentions, there are at least 10 meanings of equanimity (these are given at
Vis. IV, 156 ff.), but most commonly it is used in one of 3 ways—

1. Equanimity as indifferent or neutral feeling
2. Equanimity as one of the 4 ‘Divine Abidings’ (metta, karuna, mudita,
upekkha)
3. Equanimity as one of the enlightenment factors (bojjhanga).

As (1), it is the mental factor of feeling (vedana). Feeling can be
either pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. By the way, while unpleasant
feeling occurs only with unwholesome citta (moment of consciousness),
neutral feeling, like pleasant feeling, can arise with both wholesome and
unwholesome cittas.

As (2) and (3), it is a mental factor in its own right (or, as some call
it, an ethical quality). To confuse things even further, as a mental
factor it is also known also known as tatra-majjhattataa, which literally
means ‘neutrality towards’ or ‘keeping in the middle of things’. This
mental factor of upekkha/tatra-majjhattataa arises with all wholesome
cittas. It has the characteristic of effecting the balance of
consciousness and the accompanying mental factors; the function of
preventing excessiveness and deficiency, or inhibiting partiality (Vis.
XIV, 153). These are its general characteristic and function. However,
its specific characteristic and function varies slightly depending on the
exact nature and degree of the kusala citta it accompanies.

As (2) in particular, it is the mental factor that accompanies citta of
the level of samatha (of a particular kind). As (3), it is the mental
factor that accompanies citta at a moment of satipatthana.

> If developing equanimity helps to 
> curb lobha and dosa (and it does in my experience), is that not an aid
> to 
> knowing the true characteristic of a reality? If I am not blinded by my
> own 
> clinging or aversions , are these realities not more likely to be seen 
> clearly? Why is it not an advantage to panna to abandon clinging and 
> develop equanimity?

I think we have to be careful here. The so-called practice of developing
equanimity may in fact not be kusala of any kind at all. If it stems from
a desire to have less lobha and dosa (whether because of the belief that
lobha and dosa are antithetical to the development of understanding or for
any other reason), it is bound to be akusala. It is just an aspect of the
desire for more kusala/understanding or less akusala. I am not saying
this is so in your case, but I mention it because one often finds
references which seem to suggest that this is part of the way of practice
taught by the Buddha.

The real issue that you raise is whether lobha and dosa are a hindrance to
the development of understanding. The answer is, yes and no. It is said
in the texts that the hindrances (lobha and dosa of various kinds) ‘weaken
insight’, and that of course is true as regards the moment at which they
arise, since all unwholesome cittas are rooted in moha. But there can in
the moment(s) following the lobha or dosa, or even in between moments of
sustained lobha or dosa, be awareness of the characteristic of those
realities, so we should not be closed to the potential for moments of
awareness at such times, no matter how strong the lobha or dosa.

If we have the idea that awareness is possible only, or is much more
likely to arise, when lobha and dosa have been curbed or reduced, this
will be an obstacle to the development of awareness at moments whenever
lobha or dosa are present (and for all such moments for the rest of this
lifetime, because its not going to change any time soon!) - and this is
probably most of the time if only we knew it.

> … I wouldn't trust a monk for example who exhibited a
> lot 
> of dosa to have panna.

I’m not sure I want to comment on this! But the key thing to remember is
the observation made by Robert, that the level of a person’s calmness (or
lack of it) is no measure of his/her level of understanding. This is
because the function of understanding is to understand the true
characteristic of the reality that presents itself at the present moment,
be it a nama or rupa, and nothing more than that, while a person’s level
of calm at a given moment is a reflection of a number of things including
his/her accumulated wholesomeness of various kinds (including samatha) or
possibly even his/her attachment to the current object.

Jon

********************


	
9929

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Sat Dec 8, 2001 10:54pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
--- egberdina <hhofman@d...> wrote:
> Dear Ellaruthau,
> 
> There's nothing quite like stirring the possum, is there :-)
> 
> Catch ya later,
> 
> Egberdina

I'm thinking of changing my name to Epsteiniola.

Robert Ep.



	
9930

From: ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Sat Dec 8, 2001 11:15pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
No, no Robert - not just ANYONE can have one of these names.....
The factors leading to being awarded a delighfully unusual new name 
are:
1. 'desiring' one is a hindrance. Do not desire one.
2. 'effort' will lead to failure. Do not put any effort into 
achieving a new name. When the target is ready, the new name will 
come.
3. It must be a previously unknown name - like your mother's second 
name plus your daughter's second name plus your country code - or 
then again, your grandmother's name will do too. As well, you must 
believe strongly that no other human being will ever know about it....
4. You have to also have deeply offended a Yahoo-mara in some past 
life.

sympathy for your plight,
Chris....oops...Ellaruthau


--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote:
> 
> --- egberdina <hhofman@d...> wrote:
> > Dear Ellaruthau,
> > 
> > There's nothing quite like stirring the possum, is there :-)
> > 
> > Catch ya later,
> > 
> > Egberdina
> 
> I'm thinking of changing my name to Epsteiniola.
> 
> Robert Ep.
	
9931

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Sun Dec 9, 2001 0:51am
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
--- ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> wrote:
> No, no Robert - not just ANYONE can have one of these names.....
> The factors leading to being awarded a delighfully unusual new name 
> are:
> 1. 'desiring' one is a hindrance. Do not desire one.
> 2. 'effort' will lead to failure. Do not put any effort into 
> achieving a new name. When the target is ready, the new name will 
> come.
> 3. It must be a previously unknown name - like your mother's second 
> name plus your daughter's second name plus your country code - or 
> then again, your grandmother's name will do too. As well, you must 
> believe strongly that no other human being will ever know about it....
> 4. You have to also have deeply offended a Yahoo-mara in some past 
> life.
> 
> sympathy for your plight,
> Chris....oops...Ellaruthau

ha ha, well in that case, you can just call me Betsy....I still don't get it, do
I?

Oh well, how are the possums?

Regards,
Robert Ep., aka Betsy.

================


> 
> --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote:
> > 
> > --- egberdina <hhofman@d...> wrote:
> > > Dear Ellaruthau,
> > > 
> > > There's nothing quite like stirring the possum, is there :-)
> > > 
> > > Catch ya later,
> > > 
> > > Egberdina
> > 
> > I'm thinking of changing my name to Epsteiniola.
> > 
> > Robert Ep.


	
9932

From: ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Sun Dec 9, 2001 1:15am
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
I think we would be trying the patience of the list members to 
continue, so I'll stop after this :-)) The possums have been treed 
by Rusty who thinks he has won a gold medal, and I have a headache 
from the barking - so I'll go and 'attend' to him before Sarah & 
Jon 'attend' to us.
metta,
Christine
--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote:
> 
> --- ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> wrote:
> > No, no Robert - not just ANYONE can have one of these names.....
> > The factors leading to being awarded a delighfully unusual new 
name 
> > are:
> > 1. 'desiring' one is a hindrance. Do not desire one.
> > 2. 'effort' will lead to failure. Do not put any effort 
into 
> > achieving a new name. When the target is ready, the new name will 
> > come.
> > 3. It must be a previously unknown name - like your mother's 
second 
> > name plus your daughter's second name plus your country code - or 
> > then again, your grandmother's name will do too. As well, you 
must 
> > believe strongly that no other human being will ever know about 
it....
> > 4. You have to also have deeply offended a Yahoo-mara in some 
past 
> > life.
> > 
> > sympathy for your plight,
> > Chris....oops...Ellaruthau
> 
> ha ha, well in that case, you can just call me Betsy....I still 
don't get it, do
> I?
> 
> Oh well, how are the possums?
> 
> Regards,
> Robert Ep., aka Betsy.
> 
> ================
> 
> 
> > 
> > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
wrote:
> > > 
> > > --- egberdina <hhofman@d...> wrote:
> > > > Dear Ellaruthau,
> > > > 
> > > > There's nothing quite like stirring the possum, is there :-)
> > > > 
> > > > Catch ya later,
> > > > 
> > > > Egberdina
> > > 
> > > I'm thinking of changing my name to Epsteiniola.
> > > 
> > > Robert Ep.
	
9933

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> 
Date: Sun Dec 9, 2001 6:18am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Seeing - Ken O

 	
Hi Sarah,

Is this abt panna arise with each cittas. I remember I was saying that if
panna does not arise with in each citta for pple like Buddha or Ven
Sariputta, there is no way to know how the workings of all cittas. Two
explanations I have for the ability to know why cittas analysis is so
detail as expounded by Buddha

1. The ability for Buddha to discern past cittas as objects, hence the
ability to decipher what is what. This discernment must arise with panna.

2. I believe, Buddha patisandhi vipaka citta is tihetu kusala vipaka
citta hence the ability for panna to arise in each cittas. Num
explanation to Mike makes a lot of sense to me, why cant there be latent
tendecies for amoha for pple like Buddha and Ven Sariputta.

As for seeing out of body experiences, your position is that there is no
seeing without eye base. My stand is there is a possibility of seeing
without eye base due to citta as king of cognization. I have no good
Abhidhamma explanations till now, it based on my intuition that there is a
possibility or not how do pple have out of body experiences in surgery. 
Even one of my close friend has expereinced this. Maybe one day I would
have an explantion. Till then, back to studies on paccaya. Been quite
lazy these few days on studying Abhidhamma, too much distractions :).



Kind regards
Ken O


--- Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote: > Dear Ken O,
> 
> I thought of you and our discussion as I read this extract from
> <Cambodia ch12,
> no 4>:
> 
> > When we are seeing and satipatthåna does not arise, there is
> > no way of knowing that seeing is an element or reality that
> experiences
> > something; this characteristic is real, and it does not have shape or
> form.
> > We should consider the reality that is the element which experiences
> > something: there is no rúpa that is blended or mixed with it. Then it
> will
> > be clear that the characteristic of the element that experiences is
> > penetrated through the mind-door. Such a moment is different from the
> > moments that everything seems to appear together, such as visible
> object
> > that seems to appear together with seeing. 
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> The following comments about developing sati naturally were from the
> same
> segment. I appreciate the reminders about becoming 'detached' from
> realities.
> Don't we wish to have more sati or metta and to have less dosa?
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Sarah
> 

9934

From: abhidhammika <abhidhammika@y...> 
Date: Sun Dec 9, 2001 6:27am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Parinibbana Subcommentary To Upasaka Howard And Robert Epstein

 	
Dear Howard And Robert Epstein

How are you?

Thank you for explaining the term 'concept' in the expression "a 
nonconceptual state of being".

Could you also define the term "being" in the expression "a 
nonconceptual state of being" because there are many meanings of 
being? As it stands now, I have some uncertainty about the meaning of 
being you intended to use.

Thank you in advance.

With regards,

Suan



--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:

Hi, Suan -

I'm not sure that I can abide exactly by your format. 
I understand by 'concept' a thought, or thought pattern, frequently 
with an associated name, which expresses a combination of experiences 
forged 
by the mind, such combination being mentally treated as a unit, and 
often 
reified. The experiences that are mentally combined into a concept 
are its 
"instances" and are subsumed by it. The operation of "conceiving" is 
the 
operation of constructing a concept. That is my understanding.

With metta,
Howard


	
9935

From: Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Sun Dec 9, 2001 7:07am
Subject: Cambodia Ch 14, no 3

 	
Cambodia Ch 14, no 3

Sujin: I intend to read all of the Suttanta, the Vinaya and the Abhidhamma
and also the Commentaries, but I have not finished them. The Tipiìaka is
most difficult. I have given many lectures about the ³Expositor², the
Commentary to the Dhammasaùgani (Buddhist Psychological Ethics), the first
Book of the Abhidhamma. We do not have to deal yet with the Paììhåna, the
³Conditional Relations², the last Book of the Abhidhamma that is most
difficult. I have given lectures about the twentyfour conditions so that
other people could have understanding of them. When we study the realities
of citta, cetasika and rúpa, we should also understand their conditional
relations. Several monks have said that they believe that they in this life
will never understand the subject of conditions. They read the scriptures
including also the teaching on conditions, but they need explanations so
that they can grasp the meaning of paccaya, condition, and can gradually
understand this subject from the beginning. For example, citta and cetasika
must arise together, they are both nåma dhammas that are closely joined and
cannot do without each other. However, they are not the same paramattha
dhamma, ultimate reality. Citta and cetasika that are conascent, condition
one another by way of sampayutta-paccaya, association-condition, because
they are both nåma dhammas. Even though nåma dhamma and rúpa dhamma arise
and fall away together, their characteristics are different from each other,
they cannot be as closely joined as nåma with another nåma. Therefore, nåma
and rúpa cannot condition each other by way of association-condition. Nåma
and rúpa are completely different realities, each with their own
characteristic. Even though they can arise at the same time, and are thus
related by way of conascent-condition, sahajåta-paccaya, they condition each
other by dissociation-condition, vippayutta-paccaya. Nåma-dhamma is a
condition for rúpa-dhamma and rúpa-dhamma is a condition for nåma-dhamma by
way of dissociation-condition, vippayutta paccaya. Thus, they cannot
condition each other by being closely joined together, such as nåma that is
a condition for another nåma, they cannot condition each other by way of
association-condition. In this way we can gradually begin to understand
conditions. When there is a foundation knowledge for people who have studied
paramattha dhammas they can have understanding of them. It is the same in
the case of my book ³A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas². If someone reads from
the beginning about citta, but he has no foundation knowledge of paramattha
dhamma, if he does not know what paramattha dhamma is and how many of them
there are, he will not be able to thoroughly understand them. The correct
understanding of realities from the beginning is a most important foundation
for the development of paññå.



	
9936

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sun Dec 9, 2001 4:09am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Parinibbana Subcommentary To Upasaka Howard And Robert Epstein

 	
Hi, Suan -

'In a message dated 12/9/01 9:28:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
abhidhammika@y... writes:


> Dear Howard And Robert Epstein
> 
> How are you?
> 
> Thank you for explaining the term 'concept' in the expression "a 
> nonconceptual state of being".
> 
> Could you also define the term "being" in the expression "a 
> nonconceptual state of being" because there are many meanings of 
> being? As it stands now, I have some uncertainty about the meaning of 
> being you intended to use.
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> With regards,
> 
> Suan
> 
> 
> 
=========================
The word 'state' would have done just as well as 'state of being', in 
fact it would have been better. By a "nonceptual state of being" I actually 
mean a state of mind constituted of wisdom and direct "seeing", and 
unmediated by concept. It would be a state of mind in which there is no 
reification, neither a substantialist, nihilist, eternalist, nor 
annihilationist view, or even a "whiff" of any of these. It would be a state 
of perfect clarity, directness, and understanding.

With metta,
Howard

/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 




	
9937

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sun Dec 9, 2001 6:08am
Subject: Momentariness

 	
Hi, all -

The Abhidhamma presents a view of momentariness: of discernment, 
together with mental concomitants and with a cognized object, arising anew 
moment after moment (but "the same" object lasting for a process of up to 17 
mindstates/cittas). 
There is, as I see it, an advantage to this discrete picture (a 
picture not very different, by the way, from the view of the Sautrantikas), 
over a continuous one. With the discrete picture, one can make some 
statements of depth which could not be made under the continuous view. For 
example, there is the issue of what anicca means. It is usually translated as 
"impermanent", which, taken literally, is just fine. But the typical informal 
understanding of impermanence is that "things change". But, in fact, and 
especially from the momentaristic perspective, things don't change. (Oddly, 
the notion of something changing also brings with it the notion of something 
lasting.) In fact, from the momentaristic perspective, nothing changes., 
because *nothing remains*. Each moment, after arising there is ceasing. A 
citta does not exist later in a changed form. There is no substance 
continuing which serves as base for an ever-changing menu of surface 
characteristics. It is simply that subsequent mindstates arise in dependence 
on previous ones, their characteristics as well as their actual arising 
depending on the previous states. Thus, impermanence is not that "things 
change", but rather that "nothing remains".
The foregoing constitutes an argument with which I concur, an argument 
supporting the superiority of the discrete view over the continuous view. 
However, I see a problem with the discrete view as well. That pointillist 
view is vulnerable to both substantialism and annihilationism. From the 
extreme pointillist perspective, each mindstate truly exists for the moment, 
and is then annihilated. This is unsatisfactory, because it is contrary to 
the Dhamma. It involves, restricted to the moment, both a substantialsim and 
an annihilationism. The Buddha did not teach either. He taught the middle 
way, as in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. Is there an escape from that problem, 
still within the Abhidhammic framework? I think there may be. But I think it 
may require a backing off from the view of each citta, its arammana, and its 
accompanying cetasikas as being substantial existents. The seeds of such a 
backing off are already in place, with the understanding of each mindstate as 
conditioned and arising dependently. But I think that one needs to push that 
further, seeing that such conditionality and dependence implies an emptiness, 
a corelessness. I think that it is here that some of the arguments put forth 
by such as Nagarjuna may be very, very helpful.

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) 




	
9938

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Sun Dec 9, 2001 7:45pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
Dear Victor,

--- Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> wrote: 
> But understanding (panna) is not self. 

Agreed

>Do you understand that?

Any understanding will be by panna and not by ‘me’ or ‘you’.

Panna can be taken for self like any other reality, but likewise, if panna is
the objectof panna, it can be seen as not self too.

Thanks Victor,
Sarah


	
9939

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Sun Dec 9, 2001 8:06pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
Dear Herman,

Let me add one or two coments as I was rushed for time when I last wrote:

> ********************
> Sarah:
> However `rousing' the suttas may sound and however much `striving' 
is
> encouraged, we should remember that all realities are not self. 
this doesn't
> mean that there shouldn't be an urgency, but that there is no self 
to `exert'
> or be energetic or control the phenomena at this moment.

....................
H:
I do not understand anything when concepts of self and not-self are 
used in the same context. Does anyone else? 

....................
S:
I think the point I was trying to make (obviously not very clearly) is that the
more understanding is developed of realities as not-self when they appear, the
more understanding there is, that whatever we read in the texts ( whether it is
in conventional language or absolute reality language), are these same
realities arising by complex causes and conditions and outside the control of
any imaginary self.

....................
H:
"We should remember that all realities are not-self". I really don't 
know what to make of that line. Who should remember? Is there control 
over what is remembered? And given the not-self that that particular 
who, who is trying to remember that he/she is a not-self, what is 
shoulding?

....................
S:
So understanding more about realities doesn’t mean we cannot or ‘should not’
use conventional language. We have to use conventional language to live our
lives. It depends on the intent when it is used and the understanding of the
listener, how it will be interpreted. 

So we can say, I think ‘we should remember what the Buddha taught’, or ‘develop
more wisdom’, even though there is no who, who should do anything, no control
and no self to develop wisdom. In other words ‘shoulding’ is mere conventional
usage with or without understanding when it is used.

......................
H:
If you are going to tell me about conventional realities and absolute 
realities, could I be so bold and ask you to rewrite "We should 
remember that all realities are not-self" in absolute terms only.

.....................
S:
This I did (or namas and rupas did;-) We begin to see that whether the Buddha
was using conventional language in the suttas or absolute language in the
abhidhamma or a combination often, that the realities we are encouraged to
understand (read realities which wisdom is encouraged to understand) are the
same.

These are good points and I’ll be happy to hear back from you or Victor if ‘my’
comments are still confusing;-)

Sarah

====================


	
9940

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Sun Dec 9, 2001 8:43pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] sudden thoughts

 	
Dear Ken O,

--- Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> wrote: > Hi Sarah,
> 
> Is this abt panna arise with each cittas. 
....................
S:
No. it was about understanding the difference between namas and rupas, e.g
between seeing and visible object just for a moment, but not about panna with
each citta. It was about the development of satipatthana. Without this, there
cannot be the understanding of these realities, however much thinking there is
about the concepts and details.
....................
K:
> I remember I was saying that if
> panna does not arise with in each citta for pple like Buddha or Ven
> Sariputta, there is no way to know how the workings of all cittas. Two
> explanations I have for the ability to know why cittas analysis is so
> detail as expounded by Buddha
> 
> 1. The ability for Buddha to discern past cittas as objects, hence the
> ability to decipher what is what. This discernment must arise with panna.
> 
> 2. I believe, Buddha patisandhi vipaka citta is tihetu kusala vipaka
> citta hence the ability for panna to arise in each cittas. Num
> explanation to Mike makes a lot of sense to me, why cant there be latent
> tendecies for amoha for pple like Buddha and Ven Sariputta.
.....................
S:
Instead of trying to comprehend (impossible anyway) the extraordinary wisdom of
the Buddha and great disciples, isn’t it more important to begin to understand
the realities in our lives, appearing at this moment? This is the way that we
begin to gather ‘clues’ as to how higher levels of wisdom can manifest or are
accumulated. Of course, for all arahats, all latent defilements have been
eradicated (not just the Buddha and Sariputta). We read (and I think Rob K
quoted already) that if we try to work out the wisdom and power of the Buddha,
we will go mad. It’s helpful to read and consider many, many details, but these
should be the details that are ‘within reach or comprehension’, in other words
those that can be understood.
....................
K:
> As for seeing out of body experiences, your position is that there is no
> seeing without eye base. My stand is there is a possibility of seeing
> without eye base due to citta as king of cognization. I have no good
> Abhidhamma explanations till now, it based on my intuition that there is a
> possibility or not how do pple have out of body experiences in surgery. 
> Even one of my close friend has expereinced this. 
....................
S:
It’s not ‘my’ position....According to all the texts, eye-base or eye-sense is
one essential condition for seeing. Visible object is another. I think we can
test this and prove it right now. If we close our eyes, where is the computer,
the pictures, the papers and other objects we find so important? In our
imagination or dreams, right?

I know what you’re saying about special experiences and phantom pains, for
example, can be hard to explain. Aren’t these like the dream experiences that
Frank was talking about? The cittas and the imagination are so very powerful,
that it can seem there really is seeing and bodily experiencing, when really
it’s only thinking.
....................
K:
> Maybe one day I would
> have an explantion. Till then, back to studies on paccaya. Been quite
> lazy these few days on studying Abhidhamma, too much distractions :).
....................
S:
I thought you were a bit quiet for the ‘keen Abhidhammist’. Studying abhidhamma
isn’t just book study. What about now, while we’re looking at the computer,
going for a walk, tidying the flat/house, are there paccaya (conditions)
determining the various dhammas? Look forward to hearing about your paccaya
study.


By the way, before I sign off, I’d like to comment on your ‘sudden thoughts’
from a while back;-)
====================

K:
Subject: [dsg] sudden thoughts (1st Dec)

Sometimes I wonder, abt the need to accumulate panna. I thought it is a
natural process with right understanding. 
....................
S:
That’s how I understand it.
....................
K:
When there is a need, would
there sounds a "self" is involved. Likewise when we say we develop kusala
and prevent akusala, is there a "self" involved. Seeing reality as it is
does not entails one to be concerned abt kusala and akusala (even though
they are impt). To me it is looking at this precious moment be it our
thought kusala and akusala. To me that doesn't mean that when we are in
kusala thoughts, we should not investigate it. All thoughts should be
seen or investigate be it kusala or akusala. Too strong intention of
developing kusala, then to me there is a danger of attaching a "kusala
self".

Just my sudden thoughts
....................
S:
They are pretty good sudden thoughts, I think. You really seem to be on the
right track, imho. In other words, what is important is the understanding of
whatever reality appears now, whether kusala, akusala or vipaka or rupa. If we
mind and are concerned to develop or have kusala at this moment, like you say,
it suggests the clinging to those states, rather than detachment to what is
conditioned.

So rather than say ‘develop kusala’, perhaps we can say ‘understand the value
of kusala and the danger of akusala when they arise’.....Like I just said to
Victor, it depends on the intention and understanding when we use the words
‘develop kusala’ that is important.

Good thoughts and look forward to more.

Sarah

====================


	
9941

From: Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> 
Date: Sun Dec 9, 2001 8:59pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
Hello Sarah,

How does panna see panna itself as it actually is with right discernment
thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self."?

