10400

From: christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 1:02am
Subject: Bangkok tomorrow......

 	
Dear All,

I'm back from the beach.....still very hot here. I don't know if the 
bush fires in Oz have made it onto World News, many homes 
destroyed.....
I'll be at home for the night, and then catch the planes tomorrow for 
Sydney and then Bangkok (where, thankfully, the forecast is little 
cooler than here.) 
I am really, really looking forward to learning as much as possible, 
and meeting as many people as possible.

metta,
Christine
	
10401

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 2:39am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok tomorrow......

 	
Dear Christine,

--- christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> wrote: > Dear All,
> 
> I'm back from the beach.....still very hot here. I don't know if the 
> bush fires in Oz have made it onto World News, many homes 
> destroyed.....

Yes, CNN headlines....I'm just hoping Herman and family are not affected- I
forget where they are in NSW.


> I'll be at home for the night, and then catch the planes tomorrow for 
> Sydney and then Bangkok (where, thankfully, the forecast is little 
> cooler than here.) 

So we're preparing for the heat as you prepare for the cool;-)

I'm so glad I don't have to keep this little secret any longer. (Christine was
the other 'surprise' friend we mentioned we were looking forward to meeting for
the first time and actually we're all staying together in the same hotel;-))

> I am really, really looking forward to learning as much as possible, 
> and meeting as many people as possible.

It'll be quite a party and I have no doubt there will be some good discussions.


Hope you have good flights and remember to jot down any thoughts or questions
on the way;-)

Sarah somewhat excited 

p.s. Rob K...hope you're around and very sorry we'll miss you this New Year.
Hopefully, we'll be better co-ordinated next time;-)

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


	
10402

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 2:50am
Subject: Re: [dsg] luminous mind

 	
Dear Anders,

I know I really shouldn't be getting into new discussions just as I'm going
away, but I just can't resist making a couple of quick comments here;-)

--- Anders Honore <anders.honore@g...> wrote: > Personally, I don't
believe the commentaries at face value, and I believe
> that Bikkhu Bodhi has more or less skilfully 
> pointed that they are sometimes even dead-wrong as they contradict some
> suttas. 

This is interesting. B.Bodhi is certainly a lot, lot, lot more familiar with
the suttas and commentaries than I am, but I have yet to come across such a
contradiction and would be happy to have any (contradictions) pointed out <no
hurry> Sometimes it just depends on how one understands both (as with the
'luminous' sutta discussion).

A lot of what is found in the 
> commentaries (which are often abidhammically inspired) doesn't rely find
> backing in the suttas themselves, which, along 
> with the Vinaya Pitaka, is the only source I will personally acknowledge as
> being actually authoritative.
> That the commentators were all supposedly Arahants is something I find more
> credible to be a later invention by the 
> supporters of the commentaries, to lend authority to their claims.

You may find it interesting to read back over the series of posts I've been
doing on a weekly basis from 'Intro to Vinaya'. These are the areas I'm
considering in them.

> That it is not to say that they can't be extremely helpful in clarifying
> certain points (I have certainly found them to be so), 
> but I would personally recommend that they should be taken with a grain of
> salt

Sounds like you're in my category 2 group, i.e. you accept those which conform
with your understanding of the Suttas in question;-) (Category 1 were the
dinosaurs, that accept them all and category 3 were those who reject them all).

Good to have you around, Anders......I reckon you and Kom were just waiting for
each other like Erik and Dan wait for each other here too;-))

Best wishes in the New Year for good results in your studies and ever-growing
panna.

Sarah

	
10403

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 3:21am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga cittas

 	
Rob

--- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > Hi Sarah. : )
................
> Nina's statement that the bhavanga cittas take place in between
> sense-door and
> mind-door moments to maintain continuity was a new piece of info for me.
> I was
> looking at the bhavangas as a separate process that only took place
> during the
> sleep state or in unconsciousness or death.

You might find the passage from CMA on bhavanga citta below of interest. 