For your reference,

"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations -- who has
attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the
true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right
knowledge -- directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth,
he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth,
does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as
'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has comprehended
it, I tell you.

"He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings
as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... the
luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of
refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant
fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the
infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the
dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the
infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension
of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as
the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the
seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized
as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as
multiplicity... the All as the All...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn001.html

Is the Worthy One referred in the passage above panna? No.

Sarah, it is you who can see and understand.

:-)

Regards,
Victor

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sarah" <sarahdhhk@y...>
To: <dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta


> Dear Victor,
>
> --- Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> wrote:
> > But understanding (panna) is not self.
>
> Agreed




(Agreed by panna or by you???) :-)




>
> >Do you understand that?
>
> Any understanding will be by panna and not by 'me' or 'you'.
>
> Panna can be taken for self like any other reality, but likewise, if panna
is
> the objectof panna, it can be seen as not self too.
>
> Thanks Victor,
> Sarah
	
9942

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Sun Dec 9, 2001 9:02pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)

 	
Hi Herman,

Hope I'm not interrupting..;-)

--- egberdina <hhofman@d...> wrote: > Dear Victor,
> 
> Thank you for your comments.
> 
> Yes, genetic code is subject to change, subject to conditions. 
> Nothing is permanent, except for impermanency. Some things change 
> very quickly, some more slowly. The code used to build your body 
> remains unchanged during your life time. Soon it will be possible to 
> make exact duplicates of you. They will look like you, think like 
> you, feel like you, act like you to the extent that they are subject 
> to the same condtions.

I really know little about genetic codes. I suppose from a dhamma point of
view, we’d say that kamma is so very complex that like in the case of identical
twins, there are conditions for the kamma to bring similar results at similar
times in terms of the rupas (all the physical features) and timing of the
patisandhi cittas (but not quite identical timing) and so on. However, we can
see for identical twins (and I’ve taught a few sets), the accumulations and
personalities are very, very different and from a dhamma point of view have
indeed been ‘accumulated’ over many, many lifetimes and aeons. We also see the
different vipaka experienced for each throughout life in the way of pleasant
and unpleasant bodily experiences, sights, sounds, tastes and so on. 

So I just question whether the exact duplicates you mention above will really
be possible..

> Certainly over time the five khandas arise, change and dissapear, but 
> their arising and functioning and disappearing is controlled by 
> genetic code. 

Can we not say that the arising and so on of the khandhas at this moment
depends on many, many conditions? What is read on the screen now is a condition
for thinking in a certain way. That thinking is a condition for the next moment
of thinking and for attachment or aversion to arise, surely? 

Sarah
===================== 


	
9943

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Sun Dec 9, 2001 9:26pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The noble nine fold path

 	
Hi Erik,

--- rikpa21 <rikpa21@y...> wrote: >> > 
> > What is the problem with the rendition: All this is unreal?
> 
> I see no problem with it. There's the letting go of clinging route; 
> the "cutting through appearances" route. So many, many ways to slice 
> the Dhamma. Re: the term "ditthi", I think Mike mentioned it 
> referring to "miccha ditthi" but teachers I respect have taught me 
> that any view at all is considered ditthi, to be discarded. Right 
> View is the equivalent of no-view, it is beyond taking any position 
> at all, as the sutta Herman quoted notes. What need is there for 
> ditthi (speculation) of any kind when there is direct knowledge?


I think others have explained that Right View =Right Understanding=panna
cetasika. It does not mean ‘beyond taking any position’, but rather taking a
position with right understanding. My initial concern or questioning of the
expression ‘All this is unreal’ was exactly because it can lead to the
interpretation you have given it. 

What I understand, after some consideration, is that it is the conceptual
framework of the ‘all’ or the ‘world’ that is ‘unreal’ and should be seen as
such. The underlying realities, the seeing, hearing and so on, are real and to
be understood as such. At these moments of understanding, there is neither
‘going too far’ or ‘lagging behind’, i.e neither an eternity belief or an
annihilation belief.

Right view, in other words, directly understands realities and as others have
explained, there is no speculation involved at these moments.

Erik, in another post you mention that ‘....once supramundane wisdom is fully
established, there is no longer need for directed investigation into the nature
of formations....’ May I just suggest that right view has to begin developing
now and understanding the nature of realities now as conditioned and not self.
if we have the idea that there should be an idea of ‘directed investigation’ or
self directing until wisdom is of a higher level, it suggests an idea of wrong
view miraculously turning to right view....;-)

Sarah

=====================

	
9944

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Sun Dec 9, 2001 9:40pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
Hello Victor,

--- Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> wrote: > Hello Sarah,
> 
> How does panna see panna itself as it actually is with right discernment
> thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self."?

In just the same way it understands the characteristics of all other realities,
i.e by directly knowing the nature of that reality when it appears.

<snip>
>. the seen as the
> seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized
> as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as
> multiplicity... the All as the All...

Don't we read over and over again that the All refers to the 5 khandhas of
grasping? What is panna (understanding) if it is not a cetasika (mental factor)
included in sankhara khandha?

> Is the Worthy One referred in the passage above panna? No.

Does the Worthy One say that he refers to all realities except a few key ones
such as panna? No. All realities 'should be understood' in the way you
summarise above. Even panna is not self and not worth clinging to;-)

> Sarah, it is you who can see and understand.
> 
> :-)

Does the Worthy One suggest this in the passage above???

;-)

Sarah

	
9945

From: Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> 
Date: Sun Dec 9, 2001 11:35pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
Hello Sarah,

This is a question for consideration: What does pronoun "I" in the
statement "Panna sees panna as it actually is with right discernment thus:
'This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self.'" refer to?

Again, for reference,
"He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings
as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... the
luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of
refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant
fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the
infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the
dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the
infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension
of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as
the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the
seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized
as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as
multiplicity... the All as the All..."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn001.html

In the passage above it is said that "He directly knows water as water..."
Is it panna that directly knows water as water?

Reply in context below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sarah" <sarahdhhk@y...>
To: <dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta


> Hello Victor,
>
> --- Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> wrote: > Hello Sarah,
> >
> > How does panna see panna itself as it actually is with right discernment
> > thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self."?
>
> In just the same way it understands the characteristics of all other
realities,
> i.e by directly knowing the nature of that reality when it appears.
>
> <snip>
> >. the seen as the
> > seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the
cognized
> > as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as
> > multiplicity... the All as the All...
>
> Don't we read over and over again that the All refers to the 5 khandhas of
> grasping? What is panna (understanding) if it is not a cetasika (mental
factor)
> included in sankhara khandha?
>

The original quote in the last message includes "He directly knows water as
water...." Hopefully you've read that.

Sarah, the statement "Panna understands..." or "Panna sees..." or "Panna
knows..." is absurd since panna is not self. It is like saying "Body eats
pizza" or "Eating eats pizza" or "Rupa eats pizza" instead of "He eats
pizza."


> > Is the Worthy One referred in the passage above panna? No.
>
> Does the Worthy One say that he refers to all realities except a few key
ones
> such as panna? No. All realities 'should be understood' in the way you
> summarise above. Even panna is not self and not worth clinging to;-)
>
> > Sarah, it is you who can see and understand.
> >
> > :-)
>
> Does the Worthy One suggest this in the passage above???
>
> ;-)
>
> Sarah

Thanks for replying.

Regards,
Victor
	
9946

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> 
Date: Mon Dec 10, 2001 0:57am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The noble nine fold path

 	
Hi Sarah,

I think sometimes is the problem on one hand one group of us is using
conventional speech to explain the teachings while another group is using
paramattha dhamma speech to explain the teachings. Hence I feel there
could be some confusion. 

When I see Erik say that Right view is the equivalent to no view is
correct bc it mean we do not cling to a view, which implies markless or
signless. In this aspect there is no fixation, everything is seen as it
is. More of a Nagajuna (hope get the spelling right) method. To me it is
another powerful method to see anatta. 

Whereas for Abhidhamma used another method to see reality as it is. 

"The underlying realities, the seeing, hearing and so on, are real
> and to be understood as such."

It seems to a coincidence, that I have cautioned taking a view that seeing
hearing as real in another list. Most likely you know it, but I just like
to make a point of caution.

Without vipaka cittas, is there paccaya for seeing, hence seeing is
conditioned. If it is conditioned, it should not be view as real. I just
like to caution on taking paramattha as real bc they are also concepts
used to understand larger concepts like I or car. They are also fingers
pointing to the moon. There should be cautioned, so as not to take it as
substantial bc it defeats the purpose of Abhidhammic investigation and
then end up taking such microscopic elements as something real.

I happen to be lucky I accept both school of thoughts :). To me, they
complements each other very well. In my study of Nagajuna, its theory is
abstract and hard to fathom, with the assistance of Abhidhamma, it becomes
clearly. It however cautions even taking paramattha dhamma as real which
somethings I find very impt and relevant in the microscopic study of
Abhidhamma. 




Kind regards
Ken O





--- Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote: > Hi Erik,
> 
> --- rikpa21 <rikpa21@y...> wrote: >> > 
> > > What is the problem with the rendition: All this is unreal?
> > 
> > I see no problem with it. There's the letting go of clinging route; 
> > the "cutting through appearances" route. So many, many ways to slice 
> > the Dhamma. Re: the term "ditthi", I think Mike mentioned it 
> > referring to "miccha ditthi" but teachers I respect have taught me 
> > that any view at all is considered ditthi, to be discarded. Right 
> > View is the equivalent of no-view, it is beyond taking any position 
> > at all, as the sutta Herman quoted notes. What need is there for 
> > ditthi (speculation) of any kind when there is direct knowledge?
> 
> 
> I think others have explained that Right View =Right Understanding=panna
> cetasika. It does not mean ‘beyond taking any position’, but rather
> taking a
> position with right understanding. My initial concern or questioning of
> the
> expression ‘All this is unreal’ was exactly because it can lead to the
> interpretation you have given it. 
> 
> What I understand, after some consideration, is that it is the
> conceptual
> framework of the ‘all’ or the ‘world’ that is ‘unreal’ and should be
> seen as
> such. The underlying realities, the seeing, hearing and so on, are real
> and to
> be understood as such. At these moments of understanding, there is
> neither
> ‘going too far’ or ‘lagging behind’, i.e neither an eternity belief or
> an
> annihilation belief.
> 
> Right view, in other words, directly understands realities and as others
> have
> explained, there is no speculation involved at these moments.
> 
> Erik, in another post you mention that ‘....once supramundane wisdom is
> fully
> established, there is no longer need for directed investigation into the
> nature
> of formations....’ May I just suggest that right view has to begin
> developing
> now and understanding the nature of realities now as conditioned and not
> self.
> if we have the idea that there should be an idea of ‘directed
> investigation’ or
> self directing until wisdom is of a higher level, it suggests an idea of
> wrong
> view miraculously turning to right view....;-)
> 
> Sarah
> 
> =====================


	
9947

From: egberdina <hhofman@d...> 
Date: Mon Dec 10, 2001 1:30am
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
Dear Victor,

I have been looking for this sutta for weeks. A little bit of 
synchronicity. Thank you. 


Herman


> 
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn001.html
> 
> Is the Worthy One referred in the passage above panna? No.
> 
> Sarah, it is you who can see and understand.
> 
> :-)
> 
> Regards,
> Victor
>
	
9948

From: egberdina <hhofman@d...> 
Date: Mon Dec 10, 2001 2:22am
Subject: [dsg] Re: puppets, mara, and concentration (pt 1)

 	
Dear Sarah,

See below, at the risk of being more bored than standing at the bar 
of a pub with no beer next to Jean Paul Sartre :-)

However, we can
> see for identical twins (and I've taught a few sets), the 
accumulations and
> personalities are very, very different and from a dhamma point of 
view have
> indeed been `accumulated' over many, many lifetimes and aeons. We 
also see the
> different vipaka experienced for each throughout life in the way of 
pleasant
> and unpleasant bodily experiences, sights, sounds, tastes and so 
on. 
> 
> So I just question whether the exact duplicates you mention above 
will really
> be possible..


True enough. It is only within identity that there is no 
differentiation. To be the same as something already requires a 
different time and/or place. To be the same therefore already implies 
a difference. I also know some identical twins, who are in many 
respects similar, and in other respects different. I do believe that 
is because, being the same but different as per above, they have not 
been exposed to the same conditions.


> > Certainly over time the five khandas arise, change and dissapear, 

but 
> > their arising and functioning and disappearing is controlled by 
> > genetic code. 
> 
> Can we not say that the arising and so on of the khandhas at this 
moment
> depends on many, many conditions? What is read on the screen now is 
a condition
> for thinking in a certain way. That thinking is a condition for the 
next moment
> of thinking and for attachment or aversion to arise, surely? 
> 


The younger you are , the truer this is. It is called learning. And I 
believe one's ability to learn is genetically determined. As one gets 
older, it is less each moment conditioning the next, more each moment 
being apprehended according to one's learning. The incompatibility 
between old dogs, new tricks, that sort of thing.

By the time one hits teenage years, one has pretty wel decided what 
the world looks like, and how one is going to react to it.

I told you it would be boring :-)

All the best

Herman
	
9949

From: frank kuan <fcckuan@y...> 
Date: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:05am
Subject: Why do paccekabuddhas always get such a bad rap Re: [dsg] Eightfold Path (esp. right effort)

 	
--- upasaka@a... wrote:
> The usual 
> definition of the term is of one who attains full
> enlightenment completely by 
> his own efforts, without having ever heard the
> Dhamma, and, for some reason, 
> never quite explained, being unable to teach it to
> others. The notion 
> confuses me in several respects. One of these is why
> the inability to teach. 
> Is it total? Or is it merely that without having
> mastered the perfections of 
> a buddha, he isn't up to the task of presenting the
> Dhamma to a world in 
> which it is currently completely unknown? 

First of all, I think paccekabuddhas get an unfair
reputation for lacking compassion and/or skill to
teach. I tend to believe that because they are living
in a period where the dhamma is dead, dhamma is dead
because many people have dust in their eye, which is a
tough audience to win over. Even a perfectly
enlightened buddha with infinite patience and
compassion would have trouble making the morons of the
world go against the grain, let alone a paccekabuddha.

I can totally empathize with the paccekabuddhas.
What I suspect is they TRY to impart the knowledge
they've rediscovered, and find that people are just so
ignorant and unwilling to listen that after a while
they just give up and head for the forest in the
mountain. Even in the current age where the dhamma is
still accessible, I see many examples of skilled
buddhist practitioners unable to share their knowledge
with an ignorant audience, even among self-proclaimed
buddhist at times! Imagine a paccekabuddha living in
an age where people have little or no spiritual
inclination, or the only inkling of spirituality
resembles fundamentalist monotheism. What do you do at
that point? Grab your requisites, head for the
mountain. 
I'll bet that many paccekabuddhas were fine
instructors, worthy instructors with no worthy
students. I'm sure we've all encountered great
teachers in public schools who were brilliant but
watched helplessly as most of our ignorant fellow
students failed to benefit from the treasure. 
I would also bet that many paccekabuddhas DO have a
small hand of people with little dust in their eye who
follow the master and get some benefit, but maybe
just not enough talent to realize paccekabuddhahood
themselves or develop a lineage.


> Another
> question is whether the 
> condition of not having heard the Dhamma really
> doesn't refer only to the 
> present lifetime. 

Recall the case of Prince Ajisattu (mispelled badly
I'm sure), the son of King Bimbisara (?), followed
Devadatta's advice, killed his own father to ascend
the throne, learned dhamma from the Buddha. The Buddha
said that after many aeons in hell for patricide, he
would eventually become a paccekabuddha. 
On a side note, I just recently read in the
Samyutta that Brahma Sahampati (sp? Is he the current
reigning Brahma? Anyone on the list with a divine eye
want to confirm?), was a stream enterer monk [slacker]
from the previous Buddha before Shakymuni (Buddha
Kassapa?). There are also other references in the
suttas of stream entering monks whose 7 lifetime
period for enlightenment expiration date spanned 2
buddhas. So what this tells us is that even though the
period between two buddhas is a pretty long time,
there's probably still some dhamma being expounded by
various devas/brahmas of sanctified distinction.
Suppose an aspiring paccekabuddha develops and masters
the jhanas, and divine eye, divine ear and eavesdrops
on some dhamma talks going on in other spheres. Is
that cheating? Can he still be considered a
paccekabuddha if he got some hints from other worlds?
Ok, I've definitely gone way beyond the point of
proper dhamma discussion, but I'm just following
Howard's lead :-)

> I recall having read that certain
> followers of an earlier 
> Buddha had vowed to become paccekabuddhas, in
> contradistinction to others 
> some of whom had vowed to become arahats, some to
> become budddas, and some to 
> become a first or second lieutenant of a Buddha,
> filling the roles assumed by 
> Venerables Sariputta and Moggalana (sp?) under the
> Buddha of the current 
> dispensation. It seems contradictory for a disciple
> of a Buddha to vow to 
> become a paccekabuddha. 

It seems odd to me that any disciple of the buddha
would vow to be anything other than a completely
enlightened arhat in the CURRENT lifetime. I doubt
being a paccekabuddhahood is a result of a vow. Who
would be dumb enough to vow to do something the hard
and painful way? My view is that paccekabuddhahood is
a result of being a slacker monk, a monk with heavy
defilements to overcome, or maybe just a monk with bad
luck who showed up to the party late when most of the
cool arhats already left and had to figure out how to
have a good time on their own. 

-fk





	
9950

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Mon Dec 10, 2001 2:17am
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
Hi, Victor -

Human speech conveys conventional ideas, including that of agent/self. 
When we say "I'm eating pizza", we are uttering an agency-based shorthand for 
a statement of *incredible* complexity, involving jaw motion, tongue 
movement, salivation, tasting, and so on and so forth. (And even a complex 
statement of that sort would be filled with shorthand terminology.) The 
complexity is near-infinite. So we just say "I'm eating pizza". But it is 
just a way of speaking. If it were more than that, we could point out what 
this "I" that is eating the pizza is! We cannot.

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 12/10/01 2:37:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
victoryu@s... writes:


> Hello Sarah,
> 
> This is a question for consideration: What does pronoun "I" in the
> statement "Panna sees panna as it actually is with right discernment thus:
> 'This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self.'" refer to?
> 
> Again, for reference,
> "He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings
> as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... 
> the
> luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of
> refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant
> fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the
> infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the
> dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the
> infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the 
> dimension
> of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as
> the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the
> seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized
> as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as
> multiplicity... the All as the All..."
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn001.html
> 
> In the passage above it is said that "He directly knows water as water..."
> Is it panna that directly knows water as water?
> 
> Reply in context below.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sarah" <sarahdhhk@y...>
> To: <dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 12:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta
> 
> 
> > Hello Victor,
> >
> > --- Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> wrote: > Hello Sarah,
> > >
> > > How does panna see panna itself as it actually is with right 
> discernment
> > > thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self."?
> >
> > In just the same way it understands the characteristics of all other
> realities,
> > i.e by directly knowing the nature of that reality when it appears.
> >
> > <snip>
> > >. the seen as the
> > > seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the
> cognized
> > > as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as
> > > multiplicity... the All as the All...
> >
> > Don't we read over and over again that the All refers to the 5 khandhas 
> of
> > grasping? What is panna (understanding) if it is not a cetasika (mental
> factor)
> > included in sankhara khandha?
> >
> 
> The original quote in the last message includes "He directly knows water as
> water...." Hopefully you've read that.
> 
> Sarah, the statement "Panna understands..." or "Panna sees..." or "Panna
> knows..." is absurd since panna is not self. It is like saying "Body eats
> pizza" or "Eating eats pizza" or "Rupa eats pizza" instead of "He eats
> pizza."
> 
> 
> > > Is the Worthy One referred in the passage above panna? No.
> >
> > Does the Worthy One say that he refers to all realities except a few key
> ones
> > such as panna? No. All realities 'should be understood' in the way you
> > summarise above. Even panna is not self and not worth clinging to;-)
> >
> > > Sarah, it is you who can see and understand.
> > >
> > > :-)
> >
> > Does the Worthy One suggest this in the passage above???
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> > Sarah
> 
> Thanks for replying.
> 
> Regards,
> Victor
> 


/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) 




	
9951

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> 
Date: Mon Dec 10, 2001 7:46am
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
Hi Victor Yu

--- Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> wrote: > Hello Sarah,
> 
> This is a question for consideration: What does pronoun "I" in the
> statement "Panna sees panna as it actually is with right discernment
> thus:
> 'This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self.'" refer to?
> 
> Again, for reference,
> "He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind...
> beings
> as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma...
> the
> luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of
> refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant
> fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the
> infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the
> dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the
> infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the
> dimension
> of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
> as
> the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as
> the
> seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the
> cognized
> as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as
> multiplicity... the All as the All..."
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn001.html
> 
> In the passage above it is said that "He directly knows water as
> water..."
> Is it panna that directly knows water as water?


k: Yes that is true, only panna knows water as water (seeing it as it
is). So does cetana only acts as acts. When Buddha refers that he
directly knows water as water, he is refering to seeing it as it is, as
non-self, as anicca. Or what you say 'This is not mine. This I am not. 
This is not my self". Isn't panna part of the "he" as mentioned in the
context above. Isn't panna also "this is not mine, this I am not and This
is not myself" Could we own panna? To me it just usually different
technical language pointing to the same thing. In the same way, we treat
"he" as also not mine, this I am not and this is not myself. *He* is just
used conventionally (sutta context) while panna is used in Abhidhamma
context. 




Kind regards
Ken O






	
9952

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Mon Dec 10, 2001 8:48am
Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta

 	
--- ellaruthau <cforsyth@v...> wrote:
> I think we would be trying the patience of the list members to 
> continue, so I'll stop after this :-)) The possums have been treed 
> by Rusty who thinks he has won a gold medal, and I have a headache 
> from the barking - so I'll go and 'attend' to him before Sarah & 
> Jon 'attend' to us.
> metta,
> Christine

Beautiful, Christine. Now, before we are likewise attended to, I will just ask: 
how do we 'tree' the ego? Is Satipatthana the 'Rusty' that can make us aware of
our 'possums of ignorance'? 

Okay, okay, I'll stop, I'll stop.

Robert


	
9953

From: Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Mon Dec 10, 2001 10:13am
Subject: Cambodia Ch 14, no 4

 	
Cambodia ch 14, no 4

As for myself, I study only in order to have more understanding, and I study
also in so far as I can understand what I study. If a part of the teachings
is beyond my ability of understanding I am not interested in the study. I do
not need to speak about terms, to arrange subjects in the right order or to
write essays for others. I only want other people to have real understanding
of dhammas. I know that if I arrange a lay-out of the subjects of the
Dhamma, it is too easy for people; they will just read and they may not
ponder over those subjects at all. People may just look at it and believe
that they themselves have understood it. When we study the Dhamma with the
aim of really understanding it, we do not have to separate the different
chapters, and study them in the right order. When someone really understands
a particular subject of the Dhamma, he can understand other subjects as
well. He can, for example, understand the rebirth-consciousness; he can
understand of what jåti (class or nature) it is, what object it experiences,
and by what factor it is conditioned. It is conditioned by kamma-condition,
because it is vipåkacitta, citta that is result. Thus, we should consider
and understand the words we have heard, we should not just follow the text
without any understanding. Then there can be the foundation knowledge for
understanding the realities that are appearing, and this understanding is
most beneficial, it is the purpose of our study. Therefore I like to suggest
people to read the Tipiìaka and Commentaries in addition to listening to
lectures and Dhamma discussions. However, everyone should know for himself
whether he is able to really understand particular subjects of Dhamma or
not, and he should know to what extent he can understand them. He should not
merely understand the letter of the Dhamma, or know the amounts of the
different classifications of dhammas.