Jon

CMA III, #8 (Guide) 
… 
The word bhavanga means factor(anga) of existence (bhava), that is, the
indispensable condition of existence. Bhavanga is the function of
consciousness by which the continuity of the individual is preserved
through the duration of any single existence, from conception to death. … 
… . Bhavangacittas arise and pass away every moment during life whenever
there is no active cognitive process taking place. …

When an object impinges on a sense door, the bhavanga is arrested and an
active cognitive process ensues for the purpose of cognizing the object. 
Immediately after the cognitive process is completed, again the bhavanga
supervenes and continues until the next cognitive process arises. Arising
and perishing at every moment during this passive phase of consciousness,
the bhavanga flows on like a stream, without remaining static for two
consecutive moments.



	
10404

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 3:24am
Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
Dear Ken O,

This is really my last post. As Jon's waiting to use the computer, i'll keep it
short too. 

You've written several posts on the 'luminous' thread and I'm always struck by
how very carefully you consider all our words and the words in the suttas and
commentaries. Your reflections are always interesting and 'your own'. I've
written so much on this thread that I think if i said any more I'd just be
repeating myself and really boring everyone. So I think I'll just wait to look
at the Tika (sub-com) translation and Suan's notes. Meanwhile I'll be happy to
read any further reflections that you, Rob, Kom or Nina (or anyone else) has.

--- Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> wrote: 
> > Yes, it is a little difficult which is why I didn't post it all the
> > first time
> > I think.
> 
> k: I do not think it is difficult at all.

;-))

> > > k: To me, this statement will imply that when a man dreams he is
> > neither
> > > sleeping or awake. 
> > 
> > That's right.... no sense-door activity (as I mentioned to Frank
> > before), but
> > mind-door activity and thinking of concepts.
> 
> k: Nope I do not greed there is no sense-door activity if we look at the
> statement again and your are using the neither awake portiion to explain
> no sense door activity. I am using neither sleeping which means there is a
> possibility of sense door activity

Well, as Rob Ep wrote recently, we don't all have to agree;-)


S:
> > Nothing permanent at all. Just one citta and then another.

> k: To me I think we are prejudice. When the this passage explain return
> home, your position is changing cittas but when i see it it is abt
> permanent self. So when I think TB is not talking abt permanent self, you
> do not think otherwise as what your have written in msg #10218 (quoted
> below).

Hmmm....Firstly, I'm sorry if it sounds prejudiced in anyway. i think that when
we read anything the Buddha taught, we know or have confidence that whatever
terms are used, it is about realities which are anatta and for the dinosaurs
amongst us, all the abhidhamma is inherently part of these Teachings. Hence my
understanding about the Milinda passage and bhavanga cittas when it mentions in
the English translation 'return home'. When we read a modern writer's ideas or
translations, such as now when we read each other's posts, we have to read
quite a lot before we really know what the other person's way of thinking is.
All we can do is to suggest how it sounds to us according to our understanding.
I hope this isn't 'prjudice';-)

With regard to TB, I was interested to hear that Mike met him a couple of weeks
ago and I suggested that he might even be encouraged to join us here. His
translations and writings are so influential and personally I always prefer to
talk to someone direct. It would be an honour. However, I also understand that
he must be extemely busy.

You asked about commentaries, Ken O and the answer is yes, there are
commentaries on all the Sutta Pitaka. The main ones were written by Buddhaghosa
and the others (Udana, Itivuttaka etc) were written by Dhammapala.Sorry I
forget the rest of your question about them.

Ooops, overtime. I may raise bhavanga cittas in Bkk with K.Sujin too and let
you know if I learn anything new.

Hope you keep everyone busy on the list while we're away;-) Just realised that
we're about at the 2nd anniversary of dsg.

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

	
10405

From: Anders Honore <anders.honore@g...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 2:50am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
27-12-01 07:20:22, Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> skrev:

>Dear Howard,
>Howard, I haven?t really considered how frequently the Buddha discusses
>?citta?, using this terminology in the suttas. As others have suggested, I
>believe it is synonymous with ?mano? and ?vi~n~nana? which may be more commonly
>used, I?m not sure. I?d just like to finish with these translation notes by
>Gayan posted in the series of translations to Mike where the term citta is
>discussed in a sutta. 

The only sutta I can remember is the "luminosity" sutta, and I think that one has been discussed quite a bit already ;-)

I think what Howard may be objecting to regarding citta is the non-practicality of talking about this and that citta. After all, 
consciousness/vinnana/citta is that which sees, which discerns. Can an eye see itself? If not, then why talk so much about 
it. I agree with Howard that there are more relevant objects to focus on, such as all that which the consciousness discerns, 
be it material objects, attachments, desires, anger etc etc. Or am I completely misreading you, Howard?
	