I myself study in order to understand what I read thoroughly, profoundly and
in all details. I do not disregard or neglect to consider the things I read,
such as bhavanga-citta. When there is bhavanga-citta, life-continuum,
realities do not appear, but why is it that, after the bhavanga-citta has
fallen away, realities do appear, is that not amazing? In this respect we
should understand the term åyatana (sense-field or sphere of contact), we
should understand where the åyatanas are. When are there åyatanas 1 ? If we
do not know this we are only learning terms. We should understand that at
the moments when there are no cittas arising in processes (víthicittas),
there is no appearance of an object. Every citta, no matter what kind, must
know an object, but some kinds of cittas can know an object without being
dependent on one of the six doorways 2. In this way we can understand the
difference between the moment of víthi-citta and the moment of
bhavanga-citta.

When we study and understand realities in this way, we shall see that the
realities are appearing just in conformity with what we studied. 


	
9954

From: Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Mon Dec 10, 2001 10:13am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: conditions for listening

 	
op 08-12-2001 11:10 schreef egberdina op hhofman@d...:
> 
> Thank you for posting the Cambodia series, and this one. It is food
> for thought. Which leads me to a question. You say: "Conditions for
> pa~n~naa can be accumulated by listening, carefully considering and
> by mindfulness of nama and rupa."
> 
> What are the conditions that can lead to listening, carefully
> considering and mindfulness. Is there the option of choosing to
> listen and what to listen to, choosing to carefully consider and what
> to consider, choosing to be mindful and what to be mindful of?
> 
Nina: Dear Herman, when we listen to the Dhamma there are moments of
hearing, and these are conditioned by kusala kamma, a good deed in the past.
Actually, when we say that we meet the person who can explain the Dhamma, it
is a situation, but when we analyse it, there are many moments of
vipakacittas produced by kamma. Meeting this or that person is conditioned.
As I explained to Ranjith, kamma of the past can be accumulated from moment
to moment, since each citta is succeeded by a following one. Thus, the force
of kamma can propel forward, from the past to the present.
Our life is a chain of events, and when we look back we may be surprised:
how did it occur that I just had to meet this person at that moment, it
cannot be mere chance. Why did I meet Lodewijk, different circumstances
related to the war, and then our common interest in music. Why did he enter
the diplomatic service and why were we posted to Thailand. Through my Thai
teacher I met A. Sujin who was teaching at the same language school. So I
met her and listened. A chain of events.
You, Herman, will be able to see this also in your life: events that lead
you to study Buddhism, to join this list.
There is not only kamma that is accumulated. Also, as I explained to
Ranjith, inclinations to akusala and kusala, different talents, preferences
for this or that object. This is why we associate with persons who have the
same likes and dislikes, inclinations, interests as we. It happens because
of many conditions. No self who can set up all this.
We listen, we consider. We are likely to have listened in the past. It takes
two persons when there is a Dhamma discussion: the person who explains and
the person who listens. What is the reaction of the listener? It depends on
his accumulated inclinations how deeply he will consider what he hears. Your
question shows that you really consider what you hear. You do not wish to
follow blindly what you hear, but to verify everything. This is all
condiitoned by the past.
Conditions for mindfulness: nobody can control the arising of mindfulness,
it all depends on the accumulated conditions for it. Nobody can control the
object of mindfulness either. As we were reminded in India: nobody can
choose to see, nobody can choose to hear, nobody can choose to have sati. It
will arise when there are the right conditions.
Each person is unique, there are no rules with regard to the development of
understanding. But at the present time it has to be a development that takes
a long time (cira kala bhavana). By study, listening and considering the
Dhamma there can each time be just a little more understanding and we should
be grateful for that. It should be enough for the moment, because, as A.
Sujin often said, pa~n~naa works it way. It is accumulated little by little.
When I was in India, Supee, the Pali teacher, mentioned that when we read
about the different stages of insight and about the lokuttara cittas that
arise when enlightenment is attained, we can see that not many details are
given in the Tipitaka or commentaries. This is because it depends on the
individual how he reaches such or such degree of pa~n~naa, what the objects
of pa~n~naa were. He mentioned the Pali word: paccatta, implying: each
individual for himself. This is stated in the Recollection of the Dhamma, to
be known by each individual for himself. There is no rule to what extent a
person should develop calm when he develops the Path leading to
enlightenment. It all depends on his accumulations, it is conditioned.
Best wishes, Nina. 

	
9955

From: egberdina <hhofman@d...> 
Date: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:33pm
Subject: Re: some more about pizza

 	
Dear Howard et al,

I agree with you, "I" is shorthand for incredibly complexity. "Pizza" 
likewise. In order to recognise all the factors that contribute to a 
specific pizza (nama/rupa) or pizza generally (nama), the production 
of the ingredients, the history that led to pizza generally, or the 
production of a specific pizza, I do not think that much from the 
history of the entire cosmos could be excluded. In short, it is only 
the mind that conveniently and often incorrectly apprehends objects 
or processes as being stand-alone, seperate or independant from the 
remainder of the entirity of the ground of possibilities.

When shorthand such as "pizza" is credited with an identity all it's 
own, semantical and etymological discussions can be mistaken for 
ontological discussion. The question is not "What is a pizza" 
but "What is included in "pizza" and what is excluded". This is not 
a question about the reality of the pizza, it is about the definition 
of the pizza.

If I say "my self is my body and it's functions" this is not a 
statement about reality, but a definition of how I use my shorthand. 
There is no truth in a definition. Words are mere denotations of 
concepts which are mere abstracts of mere selective and limited 
perceptions.

Nonetheless "I" enjoy a good "pizza" :-)


All the best


Herman


--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:
> Hi, Victor -
> 
> Human speech conveys conventional ideas, including that of 
agent/self. 
> When we say "I'm eating pizza", we are uttering an agency-based 
shorthand for 
> a statement of *incredible* complexity, involving jaw motion, 
tongue 
> movement, salivation, tasting, and so on and so forth. (And even a 
complex 
> statement of that sort would be filled with shorthand terminology.) 
The 
> complexity is near-infinite. So we just say "I'm eating pizza". But 
it is 
> just a way of speaking. If it were more than that, we could point 
out what 
> this "I" that is eating the pizza is! We cannot.
> 
> With metta,
> Howard
> 
> In a message dated 12/10/01 2:37:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> victoryu@s... writes:
> 
> 
> > Hello Sarah,
> > 
> > This is a question for consideration: What does pronoun "I" in 
the
> > statement "Panna sees panna as it actually is with right 
discernment thus:
> > 'This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self.'" refer 
to?
> > 
> > Again, for reference,
> > "He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as 
wind... beings
> > as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as 
Brahma... 
> > the
> > luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as 
gods of
> > refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of 
abundant
> > fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of 
the
> > infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of 
space... the
> > dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of 
the
> > infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as 
the 
> > dimension
> > of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-
perception as
> > the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the 
seen as the
> > seen... the heard as the heard... th? sensed as the sensed... the 
cognized
> > as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as
> > multiplicity... the All as the All..."
> > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn001.html
> > 
> > In the passage above it is said that "He directly knows water as 
water..."
> > Is it panna that directly knows water as water?
> > 
> > Reply in context below.
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sarah" <sarahdhhk@y...>
> > To: <dhammastudygroup@y...>
> > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 12:40 AM
> > Subject: Re: [dsg] some more about metta
> > 
> > 
> > > Hello Victor,
> > >
> > > --- Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> wrote: > Hello Sarah,
> > > >
> > > > How does panna see panna itself as it actually is with right 
> > discernment
> > > > thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my 
self."?
> > >
> > > In just the same way it understands the characteristics of all 
other
> > realities,
> > > i.e by directly knowing the nature of that reality when it 
appears.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > >. the seen as the
> > > > seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... 
the
> > cognized
> > > > as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as
> > > > multiplicity... the All as the All...
> > >
> > > Don't we read over and over again that the All refers to the 5 
khandhas 
> > of
> > > grasping? What is panna (understanding) if it is not a cetasika 
(mental
> > factor)
> > > included in sankhara khandha?
> > >
> > 
> > The original quote in the last message includes "He directly 
knows water as
> > water...." Hopefully you've read that.
> > 
> > Sarah, the statement "Panna understands..." or "Panna sees..." 
or "Panna
> > knows..." is absurd since panna is not self. It is like 
saying "Body eats
> > pizza" or "Eating eats pizza" or "Rupa eats pizza" instead of "He 
eats
> > pizza."
> > 
> > 
> > > > Is the Worthy One referred in the passage above panna? No.
> > >
> > > Does the Worthy One say that he refers to all realities except 
a few key
> > ones
> > > such as panna? No. All realities 'should be understood' in the 
way you
> > > summarise above. Even panna is not self and not worth clinging 
to;-)
> > >
> > > > Sarah, it is you who can see and understand.
> > > >
> > > > :-)
> > >
> > > Does the Worthy One suggest this in the passage above???
> > >
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > > Sarah
> > 
> > Thanks for replying.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Victor

9956

From: <srnsk@a...> 
Date: Mon Dec 10, 2001 11:09am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: some more about pizza

 	
Hi all,


> If I say "my self is my body and it's functions" this is not a 
> statement about reality, but a definition of how I use my shorthand. 
> There is no truth in a definition. Words are mere denotations of 
> concepts which are mere abstracts of mere selective and limited 
> perceptions.
> 

I do enjoy this thread:) May I just add that the same can apply to nama, 
rupa, citta, cetasika, ditthi, panna and so on.

Sorry, I am not a pizza lover but I do enjoy having pizza once in a while.


Num


	
9957

From: m. nease <mlnease@y...> 
Date: Mon Dec 10, 2001 4:37pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: some more about pizza

 	
Hi Num,

--- srnsk@a... wrote:

> Sorry, I am not a pizza lover but I do enjoy having
> pizza once in a while.

I'll have yours--hold the papa~nchovies.

mike

	
9958

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> 
Date: Mon Dec 10, 2001 6:24pm
Subject: Terminology

 	
Hi Victor,

Maybe I like to say that this list is mainly talking in term of Abhidhamma
terminology rather than usually sutta terminology where I or he is used. 
In Abhidhamma, as the notion of I or he is broken up into microscopic
part, panna, cetana are used. To Abhidhamma they consider them as what
you state 'This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self.'. This
is the underlying principle and is to be understand as such when
Abhidhamma talks abt cetasikas or cittas or rupas. 

I hope this clarify certain terminology. It took me a few months to
understand their basic lingo, maybe you could try to learn their lingo so
that there could be better understanding when we discuss the dhamma. Its
good to learn their lingo bc we could *bombard* them with dhamma questions
in return, he he ;-). 

Sorry if I sound too harsh on the earlier post of mine below to you.





Kind regards
Ken O



--- Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> wrote: > Hi Victor Yu
> 
> --- Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> wrote: > Hello Sarah,
> > 
> > This is a question for consideration: What does pronoun "I" in the
> > statement "Panna sees panna as it actually is with right discernment
> > thus:
> > 'This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self.'" refer to?
> > 
> > Again, for reference,
> > "He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind...
> > beings
> > as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as
> Brahma...
> > the
> > luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods
> of
> > refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant
> > fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the
> > infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the
> > dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the
> > infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the
> > dimension
> > of nothingness... the dimension of
> neither-perception-nor-non-perception
> > as
> > the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as
> > the
> > seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the
> > cognized
> > as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as
> > multiplicity... the All as the All..."
> > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn001.html
> > 
> > In the passage above it is said that "He directly knows water as
> > water..."
> > Is it panna that directly knows water as water?
> 
> 
> k: Yes that is true, only panna knows water as water (seeing it as it
> is). So does cetana only acts as acts. When Buddha refers that he
> directly knows water as water, he is refering to seeing it as it is, as
> non-self, as anicca. Or what you say 'This is not mine. This I am not. 
> This is not my self". Isn't panna part of the "he" as mentioned in the
> context above. Isn't panna also "this is not mine, this I am not and
> This
> is not myself" Could we own panna? To me it just usually different
> technical language pointing to the same thing. In the same way, we treat
> "he" as also not mine, this I am not and this is not myself. *He* is
> just
> used conventionally (sutta context) while panna is used in Abhidhamma
> context. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind regards
> Ken O
> 

	
9959

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Mon Dec 10, 2001 1:57pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: some more about pizza

 	
Good one, Mike! I hate it when they proliferate the pizza toppings!! ;-))

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 12/10/01 7:40:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
mlnease@y... writes:


> 
> Hi Num,
> 
> --- srnsk@a... wrote:
> 
> > Sorry, I am not a pizza lover but I do enjoy having
> > pizza once in a while.
> 
> I'll have yours--hold the papa~nchovies.
> 
> mike
> 


/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) 




	
9960

From: rikpa21 <rikpa21@y...> 
Date: Mon Dec 10, 2001 10:11pm
Subject: Re: Momentariness

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:

Hi Howard, once again, your insights are remarkable:

> (Oddly, 
> the notion of something changing also brings with it the notion of 
something 
> lasting.) 

Indeed it does, because it implies the presence of some "thing" that 
exists "from its own side." (independent of the mind cognizing and 
all the other various factors and conditions that go into creating 
the experience).

> In fact, from the momentaristic perspective, nothing changes., 
> because *nothing remains*. Each moment, after arising there is 
ceasing. 

As I was reading this, I was thinking "Hmmm...someone's been 
reading Nagarjuna..."

> The foregoing constitutes an argument with which I concur, 
an argument 
> supporting the superiority of the discrete view over the 
continuous view. 
> However, I see a problem with the discrete view as well. That 
pointillist 
> view is vulnerable to both substantialism and annihilationism. 

Then I was REALLY thinking gee, "this sounds awfully familiar!"

> From the 
> extreme pointillist perspective, each mindstate truly exists for 
the moment, 
> and is then annihilated. This is unsatisfactory, because it is 
contrary to 
> the Dhamma. 

Indeed it is, and is exactly why he Tibetan "trangye" (study of 
the "Four Schools: Vaibhasika, Sautrantika, Yogacara, Madhyamika) 
shreds this Vaibhasika view as the most primitive and simplistic and 
wrong views around. It BEGINS with this view of crypto-
substantialism and eviscerates it, point by um, point, then goes on 
on the Sautrantika, then the Yogacara's "Mind Only," and finally, 
the Consequentializt school of the Prasangikas, who deny (based on 
Nagarjuna's reasoning) that anything at all exists from "its own 
side, by way of its own character or entity." That includes the self 
we associate with the person as well as the "self" we associate with 
composed phenomena. There is no difference in the no-self nature of 
a person and that of phenomena: all lack intrinsic, self-originated 
essence. To believe or imply otherwise would be to fall into the 
error of eternalism, that things are somehow magically "self 
produced" and arise independent of causes and conditions.

Nagarjuna:

"If phenomena are not born, it is invalid for there to be cessation. 
Therefore, an immediate [condition] is unreasonable. What, having 
ceased, can also be a condition?"

> It involves, restricted to the moment, both a substantialsim and 
> an annihilationism. The Buddha did not teach either. He taught the 
middle 
> way, as in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. Is there an escape from that 
problem, 
> still within the Abhidhammic framework? I think there may be. But 
I think it 
> may require a backing off from the view of each citta, its 
arammana, and its 
> accompanying cetasikas as being substantial existents. 

Indeed for Right View to arise, this view must be discarded 
wholseale. There are no "absolute existents", at least as intepreted 
as "paramattha dhammas", if "paramattha dhammas" are considered to 
have svabhava, or self-nature, or to "exist from their own side" 
as "true entities" or "ultimates." If "paramattha dhamma," on the 
other hand, is seen as no more than a shorthand for the idea 
of "irreducubility of experience in linguistic terms" then okay. But 
to believe more than this of them is to fall into the very 
reification trap that blocks the direct apprehension of things as 
they truly are: the pacification of all objectification.

> The seeds of such a 
> backing off are already in place, with the understanding of each 
mindstate as 
> conditioned and arising dependently. But I think that one needs to 
push that 
> further, seeing that such conditionality and dependence implies an 
emptiness, 
> a corelessness. I think that it is here that some of the arguments 
put forth 
> by such as Nagarjuna may be very, very helpful.

I concur wholeheartedly on this point. Anyone serious about REALLY 
grokking anatta should familiarize themselves with the works of 
Nagarjuna, particularly the "Mulamadhyamakakarika," the "Root Verses 
on the Middle Way," and INTENSELY meditate on the proposals therein, 
wherein he demonstrates the absurdity of there being either cause 
and effect, at least as understood in terms of discrete entities.

Nagarjuna:

"No thing anywhere is ever born from itself, from something else, 
from both or without a cause."

This is deep stuff, and I have yet to see anything in the Abhidhamma 
come close enough to Nagarjuna's (considered by some to be the 
second Buddha) consequentialism in shredding how we hold to objects 
as having any true nature or essence. The logical absurdities 
proposed by Nagarjuna are gadflies for those who would cling to the 
notions of "true existence: of some sort in all its mutifarious 
forms.

Of course it requires an open mind and a willingness to set aside, 
for a moment, the commentaries and subcommentaries of the Tripitaka--
which merely serve to reinforce a particular set of views held py a 
particular subset of Buddhists, and approach the problem from a 
different perspective. It is the analysis of multiple perspectives 
on emptiness that REALLY unlocked the undersatnding of anatta for 
me. Had I merely studied in one system, I'd still be scratching my 
head over anatta, perhaps I'd be immeasuably confused by its eral 
meaning and intent still, as I was before embarking on this wide-
ranging comparative analysis.

Nagarjuna:

"Those of small minds see things as existent and non-existent. They 
do not behold the utter pacification of what is seen."

"The emptiness of the conquerors was taught in order to do away with 
all philosophical views. Therefore it is said that whoever makes a 
philosophical view out of "emptiness" is indeed lost."

May all beings find the total peace of cesation.

Cheers,
Erik
	
9961

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Mon Dec 10, 2001 10:57pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? <4>

 	
Dear Friends,

Just to recap, in the Baahiranidaana, the introductory commentary to the
Vinaya, Buddhaghosa is establishing the authenticity of the Vinaya, Suttanta
and Abhidhamma. The ‘Dhamma and the Vinaya’ took 7 months to rehearse at the
1st Council held in Rajagaha, 2 months after the Buddha’s Parinibbana.

The reason for the recital so soon after, was to preserve the Teachings. 500
arahats (Ananda is now an arahat) have been carefully selected from the 700,000
monks who were present at the Buddha’s Parinibbana for this task.

Continuing from the same text, the next day (after Ananda’s arahatship),
Mahakassapa asked the monks whether they should rehearse the Dhamma (i.e.
Suttanta and Abhidhamma) first or the Vinaya. The monks replied:

‘ “Sir, Mahakassapa, the Vinaya is the very life of the Dispensation of the
enlightened One; so long as the Vinaya endures, the Dispensation endures,
therefore let us rehearse the Vinaya first” ‘.

(This is sgnificant in the light of recent trends to consider the Vinaya and
all the rules as out-dated).

It was decided that venerable Upali would be in charge because ‘the Perfectly
Enlightened One, while he was living, considered the venerable Upali as the
most pre-eminent in connexion with the learning of the Vinaya’....’Thereupon
the Elder (Mahakassapa) appointed himself for the purpose of questioning about
the Vinaya, and the Elder Upali agreed to give explanations.’ 

‘.....then the venerable Mahakassapa seated himself in the president’s seat and
questioned the venerable Upali on the Vinaya (see also Vin.ii 286), “Friend
Upali, where did the Exaltyed One lay down the first Paaraajika?”

“At Vesali, Sir.”

“In connexion with whom?”

“In connexion with Sudinna, son of Kalandaka.”

“In connexion with what subject?”

“In connexion with sexual intercourse.” 

‘Then the venerable Mahakassapa questioned the venerable Upali on the subject
of the frst Paaraajika, the occasion, the person, the rule, the corollaries,
and on what constitutes an offence and what does not.....’

‘...thus was made the compilation of the Vinaya Pitaka which consists of the
Vibhanga of both categories <Mahavibhanga and Bhikkhunivibhanga>, the Khandaka
and the Parivaara. The Elder Mahakassapa questioned on everything and the
Elder Upali explained. At the conclusion of the explanation of the questions
the 500 arahats rehearsed together in a group according to the exact way in
which the compilation had been fixed...’

In the same way, it was decided that Mahakassapa would question Ananda on the
Dhamma.

‘ “Friend Ananda, where was the Brahmajala preached?”

“Sir, at the King’s palace at Ambala.t.thika, between Rajagaha and Nalanda.”

“In connexion with whom?”

“Suppiya the wandering ascetic and the brahmin youth Brahmadatta.”

“On what subject?”

“On praise and blame.”

‘.................And in the self-same manner he questioned him on all five
Nikayas.”

‘...The five Nikayas are, Dighanikaya, Majjhimanikaya, Samyuttanikaya,
Anguttaranikaya, and Khuddakanikaya. Here Khuddakanikaya means the rest of the
sayings of the Buddha excluding the four Nikayas. The venerable Elder Upali
explained the Vinaya therein and the Elder Ananda the remaining sections of the
Khuddakanikaya and the four Nikayas.

'All this forms the word of the Buddha which should be known as uniform in
sentiment, twofold as the Dhamma and the Vinaya, threefold according to the
first, intermediate, and last words, and similarly as Pitakas (Baskets),
fivefold according to the Nikayas (Collections), ninefold according to the
Angas (Factors), and forming 84,000 divisions according to the Units of the
Dhamma.

‘How is it uniform in sentiment? During the interval of forty-five years from
the time He realized the unique and perfect Enlightenment until he passed away
in the element of Nibbana being free from clinging to the material substratum,
whatever the Exalted One has said either as instruction to devas, men, nagas,
yakkhas, and other beings or on reflection, has but one sentiment and that is
emancipation. Thus it is uniform as regards sentiment.’ <end quote>

********************

<Note the mention of 3 baskets. More on this next time.>

I’d just like to side-track a litle and consider the question of the
commentaries and the First Council. In the introduction to the translation,
Jayawickrama talks about Buddhaghosa’s ‘indebtedness to the Siihala
A.t.thakathaa (Commentary) which he constantly refers to. Some references are
also given in the vinaya itself.

With regard to the commentaries (as we read them)., Malalasekera in ‘The Pali
Literature of Ceylon’ suggests they were:
‘not compiled in the modern sense of the word...so that, when Buddhaghosa
mentions, in the opening stanzas of the ‘Sumgangala-vilaasinii’, that the
commentary to the Digha-Nikaya was at the first council rehearsed by 500 holy
Elders, we may assume that he means, that at this meeting the ‘meanings’ to be
attached to the various terms- particularly to those that appear to have been
borrowed from Hindu philosophy - were discussed and properly defined....Such
definitions and fixations of meaning formed the nucleus of the later
commentaries. The Elders had discussed the important terms at the First
Council, and had decided on the method of interpreting and teaching the more
recondite doctrines.’ <end quote>

In fact (according to this book) it seems that they were the utterances of
disciples that had received particular approval from the Buddha that were
‘esteemed’ and ‘honoured as much as the words of the Buddha himself’. ‘These
formed the nucleus of the commentaries. Often, when the Buddha preached a
sermon in concise form on some aspect of the doctrine, the monks used to repair
to one of the chief disciples and get the points explained in greater detail. 
Such was Maha-Kaccayana, for example, who was foremost in reputation for his
power in giving detailed expositions of what the Buddha said in brief. ..’
<end quote>

If these monks who had heard the words from the Buddha required extra
(commentarial) assistance, who are we to think that maybe we can manage without
it?