10406

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 3:45am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
p.s.
--- Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> wrote: > Hi Sarah
> 
> By the way, what happen to Gayan. It is been a long time, I have seen his
> translation of the sutta which I find very beneficial. I hope he is well
> and happy
> 

It is a long time, now you mention it last time I heard from him he was on his
way to Sri lanka.... 

Gayan, we're thinking of you and appreciating your translation;-)

S.

	
10407

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 5:41am
Subject: Some points

 	
Hi Sarah

> Hmmm....Firstly, I'm sorry if it sounds prejudiced in anyway. i think
> that when we read anything the Buddha taught, we know or have confidence
that whatever terms are used, it is about realities which are anatta and
for the dinosaurs amongst us, all the abhidhamma is inherently part of
these Teachings.

k: I don't think I have said that abhidhamma is not part of the
Tripitika. In fact, I like Abhidhamma too :). I more concern with
applying Abhidhamma with the Sutta (even though I am not very fimiliar
with both :), gosh got to be more hardworking). I find that in order for
Abhidhamma to survive in the long run, there is a need to have its
practicality to be applied to the sutta. And definitely using ancient
commentaries to support and explain. Actually my guts feel abt Abhidhamma
is not concern abt developing kusala cittas, it is more abt understanding
reality or seeing reality as it is (satipatthana). If it is confined in
just explaining and developing kusala cittas and abt the danger of aksuala
cittas, then the whole effect of Abhidhamma spirit will be lost. Care
should be given to have a more investigative approach. I find Abhidhamma
practical if one able to used present human moments we have as though it
is a momentary citta moment, then its usefullness will be manifested. 

k: In certain ways, I disagree that there is no need for "sitting" or
practise in one pointedness. I think the commentaries on "imparting of
evenness to the [five] faculties" is very clear on balancing the five
faculties. According to the commentary, to be bias on one group is not
beneficial and the pitfalls are described clearly. I believe the
commentaries do exhort concentration and understanding, and also
mindfullness as the protector. I like to see your views or anyone, and
any other commentaries that say otherwise to this. (that will be after
your trip to bangkok). Definitely when we talk abt jhanas, there is a
problem how many of us will know it is good or bad states. Or will we
cling to it. As long as mindfullness is our guard and with understanding
of anicca and anatta to every state, concentration leading to jhana should
not be discouraged. I believe we should encourage pple to concentrate if
they wish to, if they wish to investigating in the Abhidhamma way, we
should also encourage. We should encourage those with good concentration
to practise understanding and likewise to those with good understanding to
practise concentration. To me they are both complementary or two legs
that we have for walking. As recommended in the commentary they should be
developed equally and not one sided. 


> Hence my understanding about the Milinda passage and bhavanga cittas
when it mentions in the English translation 'return home'. When we read a
modern writer's ideas or translations, such as now when we read each
other's posts, we have to read quite a lot before we really know what the
other person's way of thinking is. All we can do is to suggest how it
sounds to us according to our understanding. I hope this isn't
'prjudice';-)

k: I understand abt Milinda passage when return home or return to itself
is used. It is just that I feel, lets us be open minded to views even it
doesn't sound right to us. 


> You asked about commentaries, Ken O and the answer is yes, there are
> commentaries on all the Sutta Pitaka. The main ones were written by
> Buddhaghosa and the others (Udana, Itivuttaka etc) were written by
Dhammapala.Sorry I forget the rest of your question about them.

k: I really hope there are commentaries not written by Buddhaghosa bc he
is viewed to be more of an Abhidhammaist. The greatest lost will be the
ancient texts that Buddhaghosa have used. It would have been very
valuable if such texts are still around. 



> Ooops, overtime. I may raise bhavanga cittas in Bkk with K.Sujin too and
> let you know if I learn anything new.

k: That will be great :). 


> Hope you keep everyone busy on the list while we're away;-) Just
> realised that we're about at the 2nd anniversary of dsg.

k: Hmm you are definitely more competent and knowledgeable than me a
thousand times. it will be years even before I could keep everyone busy
on the list. In fact I am neither here nor there in the Abhidhamma or
Thervada sutta and honestly speaking I am lousy at both and coupled with
my lazy attitude :). 