I’d better stop here. Thank you for your patience and I hope there is something
of interest for everyone (even if you don’t all agree with all the comments;-)

Best wishes,

Sarah
====================


	
9962

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Mon Dec 10, 2001 6:04pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Momentariness

 	
Hi, Erik -

Thank you for the approval expressed below in your post. I find it 
most edifying. The only portion I will comment on, however, is the part where 
I have some reservations. Consider my reply a minor disclaimer. ;-))
In part of your post you write the following with regard to a 
quotation from Nagarjuna:
"This is deep stuff, and I have yet to see anything in the Abhidhamma 
come close enough to Nagarjuna's (considered by some to be the 
second Buddha) consequentialism in shredding how we hold to objects 
as having any true nature or essence. The logical absurdities 
proposed by Nagarjuna are gadflies for those who would cling to the 
notions of "true existence: of some sort in all its mutifarious 
forms."
First of all, I'm not very happy with this business about Nagarjuna 
being a "second Buddha". While I am an ENORMOUS admirer of Nagarjuna's work, 
I consider that characterization to be a gross over-evaluation. I would also 
like to point out that the first part of my post emphasizes the *advantages* 
to what I call the "pointillist view" of Abhidhamma, and I show how it leads 
to statements which, as you point out, are congruent with positions expressed 
by Nagarjuna. I also, when examining what I see as error in the extreme 
pointillist position, point out that this is not necessarily an error that 
the Abhidhamma, itself, falls prey to, and that a proper emphasis on the lack 
of *independent* existence in the cittas, cetasikas,and their arammanas 
already has a basis in the Abhidhamma. Whether or not the commentaries escape 
from the clutches of reification, an escape denied by Kalupahana, for 
example, I can't say. I'm just too ignorant of the commentaries. But it does 
seem to me that the Abhidhamma Pitaka may very well be quite compatible with 
the thrust of Nagarjuna's writings. While I am *far* from being an 
Abhidhammika, not enjoying its formality, its dryness, and the dangerous 
potential it provides for one to substitute memorizing book-material, lists, 
and endless terminology as a substitute for the direct practice of the 
eightfold path, I am still coming to see much in it, especially in its 
*overall view*, that is of value and is quite helpful in improving my 
understanding.
To close on a more positive note, let me say again how grateful I am 
for your stated appreciation of points I made in the post you quote below. 
Interestingly (perhaps! ;-), the motivation for my post came primarily from 
Abhidhamma, not from Nagarjuna. My post expresses notions that actually tend 
to show, I think, a good degree of commonality between Theravada and 
Madhyamika. And the existence of such commonality is a position which you 
have been maintaining all along. 

With metta,
Howard


In a message dated 12/11/01 1:13:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
rikpa21@y... writes:


> --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:
> 
> Hi Howard, once again, your insights are remarkable:
> 
> > (Oddly, 
> > the notion of something changing also brings with it the notion of 
> something 
> > lasting.) 
> 
> Indeed it does, because it implies the presence of some "thing" that 
> exists "from its own side." (independent of the mind cognizing and 
> all the other various factors and conditions that go into creating 
> the experience).
> 
> > In fact, from the momentaristic perspective, nothing changes., 
> > because *nothing remains*. Each moment, after arising there is 
> ceasing. 
> 
> As I was reading this, I was thinking "Hmmm...someone's been 
> reading Nagarjuna..."
> 
> > The foregoing constitutes an argument with which I concur, 
> an argument 
> > supporting the superiority of the discrete view over the 
> continuous view. 
> > However, I see a problem with the discrete view as well. That 
> pointillist 
> > view is vulnerable to both substantialism and annihilationism. 
> 
> Then I was REALLY thinking gee, "this sounds awfully familiar!"
> 
> > From the 
> > extreme pointillist perspective, each mindstate truly exists for 
> the moment, 
> > and is then annihilated. This is unsatisfactory, because it is 
> contrary to 
> > the Dhamma. 
> 
> Indeed it is, and is exactly why he Tibetan "trangye" (study of 
> the "Four Schools: Vaibhasika, Sautrantika, Yogacara, Madhyamika) 
> shreds this Vaibhasika view as the most primitive and simplistic and 
> wrong views around. It BEGINS with this view of crypto-
> substantialism and eviscerates it, point by um, point, then goes on 
> on the Sautrantika, then the Yogacara's "Mind Only," and finally, 
> the Consequentializt school of the Prasangikas, who deny (based on 
> Nagarjuna's reasoning) that anything at all exists from "its own 
> side, by way of its own character or entity." That includes the self 
> we associate with the person as well as the "self" we associate with 
> composed phenomena. There is no difference in the no-self nature of 
> a person and that of phenomena: all lack intrinsic, self-originated 
> essence. To believe or imply otherwise would be to fall into the 
> error of eternalism, that things are somehow magically "self 
> produced" and arise independent of causes and conditions.
> 
> Nagarjuna:
> 
> "If phenomena are not born, it is invalid for there to be cessation. 
> Therefore, an immediate [condition] is unreasonable. What, having 
> ceased, can also be a condition?"
> 
> > It involves, restricted to the moment, both a substantialsim and 
> > an annihilationism. The Buddha did not teach either. He taught the 
> middle 
> > way, as in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. Is there an escape from that 
> problem, 
> > still within the Abhidhammic framework? I think there may be. But 
> I think it 
> > may require a backing off from the view of each citta, its 
> arammana, and its 
> > accompanying cetasikas as being substantial existents. 
> 
> Indeed for Right View to arise, this view must be discarded 
> wholseale. There are no "absolute existents", at least as intepreted 
> as "paramattha dhammas", if "paramattha dhammas" are considered to 
> have svabhava, or self-nature, or to "exist from their own side" 
> as "true entities" or "ultimates." If "paramattha dhamma," on the 
> other hand, is seen as no more than a shorthand for the idea 
> of "irreducubility of experience in linguistic terms" then okay. But 
> to believe more than this of them is to fall into the very 
> reification trap that blocks the direct apprehension of things as 
> they truly are: the pacification of all objectification.
> 
> > The seeds of such a 
> > backing off are already in place, with the understanding of each 
> mindstate as 
> > conditioned and arising dependently. But I think that one needs to 
> push that 
> > further, seeing that such conditionality and dependence implies an 
> emptiness, 
> > a corelessness. I think that it is here that some of the arguments 
> put forth 
> > by such as Nagarjuna may be very, very helpful.
> 
> I concur wholeheartedly on this point. Anyone serious about REALLY 
> grokking anatta should familiarize themselves with the works of 
> Nagarjuna, particularly the "Mulamadhyamakakarika," the "Root Verses 
> on the Middle Way," and INTENSELY meditate on the proposals therein, 
> wherein he demonstrates the absurdity of there being either cause 
> and effect, at least as understood in terms of discrete entities.
> 
> Nagarjuna:
> 
> "No thing anywhere is ever born from itself, from something else, 
> from both or without a cause."
> 
> This is deep stuff, and I have yet to see anything in the Abhidhamma 
> come close enough to Nagarjuna's (considered by some to be the 
> second Buddha) consequentialism in shredding how we hold to objects 
> as having any true nature or essence. The logical absurdities 
> proposed by Nagarjuna are gadflies for those who would cling to the 
> notions of "true existence: of some sort in all its mutifarious 
> forms.
> 
> Of course it requires an open mind and a willingness to set aside, 
> for a moment, the commentaries and subcommentaries of the Tripitaka--
> which merely serve to reinforce a particular set of views held py a 
> particular subset of Buddhists, and approach the problem from a 
> different perspective. It is the analysis of multiple perspectives 
> on emptiness that REALLY unlocked the undersatnding of anatta for 
> me. Had I merely studied in one system, I'd still be scratching my 
> head over anatta, perhaps I'd be immeasuably confused by its eral 
> meaning and intent still, as I was before embarking on this wide-
> ranging comparative analysis.
> 
> Nagarjuna:
> 
> "Those of small minds see things as existent and non-existent. They 
> do not behold the utter pacification of what is seen."
> 
> "The emptiness of the conquerors was taught in order to do away with 
> all philosophical views. Therefore it is said that whoever makes a 
> philosophical view out of "emptiness" is indeed lost."
> 
> May all beings find the total peace of cesation.
> 
> Cheers,
> Erik
> 


/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) 




	
9963

From: rikpa21 <rikpa21@y...> 
Date: Mon Dec 10, 2001 11:35pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: The noble nine fold path

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:

Hi Sarah,

> I think others have explained that Right View =Right 
Understanding=panna
> cetasika.

I have no need whatsoever for others' speculations on panna at this 
point. 

> It does not mean `beyond taking any position', 

Lokuttara panna is most certainly "beyond taking any position" if 
one understands panna directly, and thus correctly.

And now, for some tough questions, which I hope you will take in the 
appropriate spirit...

> but rather taking a
> position with right understanding. 

And what is Right Understanding, really? Merely believing in the 
chatecism of kamma and vipaka? Merely believing that all things are 
anatta? That and 95 baht will get me a Frappuccinno at Starbuck's. 

> My initial concern or questioning of the
> expression `All this is unreal' was exactly because it can
lead to 
the
> interpretation you have given it. 

And what is that, that IT IS ALL ULTIMATELY UNREAL? Beause it IS 
ALL ultimately unreal! Oh, sure, the conventionally designated self 
will certainly experience vipaka from the conventional self's kamma. 
That is undeniable. 

But true panna is a direct cutting through of all such notions of 
self, so where is the self that experiences kamma, or vipaka? Where 
is birth and death, for that matter? Isn't the point of cultivating 
the conditions for lokuttara panna to get completely beyond the 
notions of birth & death in the first place, or a self that 
experiences these unpleasantries? 

Unless of course you're talking about mundane panna, of course. I'm 
not. I'm talking about lokuttara panna here. And in lokuttara panna 
there is no eye, no nose no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no 
mind, not even sentient beings, no Buddha, no path, no suffering, no 
path leading to the end of suffering. All are mere constructs, 
labels, ultimatly UNREAL. This understanding when fuly established 
is called the Perfection of Wisdom (Prajnaparamita). 

OM GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SOHA!

> What I understand, after some consideration, is that it is the 
conceptual
> framework of the `all' or the `world' that is
`unreal' and should 
be seen as
> such. The underlying realities, the seeing, hearing and so on, are 
real and to
> be understood as such. 

Ha! Ha! Ha! Good one! :) If you're ever interesetd in learning about 
the refutations for this substantialist view, let me know. I'd be 
happy to point you a teachers who can rectify this problem for those 
intent on carefully studying and reflecting on why this is is 
substatialism (with a long historical precedent among so-called 
Vaibhasikas or "Abhidhammaists"), plain and simple. :)

> At these moments of understanding, there is neither
> `going too far' or `lagging behind', i.e neither an
eternity 
belief or an
> annihilation belief.

Pardon my directness here, but you speak as if you know all of this 
from sure knowledge. If this is true, great. If it is not, it is a 
dangerous trap to present the Dhamma as if one knows with certainty 
what one has only speculated about. The great teachers I know ALWAYS 
are quick with the "I don't know" when they don't REALLY know. 
Or say that "my teachers have taught me this" or "this is my 
understanding". To present any topic in he the Dhamma with the voice 
of saddha (confidence) is to imply direct knowledge of the topic 
being presented. Ones authority on the Dhamma must derive from 
someplace, and there is only ONE place that can derive from, 
ultimately: direct knowledge of things-as-they-are.

I believe I have asked before (and no answer required, just food for 
contemplation), how long have you been able to sustain these moments 
of "direct awareness" into the sensations arising? One second? Ten? 
Twenty? One minute? Ten minutes? An hour? Even ten minutes of 
uninterrupted, mindful concentration and clear comprehension and 
knowing the realities arising and passing away through any of the 
Four Objects (kaya, vedana, citta, dhamma) directly is a very good 
beginning. Less than this is not even the beginner's path to the 
path leading to the cessation of Dukkha.

> Right view, in other words, directly understands realities and as 
others have
> explained, there is no speculation involved at these moments.

As others (who, specifically?) have explained? And upon what 
authority? The only authority that matters, direct knowledge? Or 
book-knowledge, glened from commentaries and subcommentaries? As 
others who've read a bunch of dusty tomes and interpreted them 
acording to their own biases and prejudices, absent direct knowledge 
of supramundane panna, which is the only way to unlock the inner 
meaning & intent of said tomes?

> Erik, in another post you mention that `....once supramundane 
wisdom is fully
> established, there is no longer need for directed investigation 
into the nature
> of formations....' May I just suggest that right view has to
begin 
developing
> now and understanding the nature of realities now as conditioned 
and not self.

And there are many ways to skin this cat, as mentioned. One is to 
begin to see this as all unreal, as fleeting, as a bubble, a phantom:

"One who looks upon the world as a bubble and a mirage, him the King 
of Death sees not." (Dhammapada 13)

The Phena Sutta has more on this:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-095.html
"Now suppose that in the autumn -- when it's raining in fat, heavy 
drops -- a water bubble were to appear & disappear on the water, and 
a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately 
examine it. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & appropriately 
examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without substance: for 
what substance would there be in a water bubble? In the same way, a 
monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any feeling that is 
past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; 
common or sublime; far or near. To him -- seeing it, observing it, & 
appropriately examining it -- it would appear empty, void, without 
substance: for what substance would there be in feeling?" 

> if we have the idea that there should be an idea of `directed 
investigation' or
> self directing until wisdom is of a higher level, it suggests an 
idea of wrong
> view miraculously turning to right view....;-)

You know this for sure, or are you speculating on this? Who told you 
this? Or have you arrived at this as sure knowledge through the 
faculty of supramundane insight? If so, many bows to you. If not, 
then I would would simply like to add a reminder to be very careful 
in how you phrase what you say as regards the Dhamma, lest your 
definitive-sounding words serve as a cause for misleading 
individuals from the truth of things as they are into a subtle form 
of error, by taking this to be true when it is merely belief.

Inasmuch as one says what one knows not "I believe this is so", then 
one is a guardian of the truth. Inasmuch as one asserts in a way one 
knows when one knows not that "this is the way it is" one ceases to 
be guardian of the truth.

Pardon my continued skepticism of the "Abhidhamma Method," but when 
I see it linked up properly with ALL Four Foundations of 
Mindfulness as taught to me in EVERY Theravada center I've visited 
(including the one I went to a week ago n Laos, in a tiny villaeg 
wat outside Vientiane), including anapanasati, then we may find 
ourselves having a different conversation on the nature of panna and 
the various factors leading to the culmination of the seven 
bojjhuangas in the supramundane sense.

Until then, your friend in the Dhamma,
Erik
	
   	
9964

From: rikpa21 <rikpa21@y...> 
Date: Mon Dec 10, 2001 11:46pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: Momentariness

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:

Hi Howard,

> First of all, I'm not very happy with this business about 
Nagarjuna 
> being a "second Buddha". 

I see Buddhas everywhere, in the beggar on the street, in sunshine-
bright smile of my wife, in my holy lamas. So Nagarjuna's just one 
among the countless emanations of the Buddha I see in this world 
(Shakyamuni being one emanation appearing as a Prince and renunciate 
here to turn the Dhammachakkha for those in need of such an 
appearance to increase their confidence that there is a way out of 
this mess). Yuo never know how is and who isn't a Buddha here just 
to nudge you into Deathlessness. Perhaps even your very 
worst "enemy?"
	

 	 

	
9965

From: Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> 
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2001 0:16am
Subject: usage of the term "conventional self"

 	
Hello,

For those who use the term "conventional self" to communicate their
understanding:
How would you use the word "self" and how would you use the term
"conventional self" differently from the word "self"?

Thanks.

Regards,
Victor
	
9966

From: m. nease <mlnease@y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:46am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? <4>

 	
Great stuff Sarah, thanks again. Of course I like it,
which is of course not a good sign. Good that this
material sees the light of day just the same.

mike

--- Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
> Dear Friends,
> 
> Just to recap, in the Baahiranidaana, the
> introductory commentary to the
> Vinaya, Buddhaghosa is establishing the authenticity
> of the Vinaya, Suttanta
> and Abhidhamma. The ‘Dhamma and the Vinaya?took 7
> months to rehearse at the
> 1st Council held in Rajagaha, 2 months after the
> Buddha’s Parinibbana.
> 
> The reason for the recital so soon after, was to
> preserve the Teachings. 500
> arahats (Ananda is now an arahat) have been
> carefully selected from the 700,000
> monks who were present at the Buddha’s Parinibbana
> for this task.
> 
> Continuing from the same text, the next day (after
> Ananda’s arahatship),
> Mahakassapa asked the monks whether they should
> rehearse the Dhamma (i.e.
> Suttanta and Abhidhamma) first or the Vinaya. The
> monks replied:
> 
> ?“Sir, Mahakassapa, the Vinaya is the very life of
> the Dispensation of the
> enlightened One; so long as the Vinaya endures, the
> Dispensation endures,
> therefore let us rehearse the Vinaya first??
> 
> (This is sgnificant in the light of recent trends to
> consider the Vinaya and
> all the rules as out-dated).
> 
> It was decided that venerable Upali would be in
> charge because ‘the Perfectly
> Enlightened One, while he was living, considered the
> venerable Upali as the
> most pre-eminent in connexion with the learning of
> the Vinaya?...’Thereupon
> the Elder (Mahakassapa) appointed himself for the
> purpose of questioning about
> the Vinaya, and the Elder Upali agreed to give
> explanations.?
> 
> ?....then the venerable Mahakassapa seated himself
> in the president’s seat and
> questioned the venerable Upali on the Vinaya (see
> also Vin.ii 286), “Friend
> Upali, where did the Exaltyed One lay down the first
> Paaraajika??> 
> “At Vesali, Sir.?> 
> “In connexion with whom??> 
> “In connexion with Sudinna, son of Kalandaka.?> 
> “In connexion with what subject??> 
> “In connexion with sexual intercourse.?
> 
> ‘Then the venerable Mahakassapa questioned the
> venerable Upali on the subject
> of the frst Paaraajika, the occasion, the person,
> the rule, the corollaries,
> and on what constitutes an offence and what does
> not.....?> 
> ?..thus was made the compilation of the Vinaya
> Pitaka which consists of the
> Vibhanga of both categories <Mahavibhanga and
> Bhikkhunivibhanga>, the Khandaka
> and the Parivaara. The Elder Mahakassapa questioned
> on everything and the
> Elder Upali explained. At the conclusion of the
> explanation of the questions
> the 500 arahats rehearsed together in a group
> according to the exact way in
> which the compilation had been fixed...?> 
> In the same way, it was decided that Mahakassapa
> would question Ananda on the
> Dhamma.
> 
> ?“Friend Ananda, where was the Brahmajala
> preached??> 
> “Sir, at the King’s palace at Ambala.t.thika,
> between Rajagaha and Nalanda.?> 
> “In connexion with whom??> 
> “Suppiya the wandering ascetic and the brahmin youth
> Brahmadatta.?> 
> “On what subject??> 
> “On praise and blame.?> 
> ?................And in the self-same manner he
> questioned him on all five
> Nikayas.?> 
> ?..The five Nikayas are, Dighanikaya,
> Majjhimanikaya, Samyuttanikaya,
> Anguttaranikaya, and Khuddakanikaya. Here
> Khuddakanikaya means the rest of the
> sayings of the Buddha excluding the four Nikayas. 
> The venerable Elder Upali
> explained the Vinaya therein and the Elder Ananda
> the remaining sections of the
> Khuddakanikaya and the four Nikayas.
> 
> 'All this forms the word of the Buddha which should
> be known as uniform in
> sentiment, twofold as the Dhamma and the Vinaya,
> threefold according to the
> first, intermediate, and last words, and similarly
> as Pitakas (Baskets),
> fivefold according to the Nikayas (Collections),
> ninefold according to the
> Angas (Factors), and forming 84,000 divisions
> according to the Units of the
> Dhamma.
> 
> ‘How is it uniform in sentiment? During the
> interval of forty-five years from
> the time He realized the unique and perfect
> Enlightenment until he passed away
> in the element of Nibbana being free from clinging
> to the material substratum,
> whatever the Exalted One has said either as
> instruction to devas, men, nagas,
> yakkhas, and other beings or on reflection, has but
> one sentiment and that is
> emancipation. Thus it is uniform as regards
> sentiment.?<end quote>
> 
> ********************
> 
> <Note the mention of 3 baskets. More on this next
> time.>
> 
> I’d just like to side-track a litle and consider the
> question of the
> commentaries and the First Council. In the
> introduction to the translation,
> Jayawickrama talks about Buddhaghosa’s ‘indebtedness
> to the Siihala
> A.t.thakathaa (Commentary) which he constantly
> refers to. Some references are
> also given in the vinaya itself.
> 
> With regard to the commentaries (as we read them).,
> Malalasekera in ‘The Pali
> Literature of Ceylon?suggests they were:
> ‘not compiled in the modern sense of the word...so
> that, when Buddhaghosa
> mentions, in the opening stanzas of the
> ‘Sumgangala-vilaasinii? that the
> commentary to the Digha-Nikaya was at the first
> council rehearsed by 500 holy
> Elders, we may assume that he means, that at this
> meeting the ‘meanings?to be
> attached to the various terms- particularly to those
> that appear to have been
> borrowed from Hindu philosophy - were discussed and
> properly defined....Such
> definitions and fixations of meaning formed the
> nucleus of the later
> commentaries. The Elders had discussed the
> important terms at the First
> Council, and had decided on the method of
> interpreting and teaching the more
> recondite doctrines.?<end quote>
> 
> In fact (according to this book) it seems that they
> were the utterances of
> disciples that had received particular approval from
> the Buddha that were
> ‘esteemed?and ‘honoured as much as the words of the
> Buddha himself? ‘These
> formed the nucleus of the commentaries. Often, when
> the Buddha preached a
> sermon in concise form on some aspect of the
> doctrine, the monks used to repair
> to one of the chief disciples and get the points
> explained in greater detail. 
> Such was Maha-Kaccayana, for example, who was
> foremost in reputation for his
> power in giving detailed expositions of what the
> Buddha said in brief. ..?> <end quote>
> 
> If these monks who had heard the words from the
> Buddha required extra
> (commentarial) assistance, who are we to think that
> maybe we can manage without
> it?
> 
> I’d better stop here. Thank you for your patience
> and I hope there is something
> of interest for everyone (even if you don’t all
> agree with all the comments;-)
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Sarah
> ====================

	
9967

From: christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2001 3:36am
Subject: Just a test

 	
Dear All,
Hopefully, I'm back to my own name. If this doesn't work, I'll just 
become whoever appears.
metta,
Christine
	
9968

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2001 5:40am
Subject: Re: [dsg] sudden thoughts

 	
Hi Sarah

> No. it was about understanding the difference between namas and rupas,
> e.g between seeing and visible object just for a moment, but not about
panna with each citta. It was about the development of satipatthana.
Without this, there cannot be the understanding of these realities,
however much thinking there is about the concepts and details.

k: Oh, I do not think I have discussed with Satipatthana with you. I
get no problem with the difference of namas and rupas neither do I have
any queries abt the development of satipatthana. Thanks for explaining
them as it good to read it again and again. 


> .....................
> S: Instead of trying to comprehend (impossible anyway) the extraordinary
> wisdom of the Buddha and great disciples, isn’t it more important to
begin to understand the realities in our lives, appearing at this moment?
This is the way that we begin to gather ‘clues’ as to how higher levels of
wisdom can manifest or are accumulated. Of course, for all arahats, all
latent defilements have been eradicated (not just the Buddha and
Sariputta). We read (and I think Rob K quoted already) that if we try to
work out the wisdom and power of the Buddha, we will go mad. It’s helpful
to read and consider many, many details, but these should be the details
that are ‘within reach or comprehension’, in other words those that can
be understood.
> ....................

k: I think I just do this for some kind of self fulling prophecy in me. 
It is a kind of attachment of view that there got to be an explanation on
why Buddha could explain Abhidhamma in details :).



> S: It’s not ‘my’ position....According to all the texts, eye-base or
> eye-sense is one essential condition for seeing. Visible object is
another. I think we can test this and prove it right now. If we close our
eyes, where is the computer, the pictures, the papers and other objects we
find so important? In our imagination or dreams, right?
> 
> I know what you’re saying about special experiences and phantom pains,
> for example, can be hard to explain. Aren’t these like the dream
experiences that Frank was talking about? The cittas and the imagination
are so very powerful, that it can seem there really is seeing and bodily
experiencing, when really it’s only thinking.
> ....................

k: Actually what Frank talking abt is different from what I am saying. I
think my assumptions is wrong. I thought of this questions. then I
realise that ghost and spirit do not have such "hard" material forms like
us but they do have the sense bases. Just that their form material is a
different kind from us, kind of like a jelly fish. As such I infer that
such out of bodily experience is just kind of spirited material state
where all sense base are present where the human body is temporarily
"dead". This is another self fulling prophecy for me :).


> S: I thought you were a bit quiet for the ‘keen Abhidhammist’. Studying
> abhidhamma isn’t just book study. What about now, while we’re looking at
the computer, going for a walk, tidying the flat/house, are there paccaya
(conditions) determining the various dhammas? Look forward to hearing
about your paccaya study.

k: Hmm I have finished them awhile ago just that have not investigate it
more in detail. Only able to investigate those that are easier to
investigate, like hetu, object, conanscent, nissaya, repetition. The rest
are less vague. Will look again. :).

k: By the way what is IMHO




Kind regards
Ken O

	
9969

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2001 5:44am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The noble nine fold path - Erik

 	
Dear Erik,

I’m sorry if I’ve ever given the impression of pretending to have any knowledge
or wisdom other than that of the most basic beginner level. I merely read,
study and listen to Tipitaka texts and explanations according to the Pali Canon
and slowly find more and more comprehension and confidence in what they
contain. That’s all.

In this light, I’ll just make very brief comments on the suttas you raise:

1) Uraga Sutta (The worn Out Skin)

I mentioned before that until Dan posted Nyanaponika’s helpful notes, I was at
somewhat of a loss. The cross-references to the same ideas in Salayatana
Samyutta, ‘the World’ and ‘The All’ and later the reference to Itivuttaka 41
which contains a detailed explanation about the 2 kinds of view to explain the
‘goes too far nor lags behind’ helped clarify the points we were discussing.
The explanations are in these Suttas as I read them.
(sorry, I've lost the link as I was using my dusty old book;-)

2) Phena Sutta (A Lump of Foam) 

A favourite sutta of mine;-) let me take theis excuse to quote some extra
commentary notes:

B.Bodhi adds the commentary note to the passage about the bubble you quote:

note 190: “Spk: a bubble (bubbu.la) is feeble and cannot be grasped, for it
breaks up as soon as it is seized; so too feeling is feeble and cannot be
grasped as permanent and stable. As a bubble arises and ceases in a drop of
water and does not last long, so too with feeling: 100,000 ‘ko.tis’ of
feelings arise and cease in the time of a fingersnap (one ko.ti = 10 million). 
As a bubble arises in dependence on conditions, so feeling arises in dependence
on a sense base, an object, the defilements, and contact.”

“Spk: Perception is like a mirage (marikaa) in the sense that it is
insubstantial, for one cannot grasp a mirage to drink or bathe or fill a
pitcher. As a mirage deceives the multitude, so does perception, which entices
people with th idea that the colourful object is beautiful, pleasurable, and
permanent.”

Does this mean feelings, perceptions and other paramatha dhammas (realities)
don’t have lakhana (characteristics) or sabhava (nature) or that they don’t
exist momentarily in their different ‘activities’? No.

“Spk: As a plaintain trunk (kadalikkhandha) is an assemblage of many sheaths,
each with its own characteristic, so the aggregate of volitional formations is
an assemblage of many phenomena, each with its own characteristic.”

“Spk: Consciousness is like a magical illusion (maayaa) in the sense that it is
insubstantial and cannot be grasped. Consciousness is even more transient and
fleeting than a magical illusion. For it gives the impression that a person
comes and goes, stands and sits, with the same mind, but the mind is different
in each of these activities. Consciousness deceives the multitude like a
magical illusion.” 

3) Satipatthana Sutta

I believe I’ve answered all your questions or points pertaining to the
Satipatthana Sutta at length before. As it's getting late, if you don't mind
I'll just re-post my last one (which I don't believe you replied to) it after
signing off .

Best wishes always,

Sarah

Message 8231 of 9967  
From:  Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date:  Sun Sep 23, 2001  5:17 am
Subject:  Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Erik

Hi Erik,
> 
S:> > Erik, the third object of mindfulness is consciousness:
> 
E:> Right, though I am also concerned with the other three, namely, the 
> body, the feelings, and mental qualities. It is called the "Four 
> Foundations of Mindfulness" after all. :)

Good, we’re all agreed here.

S:> > What is meant by consciousness (citta or vi~n~naana) is seeing, 
> hearing,
> > smelling, tasting, touching (through the body-sense) and mind-door
> > experiencing.
> 
E:> I don't quite take away this interpretation from the Maha-
> Satipatthana Sutta:

S:Hopefully my posts to Rob E have clarified;-) ‘ citte
cittaanupassi....viharati’ - he lives contemplating consciousness in
consciousness. I’ve personally found it really helps to consider any sutta in
the light of other suttas, the abhidhamma and commentary notes, but I know this
is all controversial;-))
> 
> "And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself? There 
> is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that 
> the mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns 
> that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he 
> discerns that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without 
> aversion, he discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the 
> mind has delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the 
> mind is without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without 
> delusion. 
> 
> 
S: > > One doesn't go about anything,
> 
E:> Not even "remaining focused" as the Buddha enjoined? Do you mean we 
> just sit here like lumps?

S:The translation for this section by Soma Thera starts:

“And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating consciousness in
conciousness?”
“ Here, o bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands the consciousness with lust; the
conciousness without lust, as without lust; the consciousness with hate, as
with hate............”

By contemplating consciousness (cittanupassanaa) is meant sati (awareness) of
the cittas discussed. There is no self to remain focussed or to sit like a lump
except in the world of pa~n~natti (concepts).
> 
S:> > but at this moment there is the experiencing of visible object in 
> front of us. 
> 
E:> Agreed, but how, specifically, does merely knowing this fact engender 
> mindfulness and concentration to the degree we can penetrate the 
> characteristics of what we're seeing?

S:Again, we don’t penetrate anything. It may seem, like you were saying to Dan,
that we’re arguing about semantics, but like he expressed so clearly, these are
very important distinctions. By beginning to understand more precisely the
difference between concepts and realities now, by knowing more and more what
the objects of sati (awareness) are, by realizing there is nothing at all to be
done by you or me, no method to follow at all, sati can and will begin to be
aware of these same realities and panna (understanding) will begin to know or
penetrate the characteristics. If there is doubt about this (or anything else)
or attachment to results (or anything else), these are also realities which can
be known as they arise now. 

E:> I agree that knowing how things are not "self" is critical, and the 
> bare beginning point in discerning realities as they are. Unless we 
> understand this fact we are liable to interpret what we see as 
> permanent, or desirable, for example. But this is only the barest 
> beginning point as I understand it. There has to be more, because I 
> cannot see how merely knowing this fact (like knowing that the birth 
> and death of an self-entity are ultimately illusory) does anything to 
> help terminate birth and death. If it were this simple, I am sure 
> we'd all be arahats by now.

S:I think it’s simple and not simple. It’s simple in that nothing has to be
done
or changed. Realities are already arising and falling away and when awareness
begins to be aware of them, it’s not a matter of changing them or leading a
different lifestyle at all. It’s not simple because although we repeat that
these realities are not self and so on, there is no understanding at all of
what this means if there isn’t any understanding now of the reality appearing,
whether it is seeing, visible object, doubt or attachment .
> 
S:> > I can't find any contradiction. By states or objects are meant 
> these same
> > realities found in the Satipatthana Sutta (and all the other 
> suttas) such
> as
> > seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and so on.
> 
E:> Where are these items mentioned specifically in the Satipatthana 
> Sutta and "all the other suttas" other than by implication? Again, 
> the objects I see mentioned in the Satipatthana Sutta include 
> specific parts of the body, specific feelings, specific 
> characteristics of the mind, specific mental qualities with reference 
> (does "Frame of Reference" have any bearing here?) to the five 
> hindrances, the five aggregates, the six sense-bases, the seven 
> factors of awakening, the Four Noble Truths.

S:Let me know if this still isn’t clear after my posts to Rob E. All realities
are included at least twice over as I read it. The same realities are
discussed over and over in the suttas. In the Samyutta Nikaya (Kindred
Sayings), Salayatana-vagga, there are many suttas which discuss the ‘6 worlds’
and the 'All'. In First Fifty, Ch 111, par 25 we read:

‘The eye, monks, must be abandoned by fully knowing, by fully comprehending it.
Objects..eye-consciousness..eye-contact..that pleasant feeling, unpleasant
feeling or neutral feeling..that also must be abandoned by fully knowing , by
fully comprehending it.

The mind..mind-states..that pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling or neutral
feeling..that also must be abandoned by fully knowing it, by comprehending it.’
> 
E:> Other than merely knowing that what we observe arises is not self, it 
> doesn't follow that merely being aware of this in theory has any 
> bearing on seeing deeply enough into the true nature of things that 
> this bringe about the end of suffering. There have to be objects to 
> apply this understanding to, so that we come to directly see the 
> characteristics of these objects as impermanent, suffering, and not-
> self.

S:Exactly so, and this is why your questions here about the objects of
satipatthana are exactly the questions many of us have been waiting quite a
long time for you to ask;-)) 

E:> I have not forgotten, but that is not what I am driving at. Again, I 
> question how merely knowing this factually is conducive of the sort 
> of concentration needed to penetrate the characteristics of these 
> things at all. Again, without an object, there is nothing for sati to 
> focus on. And the most important factor in mindfulness is remaining 
> focused. This is the basis for sampajana (clear comprehension) and 
> sati (mindfulness). Without this deliberate concentration (at least 
> at first, until it is so well-established it becomes automatic), the 
> mind will never be concentrated enough to penetrate the 
> characteristics of anything, because it won't have any object to in 
> which it sees these characteristics reflected, being so scattered and 
> heedless it flits from one thing to another without ever "sinking in" 
> deeply enough to know what it is perceiving with clarity and 
> discernment.

S:I'd say, forget about this deliberate concentration, ‘sinking in’ and
focussing. They are all accompanied by a subtle idea of self ‘trying to do’.
Understanding is the key. If there is minding about the object, it shows the
attachment rather than the understanding. Concentration (ekaggata cetasika) as
we’ve discussed before, will in any case arise with every citta and when there
is a wholesome citta, concentration will be wholesome anyway, assisting the
other cetasikas and citta by being one-pointed on the object or 'welding
together the co-existent states' at that moment. As the citta falls away in an
instant (right now), concentration falls away with it. It doesn't make it last
longer.
> 
E:> and it takes enormous discipline to practice to 
> develop awareness and clear comprehension to the point they remain 
> focused for extended periods of time--which is the prerequisite for 
> penetrating the characteristics of any object being noted. 

S:Does it? Is it?
> 
E:> Mindfulness can only be aware of one object at a time.

S:True. It lasts for an instant and then gone!

E:It may get 
> more refined and be able to switch very quickly between different 
> objects the more developed it is, but it is not possible for the mind 
> to focus on more than one thing at a time, which is why the exercises 
> in the Satipatthana Sutta detail various objects and how they are 
> best investigated. What is again unclear from your presentation is 
> how this degree of focus is established in the first place.

S:I don’t find any exercises in the Sutta and I think it's more interesting to 
understand what awareness is and what the objects are rather than focussing.
> 
E:> Right, but it doesn't just happen just from studying texts, but by 
> deliberately noting specific feelings arising and passing away.

S:Being aware rather than deliberately noting with attachment.

E:> Knowing what these objects of investigation are is the first step, 
> the barest beginning, as I see it. 

S:YES!

<snip>
Sarah 

++++++++++++++++++++


	
9970

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2001 1:06am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Momentariness

 	
Hi, Erik -

In a message dated 12/11/01 2:47:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
rikpa21@y... writes:


> 
> --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:
> 
> Hi Howard,
> 
> > First of all, I'm not very happy with this business about 
> Nagarjuna 
> > being a "second Buddha". 
> 
> I see Buddhas everywhere, in the beggar on the street, in sunshine-
> bright smile of my wife, in my holy lamas.
> 
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
That is a metaphor which has much appeal to me, and one which carries 
much truth. But it is only a metaphor.
----------------------------------------------------------
So Nagarjuna's just one > 
> among the countless emanations of the Buddha I see in this world 
> (Shakyamuni being one emanation appearing as a Prince and renunciate 
> here to turn the Dhammachakkha for those in need of such an 
> appearance to increase their confidence that there is a way out of 
> this mess).
> 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
This emanation business, similar, I think, to the Hindu avatar notion, 
is not one that I take seriously.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Yuo never know how is and who isn't a Buddha here just > 
> to nudge you into Deathlessness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
There are two senses in which I concur with this. One is that, indeed, 
there is always the conceived possibility that the beggar, the "ordinary 
Joe", the nondescript stranger one comes across on the street could be an 
enlightened being from whom one can learn Dhamma. I certainly see this as 
possible, though unlikely. The other sense, a metaphorical one, is not only 
more likely, but is a virtual certainty, and it is that all persons and all 
situations are opportunities for awaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps even your very > 
> worst "enemy?"
> 
> 
===================================
If I had any, I would agree that they could be among the greatest 
opportunities for awakening. It just happens that I see no one as my "enemy". 
I *do*, however, see certain folks as among my very good friends, and that 
surely includes you.

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) 




	
9971

From: abhidhammika <abhidhammika@y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2001 6:49am
Subject: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two)

 	
Dear Dhamma Friends

The following is the second part of Parinibbana Subcommentary written 
in response to the questions and statements of Upasaka Howard, Robert 
Epstein, and Mike Neace. In this second part of the subcommentary, I 
directly address the statements of Robert Epstein. Here, I also 
include the meaning of the last mind, which partly satisfies
Howard's desire to know the exact meaning of consciousness. 


1. PARINIBBANA COMMENTARY PALI

"Parinibbutaa naama arahattapattito patthaaya kilesavattassa 
khepitattaa sa-upaadisesena, carimacittanirodhena khandhavattassa 
khepitattaa anupaadisesena caati dviihi parinibbaanehi 
parinibbutaa, anupaadaano viya padiipo apannattikabhaavaam gataati 
attho."

"`Parinibbutaa' is the ultimate cool by means of two-way complete 
extinguishments, one with the existential residues emptied of 
defilement machinery ever since attainment of Arahatta awakening, and 
the other without the existential residues emptied of psychophysical 
machinery by termination of the last mind (the dying consciousness). 
It has the meaning of reaching the state of the undefined reality 
like the lamp without fuel." 


Carimacittanirodho – termination of the last mind 
Apannattikabhaavo - the state of undefined reality


2. PARINIBBANA SUBCOMMENTARY Part Two 


Robert Epstein wrote:

"Well, I don't know about anyone else, but reaching the state of
the 
undefined
reality to me means that he has reached a state in which his reality 
is undefined
by any remaining fragment of distinguishing consciousness, but that 
he is still
in a state of existence in which his reality is undefined. This does 
not mean that
there is no existent of any kind, only that all consciousness has 
been cooled
and is no longer present. The idea of an underlying beingness or 
awareness that is
however totally disengaged from any experience does not seem to me to 
be ruled
out here.

What puzzles me in the above paragraph is Robert's addition of
the statement:

"…but that he is still in a state of existence in which his
reality is undefined."

Buddhaghosa's explanation of `parinibbutaa' includes the
unmistakable expression `carimacittanirodhena – by termination of the 
last mind' on the death of an Arahant. 

The last mind in a lifetime is the dying consciousness (cuticittam), 
which is, by the way, the finish line of `bhavanga cittam –
the life-cause consciousness.' 

The term `bhavanga' is made up of two words `bhava+anga'. Bhava means 
life or sentient existence. Anga means component or cause. Thus, 
bhavanga means life-cause or life-component, or the cause of sentient 
existence. Bhavanga cittam is the consciousness that makes the 
sentient existence possible. It causes and perpetuates sentient 
existence.

On the death of a sentient being who hasn't attained Arahatta 
awakening, the linking consciousness (patisandhi cittam) immediately 
follows the dying consciousness for a rebirth. Why immediately? It is 
because we can't suspend the bhavanga cittam in a limbo state.
The linking consciousness is the start line of the life-cause 
consciousness (bhavanga cittam) in a lifetime.

In other words, the difference between an Arahant and a non-Arahant 
is the termination of the life-cause consciousness for the Arahant 
and the perpetuation of the life-cause consciousness for the non-
Arahant.

An Arahant terminates the life-cause consciousness while ordinary 
sentient beings perpetuate the life-cause consciousnesses.

The death of an Arahant is the termination of bhavanga cittam, the 
life-cause consciousness. In other words, the Parinibbaana of an 
Arahant is the end of the sentient existence.

Robert Epstein also wrote:

"The idea of an underlying beingness or awareness that is however 
totally disengaged from any experience does not seem to me to be 
ruled out here."


Robert's idea of an underlying beingness or awareness looks
rather like an interpretation of the bhavanga cittam, the life-cause 
consciousness.

If Robert meant to refer to the bhavanga cittam as an underlying 
beingness or awareness, and regarded it as something that would 
survive in parinibbaana after the death of an Arahant, he has my 
sympathy, and I would not blame him. Why not?

Bhavanga cittam is the cool-down, resting state of the mind, so it is 
very tempting to equate nibbaana with a kind of perpetual bhavanga 
cittam. 

However, as we have analysed earlier above, the expression 
`carimacittanirodhena – by termination of the last mind',
did not help to indicate the survival of the bhavanga cittam in 
parinibbaana on the death of an Arahant.

Contrary to Robert Epstein's ideas, termination of the bhavanga 
cittam has ruled out any underlying beingness or awareness, I am 
afraid.

Howard also wrote:

"Certainly, taken at face value, this commentary suggests
parinibbana as a kind of nullity."

The commentary suggests parinibbaana as nullity of sentient existence.


PARINIBBANA SUBCOMMENTARY Part Two Ends Here.


With regards,

Suan Lu Zaw

http://www.bodhiology.org




PREVIOUSLY ON THIS LIST

1. PARINIBBANA COMMENTARY PALI

"Parinibbutaa naama arahattapattito patthaaya kilesavattassa 
khepitattaa sa-upaadisesena, carimacittanirodhena khandhavattassa 
khepitattaa anupaadisesena caati dviihi parinibbaanehi 
parinibbutaa, anupaadaano viya padiipo apannattikabhaavaam gataati 
attho."

"`Parinibbutaa' is the ultimate cool by means of two-way complete 
extinguishments, one with the existential residues emptied of 
defilement machinery ever since attainment of Arahatta awakening, and 
the other without the existential residues emptied of psychophysical 
machinery by termination of the last mind (the dying consciousness). 
It has the meaning of reaching the state of the undefined reality 
like the lamp without fuel." 

Parinibbaana - complete extinguishment
Kilesavatta - defilement machinery (vatta is literally circle, cycle, 
or round. We have `vicious circle' in English.)
Khandhavatta - psychophysical machinery
Upaadisesa - existential residues (upaadi is merely another name of 
pancakkhadhaa). Upaadi means phenomena taken strongly by craving or 
attachment (tanhaa).

Carimacittanirodho – termination of the last mind 
Apannattikabhaavo - the state of undefined reality


2. PARINIBBANA SUBCOMMENTARY

Howard wrote:

"Certainly, taken at face value, this commentary suggests
parinibbana 
as a kind of nullity. A couple matters remain: (1) The exact meaning 
of Apannattikabhaavaam - the state of undefined reality, and the 
exact meaning of vi~n~nana, which I take as the dualistic operation 
of separating out an individualized object from the potential field 
of awareness, a special type of knowing/~nana."


The expression `apannattikabhaavo - the state of undefined
reality' 
has given both Howard and Robert Epstein an opportunity to undergo 
profound contemplation, as it would everybody else. 

Therefore, this unique expression has become a suitable topic for 
further analysis and elucidation as Buddhaghosa did not elaborate on 
it, at least on this occasion.

The expression `Apannattikabhaavo' can be broken up 
as `a+pannatti+ika+bhaavo'. 

The term `pannatti' has the same meaning as
`paññatti'. Therefore, 
pannatti means a name, a convention, or a verbalization as
`paññatti' 
would. We all know that a name can refer to either an existent 
phenomenon or a non-existent category such as God the Creator. No 
offense to theists amid the Buddhists! 

In Pali texts, the term that describes the opposite of a non-existent 
category is `paramattho – a reality'. Examples of
realities are 
matter and mind. No offense to extremist Mahayanists amid the 
Theravadis and scientists!

Now, let us look at the combination `a+pannatti'. The prefix
`a' 
in `apannatti' means `not' or `no' just like
the prefix `a' in the 
words `amoral' and `amorphous' giving the opposite
meanings 
of `moral' and `morphous'. 

Thus, we get `not + name (or convention, or verbalization)'.

And, what about the bit `ika'? The suffix `ika' means
`having or 
doing something that the preceding term indicates.'

Thus, the combination `pannatti+ika' means `having + name
(or 
convention, or verbalization).' 

Now, when we add both the prefix and the suffix to the 
term `pannatti', we get the `apannattika – something
not having a 
name, something not of convention, something not of verbalization, or 
something undefined. 

The word `bhaava' denotes a state. Therefore, the 
expression `apannattikabhaavo' refers to the state of
something 
unconventional, unverbalizable, or undefinable.

As we mentioned earlier above, the antonym of the term
`paññatti' in 
the Pali texts, is the term `paramattho – a reality'.
Therefore, the 
expression `apannattikabhaavo' means the state of something
existent, 
something real, but not subject to verbalization, or 
conventionalization.

The above analysis should satisfy Howard's request for the exact 
meaning of apannattikabhaavo – the state of undefined reality.

Now, I will try to answer why Buddhaghosa described parinibbutaa as 
the state of undefined reality.

By using the espression `apannattikabhaavo - the state of
undefined 
reality', Buddhaghosa has killed two birds with one stone. We
could 
toy with the idea of using the term `paramattho – a
reality' instead 
of `apannatti'. But, that could deprive us of the ability to
convey 
the meanings of unverbalizableness and undefinableness. Not only that 
handicap, paramattho could refer to other types of realities as well, 
which we can also verbalize and define easily. Therefore, it is a 
very clever choice of word that Buddhaghosa described parinibbutaa 
as `apannattikabhaavo - the state of undefined reality'.

Now, what is the meaning of undefinableness or unverbalizableness? 
Why did Buddhaghosa regarded parinibbutaa as being undefinable?

The world is programmed to think only in terms of stereotypes and 
stereotyping. It is programmed to verbalize only in terms of ready 
expressions and convenient vocabulary.

Our linguistic stereotypes include both existent and non-existent 
categories. But, all our verbalizable catagories refer only to either 
mind and mental (associates and) products, or matter and material 
things.

In short, we are programmed to define things and beings only in the 
terminology of mind and matter, the two main existential realities. 
This two-reality existential programming has conditioned us to regard 
anything outside psychophysical givens as nullity.

The Arahatta awakening that Gotama the Buddha has discovered is 
capable of demolishing our existential programming and allowing us to 
realize the third reality outside mind and matter. Here, the 
term `mind' includes mental associates (cetasikas) as well.
Because 
this third reality is outside mind and matter, we cannot verbalize it 
in terms of psychophysical existences. Yet, this third reality exists 
as parinibbutaa, the ultimate cool. As Buddhaghosa has done, we can 
describe parinibbutaa only as complete extinguishment of defilements 
and psychophysical existence. 

Therefore, the meaning of undefinableness in the expression `the 
state of undefined reality' is that parinibbaana is an existence
that 
we cannot define in terms of mind and matter.


PARINIBBANA SUBCOMMENTARY Part One Ends Here.


With regards

Suan Lu Zaw

http://www.bodhiology.org
	
9972

From: rikpa21 <rikpa21@y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2001 6:55am
Subject: [dsg] Re: Momentariness

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:

Hi Howard,

> Howard:
> This emanation business, similar, I think, to the Hindu 
avatar notion, 
> is not one that I take seriously.

OK by me. Whatever works for you.

> Yuo never know how is and who isn't a Buddha here just > 
> > to nudge you into Deathlessness.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> Howard:
> There are two senses in which I concur with this. One is 
that, indeed, 
> there is always the conceived possibility that the beggar, 
the "ordinary 
> Joe", the nondescript stranger one comes across on the street 
could be an 
> enlightened being from whom one can learn Dhamma. I certainly see 
this as 
> possible, though unlikely.

I have seen it happen. Many times. I don't know what they were 
thinking "from their own side", and to me, it isn't really 
important. I only know I had dinner with an emanation of White Tara 
last Saturday, and pay homage to the Holy Vajrayogini each time I 
look into my bride's eyes, and see Buddhas and Bodhisattvas 
everywhere is the strangest guises, "suspicious" people who seem to 
magically appear to teach me some lesson and then disappear again 
one the lesson's been imparted. I have a list of stories of this 
natuer that would far too long to begin to recount here. Just from 
the past few weeks.

The other sense, a metaphorical one, is not only 
> more likely, but is a virtual certainty, and it is that all 
persons and all 
> situations are opportunities for awaking.

Howard, let me ask you a blunt question. Please define the actual, 
true difference between "metaphorical" and "real", for me. For 
example, those who experience the path of tantra and cultivate 
the "pure vision" of seeing all beings as emanations to any degree 
might say those two distinctions are utterly meaningless, that at 
some point reality shifts enough to where it may appear as though 
there are enlightened being appearing everplace in the least likely 
of guises, and one may begin to notice some strange things 
happening. Not jast a tad odd, but reality-warping. Hell, not even 
reality-warping, possibly even what some might term "miraculous", to 
the point it can seem too much to process, that the universe is 
populated with tantric deities--emanations of Buddhas--who've 
emanated JUST TO BRING YOU TO UNSURPASSED AWAKENING. If can flip 
your entire notions of reality around to where all former "reality" 
reference points are demolished. Which is exactly as should 
happen. :)

Or not. As my teachers have told me, it's all a matter of how one 
develops one's vision along the path. Once vision is purified, even 
the defiled can begin to appear divine, the magical play of the 
Buddhas, each sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, all designed to 
bring you to supreme, unsurpassed enlightenment, IN THIS LIEFTIME. 
Tha random stranger's inunction on the street can (and has) 
precipitated profound insights into the nature of things. Did they 
know it? Who knows? Is it really important to know more than if you 
change your karma that reality shifts enough to where the mundane 
begins to appear supramundane? Isn't the the entire point fo the 
Budha's Dharma?

> Perhaps even your very > 
> > worst "enemy?"
> > 
> > 
> ===================================
> If I had any, I would agree that they could be among the 
greatest 
> opportunities for awakening.

I have had many enemies, and the other morning I was crying a stream 
of tears of gratitude to one of them for acting as one of my 
greatest gurus, for his unbelievable kindness to me in termianting 
the coarsest of my afflictions through his compassion. Someone I at 
one point loathed with a fierce intensity (asd I'm not one to 
collect enemies). It is only beacuse of his incredible kindness that 
the rain of blessings has come down on my now where it would have 
been impossible before.

> It just happens that I see no one as my "enemy". 
> I *do*, however, see certain folks as among my very good friends, 
and that 
> surely includes you.

Likewise, my friend,
Erik
	
9973

From: Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2001 10:14am
Subject: Cambodia Ch 14, no 5

 	
Cambodia Ch 14, no 5.

Each saying in the Suttanta, even if it is short, is actually Abhidhamma.
The Suttanta and the Abhidhamma are in conformity with each other. When we
read a sutta we should also correctly understand its essence, namely, the
reality that is referred to. The ³Discourse on the Analysis of the
Elements²(Middle Length Sayings III, no. 140), for example, deals with the
elements in increasingly more details and one should understand these
elements before one can grasp their conditionality.

We read in this Sutta that the Buddha spoke to the potter Pukkusåti about
the six elements, six fields of (sense-)impingement, eighteen mental ranges,
four resolves:

Monks, when it is said: ³This man has six elements,² in reference to what is
it said? To the element of extension (Earth or solidity), the liquid element
(Water), the element of radiation (Heat), of motion (Wind), of space, of
consciousness. Monk, when it is said, ³This man has six elements², it is
said in reference to this.
Monk, when it is said, ³This man has six fields of (sense)-impingement², in
reference to what is this said? To the field of visual impingement, of
auditory... olfactory...gustatory...tactile...mental impingement....
Monk, when it is said, ³This man has eighteen mental ranges,² in reference
to what is it said? Having seen visual object with the eye... cognised a
mental state with the mind, one ranges over the mental state that gives rise
to joy...to sorrow...to equanimity. Thus there are six ranges for joy, six
for sorrow, six for equanimity...
Monk, when it is said, ³This man has four resolves,² in reference to what is
it said? To the resolve for wisdom, the resolve for truth, the resolve for
relinquisment, the resolve for calm....

We then read that the Buddha explained about the elements in detail. We read
about the monk who develops the stages of jhåna, but sees that these are
³constructed², conditioned phenomena. He sees their disadvantage, grasps
after nothing in the world and attains nibbåna. We read that the monk is
endowed with the highest resolve for wisdom, the highest resolve for truth,
the highest resolve for relinquishment, the highest resolve for calm. All
his defilements are eradicated at his attainment of arahatship.

Each person should study only in as far as he is able to understand what he
studies. A person with a great deal of paññå who is able to study the Dhamma
in all details and who can truly understand what he has learnt, who can
understand it profoundly, clearly and correctly, should study the Dhamma
evermore in detail. If someone merely memorizes what he learns, it is not
beneficial. Different people have different accumulations.

Nipat: We should not forget that we are only beginning to study. People who
really study are the enlightened ones who are ³learners² (sekha puggala),
who are classified as seven, beginning with the person who has attained the
Path-consciousness of the ³Streamwinner², the sotåpanna, up to the
Path-consciousness of the arahatta. The person who has attained the
fruition-consciousness, phala-citta, of the arahat is a non-learner, asekha.
Therefore, we should not be downhearted about our study, because we only
just begin to study. However, we should be firmly convinced of the truth
that there are realities appearing through six doors, the doors of the eyes,
the ears, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind-door.

Sujin: Our study will be beneficial if it can be combined with the
understanding of the level of paìipatti, of the practice. The study is not
merely knowing what is in the texts, but it is really the true investigation
and consideration of realities. In this way someone who studies can develop
the paññå that knows the characteristics of realities which are appearing.
Some people who came to study in Khun Jack¹s group in the U.S.A. said that
they listened to the discussion on Dhamma but did not understand it, but
that they found listening without understanding better than not listening at
all. However, if someone listens without understanding he accumulates more
ignorance, and is this in conformity with the goal of the study? How could
it be beneficial to accumulate ever more ignorance. We should try to
understand what we study so that there can be more understanding. We should
understand what we hear by carefully considering it, and in that way we
accumulate understanding.

Someone thought that remembrance, saññå, was rúpa, he did not know that it
was nåma. This is an example which demonstrates that if someone does not
understand the basic notions, he should go back to the beginning, he should
begin again with the study. People can understand the Dhamma more profoundly
if they develop satipaììhåna, because then they will begin to understand
realities as they are. They will not understand realities if they just
listen to the Dhamma. I said this to Khun Jack so that he would be
interested at the understanding of satipaììhåna. He has already sufficiently
studied Dhamma on the theoretical level, and now he should combine the study
of the theory with the development of satipaììhåna.

Amara: When a reality appears we can verify our understanding of what we
studied, no matter what kind of subject of the Dhamma we are studying.

***** 
Footnotes

1. The åyatanas are the twelve bases on which the cittas arising in
processes depend. They are the five sense-doors and the mind-door, the five
sense objects and the mental object.
2. The cittas arising in processes experience objects through the six
doorways. The bhavanga-citta does not experience an object impinging on one
of the six doorways, it experiences the same object as the
rebirth-consciousness, and this is the object experienced shortly before
dying in the preceding life. The object of the bhavanga-citta does not
appear. 
3. I have added the text of the Sutta and, in the following paragraph, some
explanations of the Sutta.

*******



	
9974

From: egberdina <hhofman@d...> 
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2001 3:04pm
Subject: Re: usage of the term "conventional self"

 	
Dear Victor,

Personally, I do not think that the distinction between conventional 
and absolute realities is a useful one. I understand that when people 
use the term "conventional" they mean made of component parts, with 
the hidden assumption that because it is made of component parts it 
has no identity. They then progress to absolute realities, which are 
not made of component parts, but are somehow fundamental units in 
themselves. 

The problems I have with this sort of approach is threefold.

1 To say that a rupa is the basic unit of matter is possible, this 
doesn't however mean that there is in reality an undividable, 
irreducible whatever.
2 Aggregates of irreducible parts have properties not found in the 
parts themselves. eg Planets are subject to gravity, and exert 
gravitational force. Sub atomic particles have neither of these 
properties.
3 This approach creates a static, rather than a process view. It 
prevents processes from being understood as functions, based around 
organisational principles. 

My two bits worth

Herman

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Victor Yu" <victoryu@s...> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> For those who use the term "conventional self" to communicate their
> understanding:
> How would you use the word "self" and how would you use the term
> "conventional self" differently from the word "self"?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Regards,
> Victor
	
9975

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2001 11:09am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Momentariness

 	
Hi, Erik -

Only a couple comments given below in context. In a message dated 
12/11/01 9:58:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, rikpa21@y... writes:


> 
> --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:
> 
> Hi Howard,
> 
> > Howard:
> > This emanation business, similar, I think, to the Hindu 
> avatar notion, 
> > is not one that I take seriously.
> 
> OK by me. Whatever works for you.
> 
> > Yuo never know how is and who isn't a Buddha here just > 
> > > to nudge you into Deathlessness.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > Howard:
> > There are two senses in which I concur with this. One is 
> that, indeed, 
> > there is always the conceived possibility that the beggar, 
> the "ordinary 
> > Joe", the nondescript stranger one comes across on the street 
> could be an 
> > enlightened being from whom one can learn Dhamma. I certainly see 
> this as 
> > possible, though unlikely.
> 
> I have seen it happen. Many times. I don't know what they were 
> thinking "from their own side", and to me, it isn't really 
> important. I only know I had dinner with an emanation of White Tara 
> last Saturday, and pay homage to the Holy Vajrayogini each time I 
> look into my bride's eyes, and see Buddhas and Bodhisattvas 
> everywhere is the strangest guises, "suspicious" people who seem to 
> magically appear to teach me some lesson and then disappear again 
> one the lesson's been imparted. I have a list of stories of this 
> natuer that would far too long to begin to recount here. Just from 
> the past few weeks.
> 
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Interestingly, my wife has expressed her belief that she has, at 
various times of need, met God or his representative in the guise of some 
actual person. She means this in a mystical, but not quite metaphorical 
sense. I find that notion is similar to what you are expressing. Perhaps the 
notion is archetypal. In any case, I do believe that it has a hidden meaning, 
not *quite* literal, but which is true and significant.
---------------------------------------------------------

> 
> The other sense, a metaphorical one, is not only 
> > more likely, but is a virtual certainty, and it is that all 
> persons and all 
> > situations are opportunities for awaking.
> 
> Howard, let me ask you a blunt question. Please define the actual, 
> true difference between "metaphorical" and "real", for me. For 
> example, those who experience the path of tantra and cultivate 
> the "pure vision" of seeing all beings as emanations to any degree 
> might say those two distinctions are utterly meaningless, that at 
> some point reality shifts enough to where it may appear as though 
> there are enlightened being appearing everplace in the least likely 
> of guises, and one may begin to notice some strange things 
> happening. Not jast a tad odd, but reality-warping. Hell, not even 
> reality-warping, possibly even what some might term "miraculous", to 
> the point it can seem too much to process, that the universe is 
> populated with tantric deities--emanations of Buddhas--who've 
> emanated JUST TO BRING YOU TO UNSURPASSED AWAKENING. If can flip 
> your entire notions of reality around to where all former "reality" 
> reference points are demolished. Which is exactly as should 
> happen. :)
> 
-------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
The distinction is, as I see it, one of degree. In a very real 
(there's that damn word! ;-) sense, all language is metaphor. But within 
language, some usages are figurative, poetic, and not intended to directly 
point to something, but to *indirectly* point. Such language is what I mean 
by metaphor.
--------------------------------------------------------

> 
> Or not. As my teachers have told me, it's all a matter of how one 
> develops one's vision along the path. Once vision is purified, even 
> the defiled can begin to appear divine, the magical play of the 
> Buddhas, each sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, all designed to 
> bring you to supreme, unsurpassed enlightenment, IN THIS LIEFTIME. 
> Tha random stranger's inunction on the street can (and has) 
> precipitated profound insights into the nature of things. Did they 
> know it? Who knows? Is it really important to know more than if you 
> change your karma that reality shifts enough to where the mundane 
> begins to appear supramundane?
> 
--------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Hey, whatever works!
-------------------------------------------------------
Isn't the the entire point fo the > 
> Budha's Dharma?
> 
> > Perhaps even your very > 
> > > worst "enemy?"
> > > 
> > > 
> > ===================================
> > If I had any, I would agree that they could be among the 
> greatest 
> > opportunities for awakening.
> 
> I have had many enemies, and the other morning I was crying a stream 
> of tears of gratitude to one of them for acting as one of my 
> greatest gurus, for his unbelievable kindness to me in termianting 
> the coarsest of my afflictions through his compassion. Someone I at 
> one point loathed with a fierce intensity (asd I'm not one to 
> collect enemies). It is only beacuse of his incredible kindness that 
> the rain of blessings has come down on my now where it would have 
> been impossible before.
> 
> > It just happens that I see no one as my "enemy". 
> > I *do*, however, see certain folks as among my very good friends, 
> and that 
> > surely includes you.
> 
> Likewise, my friend,
> Erik
> 
> 
================================
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) 




	
9976

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2001 10:24pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Dukkha (was, Concepts)

 	
Rob Ep

--- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > 
> > First, even the citta with wisdom, which you exclude from the class of
> > experiences that are ‘suffering’, would seem to meet the basic
> criterion
> > for suffering which you give (correctly, I believe) in these terms: 
> > “Because phenomenal experience is constantly arising and falling away,
> it
> > is inherently unstable, confusing and dissatisfying”. So, you may
> like to
> > refine your answer further...
> > 
> > Secondly, apart from namas, what about rupas -- should these be
> considered
> > as suffering also, according to your understanding of the texts?
> > 
> > Jon
> > 
> > PS Not a test, not homework -- think of it as a quiz ;-))
> 
> Ah, well here we have a vicious feedback loop! I just asked Rob to help
> explain
> the nature of rupas, as I was having trouble understanding any form of
> perception
> that did not involve the formation of a concept [nama]. Rob's answer
> was that
> after we discussed 'conditions' we can move on to study rupas! So
> unless you can
> convince Rob to answer me sooner, or sneak me an answer yourself, I
> won't be able
> to say anything for at least six months!

Do I sense an accomplished homework dodger speaking here?

> Provisionally though, I would say that direct perception of the current
> reality as
> what it actually is should be exempt from suffering. Why? Because
> there is no
> expectation that it will last longer than a moment, therefore there is
> no
> discomfort or dissatisfaction at its impermanence.

Except that, as someone (I think Victor) has already pointed out, the
moment of 'direct perception' shares the same characteristics of
impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-self as the reality that is its
object. So is it any less unsatisfactory than any other moment of
consciousness?

Anyway, the explanation given in the description of the 1st Noble Truth is
that the *5 khandhas that are object of clinging* are suffering, in other
words, *all realities (except Nibbana) that are object of clinging* are
suffering. A simile is given in the Visuddhimagga (XVI, 63)--

"… so the Blessed One said 'In short the five aggregates as objects of
clinging are suffering' in order to show that all that suffering is
present in any of the five aggregates as object of clinging in the same
way that the taste of the water in the whole ocean is to be found in a
single drop of its water."

As you will know, Rob, the 5 khandhas encompass all dhammas that comprise
this life of ours.

So there you have the 'rupas' question dealt with also. Homework problem
solved!

Jon

PS The answer I have given above is as according to the texts, as I read
them. This is not intended to preclude discussion of a possible different
answer -- but simply to identify the Buddha's stated position on the
subject.



	
9977

From: jonoabb <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2001 10:51pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Realities (ultimate or otherwise)

 	
Ken O

--- Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> wrote: > Hi Jon
> 
> > 
> > The Buddha frequently spoke in conventional terms, but the subject
> > matter was invariably dhammas or ultimate truths.
> > 
> > Jon
> 
> 
> k: To me all Buddha says is always ultimate truth, it is just that 
I
> cannot see it at my level. 

Yes, that's about how I see it, too.

While I was reading an economy book, it says
> that there is a language of economical term to learn in order to
> understand economics. In this aspect, I would say similar to
> Abhidhamma. 
> 
> We are learning new technical terms and concepts to understand and 
its
> applicability to convention living and also to investigate those
> conventional terms used by Buddha.

Ken, I think you have neatly summarised here the value I see in 
studying the Abhidhamma and commentaries.

Jon
	
9978

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2001 11:01pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Commentaries (was, Cetana (volition, intention))

 	
Rob Ep

Thanks for going to the trouble of setting out your thoughts at length. 
Towards the end of your post (snipped below) you say:

> I would only ask how you make the comparison between your own views and
> those of
> the commentators. You must have a separate vehicle of discrimination to
> assess
> the commentator's views relative to your own. I don't mean to be silly.
> I would
> also assume that the commentator's views are incredibly closer to the
> mark than my
> own. But that doesn't mean that they can take my place as the person
> needing
> enlightenment. So discernment still has to arise in me. 

I agree that any discernment (awareness?) that is developed has to arise
in oneself, by one's own effort. As Christine has commented (if I may
paraphrase her), we can't hot-sync this stuff from another person.

If the discernment to be developed is the discernment that was taught
uniquely by the Buddha, I would think it useful if not necessary to find
out as much about what the Buddha said on the subject as possible – what
is this ‘discernment’, how is developed or how are the conditions for its
development cultivated, what happens at a moment of discernment, what are
the indicators of its successful development and so on. After all, there
are any number of ideas out there as to what the development of the path
is all about (just look at the number of views expressed on this
relatively small list alone).

Of the possible sources of this sort of information, the most useful and
reliable to my way of thinking are likely to be (1) the texts of the
canon, (2) the early commentaries on the canon, and (3) the teachings of
any person of our own time who has him/herself developed understanding in
accordance with the texts and commentaries. I don't see any role for our
own intuition in this exploratory investigation of the teaching.

I am not suggesting that the information obtained from these sources (and
this applies as much to the texts as it does to the commentaries), is
automatically to be embraced as 'The Answer'. We should still assess
anything we read or hear, and this is where our own experience and
understanding (intuition?) comes into play. But before we get to this
point we need to have as clear an idea as possible what the Buddha was
actually talking about. Otherwise there is a danger that one's interest
in not in the dhamma but in simply following one's own ideas.

Jon

--- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > 
…………
> Just to be clear, I have nothing against the commentaries. The excerpts
> I have
> seen so far have actually been quite interesting and even illuminating. 
> So I
> accept their value. I also mentioned to Sarah in a post at one point
> that I was
> taken with their 'warmth', by which I mean that they had a strong
> feeling of
> illumination, not of annihilation, if that makes any sense.
> 
> But I doubt whether the choice is only between their interpretation or
> my own. 
> The commentaries are not so straightforward. They are quite refined,
> and require
> an additional interpretation themselves to be understood, and then
> comparative
> understanding between them and the Suttas. I don't doubt that they
> illuminate the
> Suttas, but their relationship to the Buddha's words and to one's own
> understanding is anything but simple.
> 
………..
> 
> I have absolutely no hesitation to accept the commentaries as important
> teachings
> that shed light on the Suttas, and to work with them as with other
> Buddhist
> teachings. I absolute agree that they have great value, and can shed
> valuable
> light on the Suttas.
…………………….
> Again, this is an area where we have a slightly different view. I don't
> see one's
> intuition as being an optional ingredient in understanding, but as the
> basis for
> it. Whatever one reads in the Suttas will be funneled through one's own
> cittas,
> whether one likes it or not. There is no such thing as a Sutta read
> without a
> 'personal' interpretation. That doesn't mean there's a 'person' there,
> just that
> there is no pure reading without a process of grappling with the
> material. This
> will be just as true with the commentaries as without them. And no
> material
> without such grappling can give consciousness understanding. I do not
> see the
> Suttas as having the magical power to give understanding all by
> themselves without
> thought and contemplation. But I could be wrong about that of course. 
> So I would
> see the commentaries as an aid, but not as an alternative to one's own
> understanding in either case.
………………
> I would only ask how you make the comparison between your own views and
> those of
> the commentators. You must have a separate vehicle of discrimination to
> assess
> the commentator's views relative to your own. I don't mean to be silly.
> I would
> also assume that the commentator's views are incredibly closer to the
> mark than my
> own. But that doesn't mean that they can take my place as the person
> needing
> enlightenment. So discernment still has to arise in me. 
> 




	
9979

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2001 11:03pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard)

 	
Howard

--- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon -
.................
> As one extra clarification: "The" dhamma/phenomenon of hardness
> is, 
> indeed, experienced all the time. Actually, all the time there are
> "hardness 
> experiences/experiencings" occurring, always in combination with the 
> experiencing of other characteristics (at least as part of a "train of 
> experience", if not simultaneously). These hardness experiences are all
> quite 
> similar, and, seeing that extreme similarity, we use the common name and
> concept 'hardness' for the content of all of them for the purpose of
> thinking 
> about them and communicating those thoughts, which is exactly what
> concepts 
> are always about. The "hardness experiences" truly occur as does our 
> observing of the similarities among them. 

Yes, except I think that in any discussion of the "hardness experience" we
should be seeking to make clear the distinction between the dhamma that is
the *hardness being experienced* and the dhamma that is the *experiencing
of that hardness*, since they are totally separate dhammas, although not
normally perceived as such. And of course the same goes for the seeing
experience, the hearing experience and all the other experiences that make
up life and the world as we know it -- there are moments of consciousness
and there the dhammas or non-dhammas that are the objects of those moments
of consciousness.

> Where people go astray in this
> regard, I think, is when they go beyond dealing with the concept and
> name of 
> 'hardness' as simply a tool for thought and communication, and fall into
> thinking, usually subliminally, that there is some truly existing,
> single 
> Platonic "thing" existing outside of time, place, and event of which
> each 
> hardness experience is an instantiation, incarnation, or avatar {;-) .

I think what you are describing here is wrong view? This is yet another
kind of dhamma, one that arises in all of us from time to time (although
not as frequently as many other dhammas such as the experiences through
the sense-doors). It is useful to be alive to the tendency for wrong view
to creep into our thinking and talking. 

Learning more about these different dhammas and discussing their
characteristics can (as Rob Ep said in an earlier post) be a condition for
beginning to see them more for what they are when they arise. This kind
of discussion is easier when we use the same agreed conventional
designations for the different realities.

The fact that we have a tendency to take dhammas for self does not of
course mean we should hesitate to discuss them with a view to learning
more about them. (Not that you are you suggesting this, Howard.)

Jon




	
9980

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2001 11:03pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Held-to views (was, cittas- Howard/Rob)

 	
Rob Ep

--- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > 

> > It has been said that in one sense the development of the path is the
> > uncovering of held-to views. So a point to ponder. Are these views
> > normally apparent as and when they hold their sway? If not, can they
> be
> > seen for what they are, and would this involve some sort of practice?
> > 
> > Jon
> >
> Is this a trick question? <G>

What, me? No, honest! 

Actually, just something of a conundrum that I thought you might find
interesting to comment on.

> I'd say that they normally are not apparent. however, as we talk and
> think about
> them we reveal aspects of our views, which we can then see as empty and
> not take
> as reality. To the extent they're undisclosed they are ignorant.

Yes, they are normally not apparent and, yes, it's possible for these
views to become apparent through the right kind of talking and thinking,
but only to a certain (limited) extent, in their grosser aspects. But
even then the views are not actually eradicated by this exposure.

Wrong view, like other kilesa, comes in a variety of guises and in
strengths ranging from gross to extremely subtle. Aspects of our wrong
view of self may not actually be manifest particularly often, but wrong
view nevertheless underlies and pervades our thinking all the time.

The basis for this wrong view, according to the teachings, is ignorance
and in particular ignorance of the true nature of dhammas (realities). It
was the Buddha's discovery that this one shortcoming was the root cause of
all other kilesa. This means that one’s lack of understanding of, say,
the dhamma that is sound (the sound appearing now) is part of the root
cause for one's wrong view about self, the world and life in general. Now
it may be that the connection between this ignorance about an ‘everyday
rupa’ and wrong view is not immediately apparent, but I do believe this is
what the Buddha was spelling out for us.

This explains I think why the path taught by the Buddha was simply and
exclusively the development of understanding of dhammas. This
understanding is to be developed in its mundane (satipatthana/vipassana)
and supramundane (Noble Eightfold Path) forms.

> Can there be a practice around this? I'd say sure, but I kind of assume
> you'd say
> one can't really practice, but only do whatever one is allowed to do by
> arising
> forces of the moment.

The point I find really interesting myself is the one I have mentioned
above, namely that the 'undoing' of one's wrong views occurs not from
'straightening out' the views nor from confronting them head-on (the
conventional belief) but from the much more indirect way of understanding
more about dhammas, something which, at first glance, appears to have
little or nothing to do with the problem.

Jon



	
9981

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2001 11:04pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard)

 	
Rob Ep

--- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > 
> --- Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> wrote:

> > The discussion is about dhammas. The dhamma that we designate
> 'hardness'
> > is probably being experienced in some form at this very moment. We
> are
> > not referring to a philosophical concept of hardness but something
> that
> > appears regularly to everyone, a common human experience.
> > 
> > My two cents worth.
> > 
> > Jon
> 
> Are you saying that there's no value in trying to describe what the
> actual
> experience of hardness is like, as opposed to the concept? I would
> think that
> such a language would direct awareness to look at the actual experience
> and would
> be of interest.

Any discussion that helps us to understand more about the realities
(dhammas) that appear in our lives is valuable. Whether this would
include a "description of the actual experience of hardness" depends a bit
on what you mean by that. But generally, I was trying to draw attention
to the fact that the only things that can be known and understood, in the
sense that the Buddha used those terms, are the presently arising dhammas.
So it seems to me that the most useful focus of any discussion would be
as to how those dhammas can be seen or experienced for what they are. In
this regard I think that subjective conceptualising about them would be of
limited value (apologies if I'm misconstruing you here, Rob).

> Since we are dealing with language anyway, why not use it to expose the
> difference
> between concept and experience to some extent?

Yes, or between concept and reality – since concepts are also experienced,
but they are not ‘dhammas’?

Jon



	
9982

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 12, 2001 0:00am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Dukkha (was, Concepts)

 	
So I take it that the answer is that rupas are also a cause of suffering. This
confuses me since the rupas are supposed to be the 'absolute realities'. If the
absolutel realities are also cause of suffering, then what is distinctive about
them? Is it just to say that they are what they are, while other perceptions are
illusions, but that they still cause suffering equally?

Also, you may acccuse me of being a semantical demon, but every example below says
that the khandas 'as objects of clinging' are all causes of suffering. Is there a
quote that says that the khandas ' cannot occur except as objects of clinging?' 
It occurs to me that it is the clinging that is the problem, not the objects. If
the problem is not with the objects of clinging but with the clinging, can there
be kandhas without clinging? It sounds like a possibility depending on the state
of he who either clings or has gained the wisdom not to cling to the kandhas. 
Would this define an arahant?

Best,
Robert

========

--- Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> wrote:
> Rob Ep
> 
> --- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > 
> > > First, even the citta with wisdom, which you exclude from the class of
> > > experiences that are ‘suffering’, would seem to meet the basic
> > criterion
> > > for suffering which you give (correctly, I believe) in these terms: 
> > > “Because phenomenal experience is constantly arising and falling away,
> > it
> > > is inherently unstable, confusing and dissatisfying”. So, you may
> > like to
> > > refine your answer further...
> > > 
> > > Secondly, apart from namas, what about rupas -- should these be
> > considered
> > > as suffering also, according to your understanding of the texts?
> > > 
> > > Jon
> > > 
> > > PS Not a test, not homework -- think of it as a quiz ;-))
> > 
> > Ah, well here we have a vicious feedback loop! I just asked Rob to help
> > explain
> > the nature of rupas, as I was having trouble understanding any form of
> > perception
> > that did not involve the formation of a concept [nama]. Rob's answer
> > was that
> > after we discussed 'conditions' we can move on to study rupas! So
> > unless you can
> > convince Rob to answer me sooner, or sneak me an answer yourself, I
> > won't be able
> > to say anything for at least six months!
> 
> Do I sense an accomplished homework dodger speaking here?
> 
> > Provisionally though, I would say that direct perception of the current
> > reality as
> > what it actually is should be exempt from suffering. Why? Because
> > there is no
> > expectation that it will last longer than a moment, therefore there is
> > no
> > discomfort or dissatisfaction at its impermanence.
> 
> Except that, as someone (I think Victor) has already pointed out, the
> moment of 'direct perception' shares the same characteristics of
> impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-self as the reality that is its
> object. So is it any less unsatisfactory than any other moment of
> consciousness?
> 
> Anyway, the explanation given in the description of the 1st Noble Truth is
> that the *5 khandhas that are object of clinging* are suffering, in other
> words, *all realities (except Nibbana) that are object of clinging* are
> suffering. A simile is given in the Visuddhimagga (XVI, 63)--
> 
> "… so the Blessed One said 'In short the five aggregates as objects of
> clinging are suffering' in order to show that all that suffering is
> present in any of the five aggregates as object of clinging in the same
> way that the taste of the water in the whole ocean is to be found in a
> single drop of its water."
> 
> As you will know, Rob, the 5 khandhas encompass all dhammas that comprise
> this life of ours.
> 
> So there you have the 'rupas' question dealt with also. Homework problem
> solved!
> 
> Jon
> 
> PS The answer I have given above is as according to the texts, as I read
> them. This is not intended to preclude discussion of a possible different
> answer -- but simply to identify the Buddha's stated position on the
> subject.


	
9983

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 12, 2001 0:07am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Commentaries (was, Cetana (volition, intention))

 	
--- Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> wrote:

> I am not suggesting that the information obtained from these sources (and
> this applies as much to the texts as it does to the commentaries), is
> automatically to be embraced as 'The Answer'. We should still assess
> anything we read or hear, and this is where our own experience and
> understanding (intuition?) comes into play. But before we get to this
> point we need to have as clear an idea as possible what the Buddha was
> actually talking about. Otherwise there is a danger that one's interest
> in not in the dhamma but in simply following one's own ideas.

Dear Jon,
I do agree with what you are saying here. My only reservation would be to say
that I think the personal assessment/experience/understanding phase of this
process takes place continuously on a micro-level, as does the other phases. 

To follow the process you have outlined, which seems very worthwhile, you would:
1/ study the texts.
2/ attempt to ascertain as surely as possible what is actually being said, and
what path is being mapped out with the help of commentaries and qualified teachers
3/ assess what we have understood via our own experience and understanding
4/ apply the understanding gained by the previous steps to the faithful
discernment of the moment

Best,
Robert Ep.



	
9984

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 12, 2001 0:12am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Held-to views (was, cittas- Howard/Rob)

 	
--- Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> wrote:
> The point I find really interesting myself is the one I have mentioned
> above, namely that the 'undoing' of one's wrong views occurs not from
> 'straightening out' the views nor from confronting them head-on (the
> conventional belief) but from the much more indirect way of understanding
> more about dhammas, something which, at first glance, appears to have
> little or nothing to do with the problem.
> 
> Jon

I think this is very interesting. To understand your proposal better, could you
give your current definition of 'dhamma'. I'm not sure if you mean it mainly as
'rupas' or whether you are including a larger set of objects of consciousness.

What qualifies as a 'reality' to be truly discerned?

Best,
Robert Ep.


	
9985

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 12, 2001 0:15am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard)

 	
--- Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> wrote:
> Rob Ep
> 
> --- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > 
> > --- Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> wrote:
> 
> > > The discussion is about dhammas. The dhamma that we designate
> > 'hardness'
> > > is probably being experienced in some form at this very moment. We
> > are
> > > not referring to a philosophical concept of hardness but something
> > that
> > > appears regularly to everyone, a common human experience.
> > > 
> > > My two cents worth.
> > > 
> > > Jon
> > 
> > Are you saying that there's no value in trying to describe what the
> > actual
> > experience of hardness is like, as opposed to the concept? I would
> > think that
> > such a language would direct awareness to look at the actual experience
> > and would
> > be of interest.
> 
> Any discussion that helps us to understand more about the realities
> (dhammas) that appear in our lives is valuable. Whether this would
> include a "description of the actual experience of hardness" depends a bit
> on what you mean by that. But generally, I was trying to draw attention
> to the fact that the only things that can be known and understood, in the
> sense that the Buddha used those terms, are the presently arising dhammas.
> So it seems to me that the most useful focus of any discussion would be
> as to how those dhammas can be seen or experienced for what they are. In
> this regard I think that subjective conceptualising about them would be of
> limited value (apologies if I'm misconstruing you here, Rob).

No, I think you're right. It suddenly seems very interesting to try to
distinguish 'looking' at the problem that is really seeing it in terms of a
current reality, as opposed to making up a conceptual example, even though it
imitates a reality. in our hardness discussion, I was 'imagining' an experience
of hardness rather than actually, say, touching a table and reporting back, and
failed to distinguish between these very different enterprises. They seem the
same to the mind, but are not.


> > Since we are dealing with language anyway, why not use it to expose the
> > difference
> > between concept and experience to some extent?
> 
> Yes, or between concept and reality – since concepts are also experienced,
> but they are not ‘dhammas’?
> 
> Jon


	
9986

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 12, 2001 1:37am
Subject: DITTHI -right or wrong views?

 	
Dear Friends,

There has been some discussion about the meaning of ditthi (di.t.thi).

Erik wrote recently:

‘... Re: the term "ditthi", I think Mike mentioned it 
referring to "miccha ditthi" but teachers I respect have taught me 
that any view at all is considered ditthi, to be discarded. Right 
View is the equivalent of no-view, it is beyond taking any position 
at all, as the sutta Herman quoted notes. What need is there for 
ditthi (speculation) of any kind when there is direct knowledge?’

I also understand ditthi to usually refer to miccha ditthi and when we read
about speculative views (as in Aggivacchagotta Sutta, M72 or Brahmajala Sutta),
it is these miccha ditthi that are being referred to (*see dictionary notes
below). When there is samma ditthi (right view), there is of course no
speculation involved, but instead the direct knowledge (or panna,
understanding) of paramatha dhammas (highest truths):

********************
"Bhikkhus, just as the dawn is the forerunner and first
indication of the
rising of the sun, so is right view the forerunner and first
indication of
wholesome states.
For one of right view, bhikkhus, right intention springs up. For
one of
right intention, right speech springs up. For one of right
speech, right
action springs up. For one of right action, right livelihood
springs up. For
one of right livelihood, right effort springs up. For one of
right effort,
right mindfulness springs up. For one of right mindfulness,
right
concentration springs up. For one of right concentration, right
knowledge
springs up. For one of right knowledge, right deliverance
springs up.

Anguttara Nikaya 10:121"

********************

Sarah

*From Nyantiloka’s dictionary we read:

ditthi (lit. 'sight'; Ö dis, to see): view, belief, speculative opinion,
insight. If not qualified by sammá, 'right', it mostly refers to wrong and evil
view or opinion, and only in a few instances to right view, understanding or
insight (e.g. ditthi-ppatta, q.v.; ditthi-visuddhi, purification of insight;
ditthi-sampanna, possessed of insight).

Wrong or evil views (ditthi or micchá-ditthi) are declared as utterly
rejectable for being a source of wrong and evil aspirations and conduct, and
liable at times to lead man to the deepest abysses of depravity, as it is said
in A. I, 22:

"No other thing than evil views do I know, o monks, whereby to such an extent
the unwholesome things not yet arisen arise, and the unwholesome things already
arisen are brought to growth and fullness. No other thing than evil views do I
know, whereby to such an extent the wholesome things not yet arisen are
hindered in their arising, and the wholesome things already arisen disappear.
No other thing than evil views do I know, whereby to such an extent human
beings at the dissolution of the body, at death, are passing to a way of
suffering, into a world of woe, into hell." Further in A. I, 23: "Whatever a
man filled with evil views performs or undertakes, or whatever he possesses of
will, aspiration, longing and tendencies, all these things lead him to an
undesirable, unpleasant and disagreeable state, to woe and suffering."

From the Abhidhamma (Dhs) it may be inferred that evil views, whenever they
arise, are associated with greed (s. Tab. I. 22, 23, 26, 27).

Numerous speculative opinions and theories, which at all times have influenced
and still are influencing mankind, are quoted in the sutta-texts. Amongst them,
however, the wrong view which everywhere, and at all times, has most misled and
deluded mankind is the personality-belief, the ego-illusion. This
personality-belief (sakkáya-ditthi), or ego-illusion (atta-ditthi), is of 2
kinds: eternity-belief and annihilation-belief.

Eternity-belief (sassata-ditthi) is the belief in the existence of a persisting
ego-entity, soul or personality, existing independently of those physical and
mental processes that constitute life and continuing even after death.

Annihilation-belief (uccheda-ditthi), on the other hand, is the belief in the
existence of an ego-entity or personality as being more or less identical with
those physical and mental processes, and which therefore, at the dissolution at
death, will come to be annihilated. - For the 20 kinds of personality-belief,
see sakkáya-ditthi.

Now, the Buddha neither teaches a personality which will continue after death,
nor does he teach a personality which will be annihilated at death, but he
shows us that 'personality', 'ego', 'individual', 'man', etc., are nothing but
mere conventional designations (vohára-vacana) and that in the ultimate sense
(s. paramattha-sacca) there is only this self-consuming process of physical and
mental phenomena which continually arise and again disappear immediately. - For
further details, s. anattá, khandha, paticcasamuppáda.

"The Perfect One is free from any theory (ditthigata), for the Perfect One has
seen what corporeality is, and how it arises and passes away. He has seen what
feeling ... perception ... mental formations ... consciousness are, and how
they arise and pass away. Therefore I say that the Perfect One has won complete
deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection and
casting out of all imaginings and conjectures, of all inclination to the
'vain-glory of 'I' and 'mine." (M. 72).

The rejection of speculative views and theories is a prominent feature in a
chapter of the Sutta-Nipáta, the Atthaka-Vagga.

The so-called 'evil views with fixed destiny' (niyata-miccháditthi)
constituting the last of the 10 unwholesome courses of action (kammapatha,
q.v.), are the following three: (1) the fatalistic 'view of the uncausedness'
of existence (ahetukaditthi), (2) the view of the inefficacy of action'
(akiriyaditthi), (3) nihilism (natthikaditthi).

(1) was taught by Makkhali-Gosála, a contemporary of the Buddha who denied
every cause for the corruptness and purity of beings, and asserted that
everything is minutely predestined by fate.

(2) was taught by Púrana-Kassapa, another contemporary of the Buddha who denied
every karmical effect of good and bad actions: "To him who kills, steals, robs,
etc., nothing bad will happen. For generosity, self-restraint and truthfulness,
etc. no reward is to be expected."

(3) was taught by Ajita-Kesakambali, a third contemporary of the Buddha who
asserted that any belief in good action and its reward is a mere delusion, that
after death no further life would follow, that man at death would become
dissolved into the elements, etc.



For further details about these 3 views, s. D. 2, M. 60; commentarial
exposition in WHEEL 98/99, P. 23.

Frequently mentioned are also the 10 antinomies (antagáhiká micchá-ditthi):
'Finite is the world' or 'infinite is the world' ... 'body and soul are
identical' or 'body and soul are different' (e.g. M. 63).

In the Brahmájala Sutta .(D.1), 62 false views are classified and described,
comprising all conceivable wrong views and speculations about man and world.



See The All-Embracing Net of Views (Brahmájala Sutta), tr. with Com. by Bhikkhu
Bodhi (BPS).

Further s. D. 15, 23, 24, 28; M. 11, 12, 25, 60, 63, 72, 76, 101, 102, 110; A.
II, 16; X, 93; S. XXI, XXIV; Pts.M. Ditthikathá,. etc.

 
Wrong views (ditthi) are one of the proclivities (s. anusaya), cankers (s.
ásava), clingings (s. upádána), one of the three modes of perversions (s.
vipallása). Unwholesome consciousness (akusala citta), rooted in greed, may be
either with or without wrong views (ditthigata-sampayutta or vippayutta); s.
Dhs.; Tab I.

On right view (sammá-ditthi), s. magga and M. 9 (Trans. with Com. in 'R.
Und.').


	
9987

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 12, 2001 4:54am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Was the Buddha a Theravadin?

 	
Dear Herman,

Herman wrote:
I am sure that you know, Mike, that the above sutta (MN 24) is the 
only one in the whole Sutta Pitaka that so much as mentions the seven 
purities, yet hundreds of years later the seven purities become the 
foundation for the entire Visuddhimagga, which is probably the most 
cited work in this group.

So what's the go?
....................
Sarah:
Well, I was interested to read this. In the dictionary extract I just posted on
ditthi, it mentioned ‘ditthi-visuddhi’ ads one of the few instances of ditthi
referring to rt view or ‘purification of insight’.

However, even though the exact terminology may not be used in other suttas, the
implicit meaning certainly is. Surely what is being discussed (and elaborated
in detail as you point out in the Visuddhimagga) again is the development of
the path, the development of wisdom, the eradication of clinging and ignorance,
the attainment of nibbana? Isn’t this what we are reading, considering and
understanding in the entire Tipitaka? 
....................
Herman:
The Buddha teaches that one must dispense with views, or keep on 
suffering. The Visuddhimagga seems to proliferate views. (This group 
has previously engaged in fertile discussions re cittas).
<snip>
....................
Sarah:
Hopefully, it is now clear that when the Buddha discusses the danger in the
proliferation of views and speculations, that they are the erroneous views that
are being discussed. I don’t believe the Visuddhimagga words fall into this
category (and hopefully not all our discussions on cittas;-) Of course,
ultimately all dhammas are unsatisfactory and so on and any clinging, whatever
the object, is unhelpful and unskilful.

Sarah
====================


	
9988

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Wed Dec 12, 2001 2:00am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard)

 	
Hi, Jon -

In a message dated 12/12/01 2:04:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
jonoabb@y... writes:


> Howard
> 
> --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon -
> .................
> > As one extra clarification: "The" dhamma/phenomenon of hardness
> > is, 
> > indeed, experienced all the time. Actually, all the time there are
> > "hardness 
> > experiences/experiencings" occurring, always in combination with the 
> > experiencing of other characteristics (at least as part of a "train of 
> > experience", if not simultaneously). These hardness experiences are all
> > quite 
> > similar, and, seeing that extreme similarity, we use the common name and
> > concept 'hardness' for the content of all of them for the purpose of
> > thinking 
> > about them and communicating those thoughts, which is exactly what
> > concepts 
> > are always about. The "hardness experiences" truly occur as does our 
> > observing of the similarities among them. 
> 
> Yes, except I think that in any discussion of the "hardness experience" we
> should be seeking to make clear the distinction between the dhamma that is
> the *hardness being experienced* and the dhamma that is the *experiencing
> of that hardness*, since they are totally separate dhammas, although not
> normally perceived as such.
> 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I'm in basic agreement here, though I would formulate it differently. 
I am more inclined to describe the hardness experienced and the experiencing 
of the hardness as two inter-related and mutually dependent aspects of the 
same experiencing-event. They are distinguishable as are the inside and the 
outside of a hollow sphere, but they co-occur, are mutually dependent, and, 
thus are not "totally separate". (In fact, no things are totally separate, 
though some are more "remote" from each other than dyads.
--------------------------------------------------------------
And of course the same goes for the seeing> 
> experience, the hearing experience and all the other experiences that make
> up life and the world as we know it -- there are moments of consciousness
> and there the dhammas or non-dhammas that are the objects of those moments
> of consciousness.
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Agreed, with the same modification.
-------------------------------------------------------------

> 
> > Where people go astray in this
> > regard, I think, is when they go beyond dealing with the concept and
> > name of 
> > 'hardness' as simply a tool for thought and communication, and fall into
> > thinking, usually subliminally, that there is some truly existing,
> > single 
> > Platonic "thing" existing outside of time, place, and event of which
> > each 
> > hardness experience is an instantiation, incarnation, or avatar {;-) .
> 
> I think what you are describing here is wrong view?
> 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Yep.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is yet another> 
> kind of dhamma, one that arises in all of us from time to time (although
> not as frequently as many other dhammas such as the experiences through
> the sense-doors). It is useful to be alive to the tendency for wrong view
> to creep into our thinking and talking.
> 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Indeed. I get to visit with this particular dhamma too damn often! 
;-))
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
> 
> 
> Learning more about these different dhammas and discussing their
> characteristics can (as Rob Ep said in an earlier post) be a condition for
> beginning to see them more for what they are when they arise. This kind
> of discussion is easier when we use the same agreed conventional
> designations for the different realities.
> 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Yes. I think that conceptual right view is amazingly helpful. What I 
find most helpful is the large brush strokes of conceptual right view more 
than the multitude of fine ones, but to each his own.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

> 
> The fact that we have a tendency to take dhammas for self does not of
> course mean we should hesitate to discuss them with a view to learning
> more about them. (Not that you are you suggesting this, Howard.)
> 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Right. I'm not.
---------------------------------------------------------------

> 
> Jon
> 
===========================
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) 




	
9989

From: Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> 
Date: Wed Dec 12, 2001 5:42pm
Subject: usage of the term "conventional self" and Terminology

 	
Hello Herman and Ken,

Thanks for replying.
In my case, I am not sure how people use the term "conventional," especially
in term of "conventional speech." I am not sure what distinguishes the
"ultimate speech" from the "conventional speech." As I understand from
reading the discourses, the Buddha use the speech that is truthful and
clear. I've also seen the term "conventional self" being used, and I am not
sure if that means something different from the term "self."

Also, I am not sure what is ultimate or absolute about the terms "nama",
"rupa", "citta", "cetasika", or the phenomena these term refer to.

Regards,
Victor
	
9990

From: Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> 
Date: Wed Dec 12, 2001 6:01pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Dukkha (was, Concepts)

 	
Hello Jon and Rob,

I am not sure what the moment of direct perception is. But direct
perception is impermanent. What is impermanent is unsatisfactory/dukkha.
What is impermanent, unsatisfactory/dukkha, subject to change is to be seen
as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I
am not. This is not my self."

Regards,
Victor

[snip]
> > Provisionally though, I would say that direct perception of the current
> > reality as
> > what it actually is should be exempt from suffering. Why? Because
> > there is no
> > expectation that it will last longer than a moment, therefore there is
> > no
> > discomfort or dissatisfaction at its impermanence.
>
> Except that, as someone (I think Victor) has already pointed out, the
> moment of 'direct perception' shares the same characteristics of
> impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-self as the reality that is its
> object. So is it any less unsatisfactory than any other moment of
> consciousness?
[snip]
	
9991

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> 
Date: Wed Dec 12, 2001 7:26pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? <4>

 	
Hi Sarah

Are the ancient texts commentaries that are used by Buddhaghosa still
present or have been lost.


Kind regards
Ken O


--- Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote: > Dear Friends,
> 
> Just to recap, in the Baahiranidaana, the introductory commentary to the
> Vinaya, Buddhaghosa is establishing the authenticity of the Vinaya,
> Suttanta
> and Abhidhamma. The ‘Dhamma and the Vinaya’ took 7 months to rehearse at
> the
> 1st Council held in Rajagaha, 2 months after the Buddha’s Parinibbana.
> 
> The reason for the recital so soon after, was to preserve the Teachings.
> 500
> arahats (Ananda is now an arahat) have been carefully selected from the
> 700,000
> monks who were present at the Buddha’s Parinibbana for this task.
> 
> Continuing from the same text, the next day (after Ananda’s arahatship),
> Mahakassapa asked the monks whether they should rehearse the Dhamma
> (i.e.
> Suttanta and Abhidhamma) first or the Vinaya. The monks replied:
> 
> ‘ “Sir, Mahakassapa, the Vinaya is the very life of the Dispensation of
> the
> enlightened One; so long as the Vinaya endures, the Dispensation
> endures,
> therefore let us rehearse the Vinaya first” ‘.
> 
> (This is sgnificant in the light of recent trends to consider the Vinaya
> and
> all the rules as out-dated).
> 
> It was decided that venerable Upali would be in charge because ‘the
> Perfectly
> Enlightened One, while he was living, considered the venerable Upali as
> the
> most pre-eminent in connexion with the learning of the
> Vinaya’....’Thereupon
> the Elder (Mahakassapa) appointed himself for the purpose of questioning
> about
> the Vinaya, and the Elder Upali agreed to give explanations.’ 
> 
> ‘.....then the venerable Mahakassapa seated himself in the president’s
> seat and
> questioned the venerable Upali on the Vinaya (see also Vin.ii 286),
> “Friend
> Upali, where did the Exaltyed One lay down the first Paaraajika?”
> 
> “At Vesali, Sir.”
> 
> “In connexion with whom?”
> 
> “In connexion with Sudinna, son of Kalandaka.”
> 
> “In connexion with what subject?”
> 
> “In connexion with sexual intercourse.” 
> 
> ‘Then the venerable Mahakassapa questioned the venerable Upali on the
> subject
> of the frst Paaraajika, the occasion, the person, the rule, the
> corollaries,
> and on what constitutes an offence and what does not.....’
> 
> ‘...thus was made the compilation of the Vinaya Pitaka which consists of
> the
> Vibhanga of both categories <Mahavibhanga and Bhikkhunivibhanga>, the
> Khandaka
> and the Parivaara. The Elder Mahakassapa questioned on everything and
> the
> Elder Upali explained. At the conclusion of the explanation of the
> questions
> the 500 arahats rehearsed together in a group according to the exact way
> in
> which the compilation had been fixed...’
> 
> In the same way, it was decided that Mahakassapa would question Ananda
> on the
> Dhamma.
> 
> ‘ “Friend Ananda, where was the Brahmajala preached?”
> 
> “Sir, at the King’s palace at Ambala.t.thika, between Rajagaha and
> Nalanda.”
> 
> “In connexion with whom?”
> 
> “Suppiya the wandering ascetic and the brahmin youth Brahmadatta.”
> 
> “On what subject?”
> 
> “On praise and blame.”
> 
> ‘.................And in the self-same manner he questioned him on all
> five
> Nikayas.”
> 
> ‘...The five Nikayas are, Dighanikaya, Majjhimanikaya, Samyuttanikaya,
> Anguttaranikaya, and Khuddakanikaya. Here Khuddakanikaya means the rest
> of the
> sayings of the Buddha excluding the four Nikayas. The venerable Elder
> Upali
> explained the Vinaya therein and the Elder Ananda the remaining sections
> of the
> Khuddakanikaya and the four Nikayas.
> 
> 'All this forms the word of the Buddha which should be known as uniform
> in
> sentiment, twofold as the Dhamma and the Vinaya, threefold according to
> the
> first, intermediate, and last words, and similarly as Pitakas (Baskets),
> fivefold according to the Nikayas (Collections), ninefold according to
> the
> Angas (Factors), and forming 84,000 divisions according to the Units of
> the
> Dhamma.
> 
> ‘How is it uniform in sentiment? During the interval of forty-five
> years from
> the time He realized the unique and perfect Enlightenment until he
> passed away
> in the element of Nibbana being free from clinging to the material
> substratum,
> whatever the Exalted One has said either as instruction to devas, men,
> nagas,
> yakkhas, and other beings or on reflection, has but one sentiment and
> that is
> emancipation. Thus it is uniform as regards sentiment.’ <end quote>
> 
> ********************
> 
> <Note the mention of 3 baskets. More on this next time.>
> 
> I’d just like to side-track a litle and consider the question of the
> commentaries and the First Council. In the introduction to the
> translation,
> Jayawickrama talks about Buddhaghosa’s ‘indebtedness to the Siihala
> A.t.thakathaa (Commentary) which he constantly refers to. Some
> references are
> also given in the vinaya itself.
> 
> With regard to the commentaries (as we read them)., Malalasekera in ‘The
> Pali
> Literature of Ceylon’ suggests they were:
> ‘not compiled in the modern sense of the word...so that, when
> Buddhaghosa
> mentions, in the opening stanzas of the ‘Sumgangala-vilaasinii’, that
> the
> commentary to the Digha-Nikaya was at the first council rehearsed by 500
> holy
> Elders, we may assume that he means, that at this meeting the ‘meanings’
> to be
> attached to the various terms- particularly to those that appear to have
> been
> borrowed from Hindu philosophy - were discussed and properly
> defined....Such
> definitions and fixations of meaning formed the nucleus of the later
> commentaries. The Elders had discussed the important terms at the First
> Council, and had decided on the method of interpreting and teaching the
> more
> recondite doctrines.’ <end quote>
> 
> In fact (according to this book) it seems that they were the utterances
> of
> disciples that had received particular approval from the Buddha that
> were
> ‘esteemed’ and ‘honoured as much as the words of the Buddha himself’. 
> ‘These
> formed the nucleus of the commentaries. Often, when the Buddha preached
> a
> sermon in concise form on some aspect of the doctrine, the monks used to
> repair
> to one of the chief disciples and get the points explained in greater
> detail. 
> Such was Maha-Kaccayana, for example, who was foremost in reputation for
> his
> power in giving detailed expositions of what the Buddha said in brief. 
> ..’
> <end quote>
> 
> If these monks who had heard the words from the Buddha required extra
> (commentarial) assistance, who are we to think that maybe we can manage
> without
> it?
> 
> I’d better stop here. Thank you for your patience and I hope there is
> something
> of interest for everyone (even if you don’t all agree with all the
> comments;-)
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Sarah
> ====================

	
9992

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 13, 2001 5:23am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? <4>

 	
Hi Ken O,

--- Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...>wrote: 

> Hi Sarah

>Are the ancient texts commentaries that are used by Buddhaghosa still
>present or have been lost.

In brief, most the ancient Sihala commentaries used by Buddhaghosa no longer
exist (supposedly went in a fire, possibly considered redundant after his great
commentaries) but it’s all a bit more complicated, so let me check the facts
properly and get back on this for next week’s episode as I’m rushed now.

imho = in my humble opinion (I know I should avoid these abbreviations in
emails and the smilies too, but as you’d say, sometimes I can’t resist;-))


Just one other thing in brief:

You said in a post to me:
.....................
Ken O: Without vipaka cittas, is there paccaya for seeing, hence seeing is
conditioned. If it is conditioned, it should not be view as real. I just
like to caution on taking paramattha as real bc they are also concepts
used to understand larger concepts like I or car. They are also fingers
pointing to the moon. There should be cautioned, so as not to take it as
substantial bc it defeats the purpose of Abhidhammic investigation and
then end up taking such microscopic elements as something real.
....................

Just some brief comments: seeing is vipaka citta and yes, all realities are
conditioned. Maybe there is a 'real' problem with the word reality. When we
refer to namas and rupas that can be known, these are paramattha dhammas,
usually translated as absolute realities...they’re real in the sense that they
can be known and understood directly by panna. There are many different kinds
of concepts, it’s true, including concepts about realities. Concepts are
objects of thinking, figments of the imagination, which awareness can never be
aware of. 

Just b/c we say namas and rupas are real or can be directly known and proved,
does not mean they are substantial, are self or lasting. They have
characteristics which exist for the instant they appear and can be known,
however. As Rob Ep says, when we touch the table, a characteristic of hardness
is experienced (without being named) and can be known ‘really’ as a rupa, not
self.

Sorry to rush, and sorry if this sounds jumbled..I'll try to do better after
the weekend if it's not clear (or if someone hasn't done a better job in the
meantime;-)

Sarah

p.s sorry we won’t see you in Bkk it seems this time. Yesterday we had a nice
lunch and chat with Jaran who was visiting Hong Kong for work and luckily he’ll
be able to join us in Bkk in your place;-) He hopes to meet you in Singapore
sometime too. Maybe you can even study Pali together as I know he’s pretty
knowledgeable.



	
9993

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Dec 13, 2001 5:45am
Subject: Beginnings, Endings, Sati, and Pa~n~na

 	
Hi, all -

Just a couple comments on some more musings of mine: As mindfulness 
practice starts to bear fruit, one (they say! ;-) becomes quite aware of 
beginnings and endings of mindstates, along with the observed object and the 
accompanying cetasikas. Again, the question occurs as to *how* the beginnings 
and endings are observed, because there is no observer standing back watching 
the flow - each mindstate *is* "the observer". It occurs to me that the 
answer lies in the meaning of 'sati', which literally means 'memory'. It 
seems to me that via sati, each citta, besides observing its object, also has 
a more or less clear memory of just-passed cittas. The presence of such fresh 
memory together with the other content of the current citta constitutes a 
"seeing" of change. This, then conditions subsequent cittas which involve 
clear comprehension of that change, an instance of pa~n~na. It seems to me 
that the memory aspect of sati is critical in all this. Thoughts, anyone?

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) 




9994

From: m. nease <mlnease@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 13, 2001 6:09pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Beginnings, Endings, Sati, and Pa~n~na

 	
Hi Howard,

--- upasaka@a... wrote:

> Just a couple comments on some more musings
> of mine: As mindfulness 
> practice starts to bear fruit, one (they say! ;-)
> becomes quite aware of 
> beginnings and endings of mindstates, along with the
> observed object and the 
> accompanying cetasikas. Again, the question occurs
> as to *how* the beginnings 
> and endings are observed, because there is no
> observer standing back watching 
> the flow - each mindstate *is* "the observer". It
> occurs to me that the 
> answer lies in the meaning of 'sati', which
> literally means 'memory'. 

Not sure if this is abhidhammically correct or not
(particularly the translation of sati as memory, which
is consistent with Ven. Buddhadatta's). That said,
though, your explanation is very close to the way I
see it. My only reservation is that, outside the
explanations read here and dictionary definitions, I
don't recall any references to sati as memory. 
Nevertheless, with the variations below, this is the
only explanation that makes sense to me.

> It 
> seems to me that via sati, each citta, besides
> observing its object, also has 
> a more or less clear memory of just-passed cittas.
> The presence of such fresh 
> memory together with the other content of the
> current citta constitutes a 
> "seeing" of change. This, then conditions subsequent
> cittas which involve 
> clear comprehension of that change, an instance of
> pa~n~na. It seems to me 
> that the memory aspect of sati is critical in all
> this. Thoughts, anyone?

I think sa~n~naa plays a part in this too--that is,
that it's sa~n~naa that remembers the 'fresh' memory
and sati that is aware of it, pa~n~naa that
understands it and so on. The unique role of the
'fresh' memory (of a dhamma, of course--not of a
concept) is, I think, that it can be an object of
satipatthaana as if it were present rather than
immediately past..

I wonder if this has any bearing on how all latent
memory (not to mention anusaya) seems to be 'passed
along' from one citta to the next. In other words,
even if the above does explain how present sati can be
aware of immediately past aarammana, it doesn't
explain how sa~n~naa recognizes an aarammana it
'marked' a year ago.

I seem to remember(!) Robert writing something
recently about citta not being limited by past,
present or future, or something to that effect. Maybe
this has some bearing on both questions, but I've been
unable so far to make much conceptual sense of it all.

By the way, I wonder if one every really 'becomes
quite aware of beginnings and endings of mindstates,
along with the observed object and the accompanying
cetasikas'. I can well believe that sati and pa~n~naa
can do this anytime (since they are of similar
rapidity and brevity), but I don't see how this could
be experienced conventionally, like feeling the
arising and subsiding of a pulse e.g.. I can only
think that, when satipatthaana is really well
established, it may arise continuously enough (or
frequently enough in a brief period) that a
conventional sense of the direct experience might
arise--in the same way that it does now of aversion or
desire (and their objects), e.g. Maybe 'we've'
experienced a little of this already, without a
corresponding experience of clear comprehension (which
may also be possible, I think). Then again, maybe
not...

Pardon the ramble!

mike 


	
9995

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Dec 13, 2001 1:37pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Beginnings, Endings, Sati, and Pa~n~na

 	
Hi, Mike -

In part of the following you write:

"By the way, I wonder if one every really 'becomes quite aware of 
beginnings and endings of mindstates, along with the observed object and the 
accompanying
cetasikas'. I can well believe that sati and pa~n~naa can do this anytime 
(since they are of similar rapidity and brevity), but I don't see how this 
could be experienced conventionally, like feeling the arising and subsiding 
of a pulse e.g.. I can only think that, when satipatthaana is really well 
established, it may arise continuously enough (or frequently enough in a 
brief period) that a conventional sense of the direct experience might 
arise--in the same way that it does now of aversion or
desire (and their objects), e.g. Maybe 'we've' experienced a little of this 
already, without a corresponding experience of clear comprehension (which
may also be possible, I think). Then again, maybe not... "

With regard to the foregoing, skipping over the matter if 
'conventional' or 'ultimate', let me just mention some experience of mine 
that *might* be relevant: A number of years ago I attended a 10-day Goenka 
retreat during which we meditated for at least six one-hour sittings each 
day, and except for occasional questions for teachers, we maintained total 
silence. The meditation involved moving the attention, in a set order, 
through all parts of the body, mainly externally, but sometimes probing 
internally. By the midpoint of the retreat, I found it possible, and with 
complete ease, to observe sensations throughout the entire body, like pulses 
of energy, arising and ceasing, and as the attention moved, naturally, the 
experience of sensations moved, and gave the impression of a mild electric 
current; but when attention was held to one spot, the individual pulses, 
coming and going, were discernable. Now, this is not *quite* the seeing of 
arising and ceasing, but it is close. I can imagine that with a further 
increase in mindfulness and concentration, the arising and the ceasing of 
each individual pulse would definitely become evident.

With metta,
Howard


In a message dated 12/13/01 9:12:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
mlnease@y... writes:


> Hi Howard,
> 
> --- upasaka@a... wrote:
> 
> > Just a couple comments on some more musings
> > of mine: As mindfulness 
> > practice starts to bear fruit, one (they say! ;-)
> > becomes quite aware of 
> > beginnings and endings of mindstates, along with the
> > observed object and the 
> > accompanying cetasikas. Again, the question occurs
> > as to *how* the beginnings 
> > and endings are observed, because there is no
> > observer standing back watching 
> > the flow - each mindstate *is* "the observer". It
> > occurs to me that the 
> > answer lies in the meaning of 'sati', which
> > literally means 'memory'. 
> 
> Not sure if this is abhidhammically correct or not
> (particularly the translation of sati as memory, which
> is consistent with Ven. Buddhadatta's). That said,
> though, your explanation is very close to the way I
> see it. My only reservation is that, outside the
> explanations read here and dictionary definitions, I
> don't recall any references to sati as memory. 
> Nevertheless, with the variations below, this is the
> only explanation that makes sense to me.
> 
> > It 
> > seems to me that via sati, each citta, besides
> > observing its object, also has 
> > a more or less clear memory of just-passed cittas.
> > The presence of such fresh 
> > memory together with the other content of the
> > current citta constitutes a 
> > "seeing" of change. This, then conditions subsequent
> > cittas which involve 
> > clear comprehension of that change, an instance of
> > pa~n~na. It seems to me 
> > that the memory aspect of sati is critical in all
> > this. Thoughts, anyone?
> 
> I think sa~n~naa plays a part in this too--that is,
> that it's sa~n~naa that remembers the 'fresh' memory
> and sati that is aware of it, pa~n~naa that
> understands it and so on. The unique role of the
> 'fresh' memory (of a dhamma, of course--not of a
> concept) is, I think, that it can be an object of
> satipatthaana as if it were present rather than
> immediately past..
> 
> I wonder if this has any bearing on how all latent
> memory (not to mention anusaya) seems to be 'passed
> along' from one citta to the next. In other words,
> even if the above does explain how present sati can be
> aware of immediately past aarammana, it doesn't
> explain how sa~n~naa recognizes an aarammana it
> 'marked' a year ago.
> 
> I seem to remember(!) Robert writing something
> recently about citta not being limited by past,
> present or future, or something to that effect. Maybe
> this has some bearing on both questions, but I've been
> unable so far to make much conceptual sense of it all.
> 
> By the way, I wonder if one every really 'becomes
> quite aware of beginnings and endings of mindstates,
> along with the observed object and the accompanying
> cetasikas'. I can well believe that sati and pa~n~naa
> can do this anytime (since they are of similar
> rapidity and brevity), but I don't see how this could
> be experienced conventionally, like feeling the
> arising and subsiding of a pulse e.g.. I can only
> think that, when satipatthaana is really well
> established, it may arise continuously enough (or
> frequently enough in a brief period) that a
> conventional sense of the direct experience might
> arise--in the same way that it does now of aversion or
> desire (and their objects), e.g. Maybe 'we've'
> experienced a little of this already, without a
> corresponding experience of clear comprehension (which
> may also be possible, I think). Then again, maybe
> not...
> 
> Pardon the ramble!
> 
> mike 
> 
> 


/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) 




	
9996

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 14, 2001 0:16am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Vinaya Commentary - words of the Buddha? <4>

 	
Hi Sarah,

k: I think it is a great lost as the ancient Sihala commentaries are no
longer around. Similarly I also wondering what happen to the ancient
sanskrits texts that have been translated to Chinese. They seem to have
disappear with no apparent good reasons after they are translated.


> Sorry to rush, and sorry if this sounds jumbled..I'll try to do better
> after the weekend if it's not clear (or if someone hasn't done a better
job in the meantime;-)


k: Its ok, I understand, I just need to get the perspective right from
Abhidhamma point of view. 



Kind regards
Ken O



> 
> > Hi Sarah
> 
> >Are the ancient texts commentaries that are used by Buddhaghosa still
> >present or have been lost.
> 
> In brief, most the ancient Sihala commentaries used by Buddhaghosa no
> longer
> exist (supposedly went in a fire, possibly considered redundant after
> his great
> commentaries) but it’s all a bit more complicated, so let me check the
> facts
> properly and get back on this for next week’s episode as I’m rushed now.
> 
> imho = in my humble opinion (I know I should avoid these abbreviations
> in
> emails and the smilies too, but as you’d say, sometimes I can’t
> resist;-))
> 
> 
> Just one other thing in brief:
> 
> You said in a post to me:
> .....................
> Ken O: Without vipaka cittas, is there paccaya for seeing, hence seeing
> is
> conditioned. If it is conditioned, it should not be view as real. I
> just
> like to caution on taking paramattha as real bc they are also concepts
> used to understand larger concepts like I or car. They are also fingers
> pointing to the moon. There should be cautioned, so as not to take it as
> substantial bc it defeats the purpose of Abhidhammic investigation and
> then end up taking such microscopic elements as something real.
> ....................
> 
> Just some brief comments: seeing is vipaka citta and yes, all realities
> are
> conditioned. Maybe there is a 'real' problem with the word reality. When
> we
> refer to namas and rupas that can be known, these are paramattha
> dhammas,
> usually translated as absolute realities...they’re real in the sense
> that they
> can be known and understood directly by panna. There are many different
> kinds
> of concepts, it’s true, including concepts about realities. Concepts are
> objects of thinking, figments of the imagination, which awareness can
> never be
> aware of. 
> 
> Just b/c we say namas and rupas are real or can be directly known and
> proved,
> does not mean they are substantial, are self or lasting. They have
> characteristics which exist for the instant they appear and can be
> known,
> however. As Rob Ep says, when we touch the table, a characteristic of
> hardness
> is experienced (without being named) and can be known ‘really’ as a
> rupa, not
> self.
> 
> Sorry to rush, and sorry if this sounds jumbled..I'll try to do better
> after
> the weekend if it's not clear (or if someone hasn't done a better job in
> the
> meantime;-)
> 
> Sarah
> 
> p.s sorry we won’t see you in Bkk it seems this time. Yesterday we had a
> nice
> lunch and chat with Jaran who was visiting Hong Kong for work and
> luckily he’ll
> be able to join us in Bkk in your place;-) He hopes to meet you in
> Singapore
> sometime too. Maybe you can even study Pali together as I know he’s
> pretty
> knowledgeable.
> 


	
9997

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 14, 2001 8:09pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Eightfold Path (esp. right effort)

 	
Herman

--- egberdina <hhofman@d...> wrote: > Jon,
> 
> There has been discussion previously re the self-realised or self 
> awakened Buddha.
> 
> To me this discussion conveyed that at some point of time, when there 
> was no Dhamma to be had, there was still the possibility of 
> development of the path.
> 
> You say: "Perhaps our point of difference here is whether a person 
> who has never heard the teaching can have any moments of 
> satipatthana."
> 
> Is there a contradiction here? Whaddya reckon?

Spot on. The exception to the general proposition that my statement
implies is, as you say, the Sammasambuddha or Paccekha-Buddha. However,
these great beings are extremely rare, and the exception applies only to
the lifetime in which buddhahood is attained, so for the likes of you and
me of no significance, I think.

But worth acknowledging all the same; and thanks for mentioning it.

> How's the noggin?

Thanks for asking. Beginning to feel more like its old self (so to
speak).

Have a good week-end.

Jon




9998

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 14, 2001 9:44pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Dukkha (was, Concepts)

 	
--- Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> wrote:
> Hello Jon and Rob,
> 
> I am not sure what the moment of direct perception is. But direct
> perception is impermanent. What is impermanent is unsatisfactory/dukkha.
> What is impermanent, unsatisfactory/dukkha, subject to change is to be seen
> as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I
> am not. This is not my self."
> 
> Regards,
> Victor
> 

This may sound extremely redundant or simplistic, but can you explain what the
logical link is between recognizing that something is subject to anicca, anatta
and dukkha, and leaping from there to the recognition that it is 'not mine, not
me, not my self.' How does one necessitate the other? 

Thanks,
Robert Ep.

==================================

> [snip]
> > > Provisionally though, I would say that direct perception of the current
> > > reality as
> > > what it actually is should be exempt from suffering. Why? Because
> > > there is no
> > > expectation that it will last longer than a moment, therefore there is
> > > no
> > > discomfort or dissatisfaction at its impermanence.
> >
> > Except that, as someone (I think Victor) has already pointed out, the
> > moment of 'direct perception' shares the same characteristics of
> > impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-self as the reality that is its
> > object. So is it any less unsatisfactory than any other moment of
> > consciousness?
> [snip]
> 
> 


	
9999

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Fri Dec 14, 2001 5:08pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Dukkha (was, Concepts)

 	
Hi, Rob -

In a message dated 12/15/01 12:45:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
epsteinrob@Y... writes:


> This may sound extremely redundant or simplistic, but can you explain what 
> the
> logical link is between recognizing that something is subject to anicca, 
> anatta
> and dukkha, and leaping from there to the recognition that it is 'not mine, 
> not
> me, not my self.' How does one necessitate the other? 
> 
> Thanks,
> Robert Ep.
> 
========================
I think that for Indian philosophic thought, a 'self' is permanent (it 
remains) and it is an agent of control for whatever belongs to it, 
determining its status. That being so, whatever is owned by a self is fully 
controllable by it and, thus, would not be a source of dissatisfaction. On 
that basis, anything which is impermanent and unsatisfying would not be a 
self (not me), and would not be mine. Them's my thoughts. ;-))

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)