> Sarah
> =================================================
> 

k: Have a nice and enjoyable trip :) and bon voyage



Best wishes
Ken O

	
10408

From: abhidhammika <abhidhammika@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:25am
Subject: Re: luminous mind: To Kenneth Ong And Like-minded Dhamma Friends

 	
Dear Ken

How are you?

Thank you for your kind encouragement.

Personally, I do have an attitude of equanimity towards those who 
criticize commentaries.

The reason I mentioned my reluctance to post translation of them is 
that I do not want to impose these profound commentarial discussions 
on the critics and the general readers alike. 

Another reason is that they are the preserves of advanced students 
and teachers of Tipitaka who knows Pali. They are not for beginners 
and laypersons. In terms of modern academic ranking, they belong to 
the level of post-graduate or doctoral studies and post-doctral 
research. Therefore, if you post them for general laypersons, your 
action amounts to baffling, tiring and torturing them. In fact, one 
of the reasons the commentaries received criticisms could well be 
that we haven't convinced the critics of the value of the 
commentaries.

Well, now, I know that there are are serious readers on this list, 
and I am willing to post the commentarial discussions here.

And, as the latest news on the matter, I have already finished full 
translation of commentary and subcommentary on the luminous mind. 
When I have finished re-checking and editing them, I will be able to 
post them for the intellectual entertainment of the serious dhamma 
friends on this list.

Coming very soon!

With best wishes,

Suan

http://www.bodhiology.org


--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> wrote:
> Hi Suan
> 
> Don't worry abt others critising abt the commentaries. If 
commentaries
> could not atest the criticism, then the value of the commentaries 
will
> diminish greatly. 
> 
> Even if others critise the commentaries with ill intentions, then 
it is 
> their aksuala kamma and not ours :).
> 
> What will happen, will happen :) so why worry what its beyond our 
control.
> 
> 
> Kind regards
> Ken O
> 
> --- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > Dear Suan,
	
10409

From: Kom Tukovinit <tikmok@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 8:02am
Subject: RE: [dsg] chatting about India

 	
Dear Nina,

You have got I think almost all of the big impressions I
have from the trip. :-) The other (big) one that still
stays in my mind (as I am still trying to make sense out of
it) is what most of the teachings in the tipitaka ultimately
describe.

K. Jaran and A. Supi was discussing about Kilesa, and why
only 10 akusala cetasikas are kilesas, and the other 4 are
not. The answer, I think you also wrote in Cetasikas, is
each Kilesa defiles the mind, where as the other four defile
the mental factors. At that point, I was asking him
questions about the other groupings of defilements including
Asava, etc.

A. Supi said at this point that to understand some of the
teachings, one has to keep in mind that the teaching
ultimately describes realities. The descriptions point to
the characteristics of realities: they are there so that we
can understand the realities as such. He then used the
example of the 8-fold paths, and we discussed why it is that
in the sutta, the 8-fold path sounds conventional and very
much like concepts, but why it is that it really describes
realities.

For example, regarding Samma ditthi, we hear that right
views include:
a) Kamma is real.
b) The benefaction of father and mother is real
c) There exists ones who know, as it truly is, the existence
of life before this, this life, and next life.

This may sound very much to some of us like concepts: this
is due to fact that there is no penetration of dhammas as
they truly are. However, if panna, cognizing the realities,
starts to develop, we would understand more, and in more
intricate details, about what the statements really mean.
For example, if one understands the difference between
paramatha dhammas and concepts, then one starts to
understand why Kamma and Kusala dhammas (benefaction of
father and mother) are real, but father and mother are not
real. Then, if one penetrates how kusala and akusala are
different from one another, then one understands even more
about a) and b). The more one penetrates the dhamma, the
deeper and detailed one's understading of Samma-ditthi is,
as the characteristics of realities as they truly are.

In using this explanation, A. Supi didn't explicitly link
the explanation to my question of why there are only 3
dhammas in the asava, but I think the above explanation
implies an answer to my question. We read that Asava:
1) flows from the lowest realm of existence to the highest
ones
2) is fermented. (The thai explanation also says it is
accumulated and fermented)
3) is like poisonous drug or intoxicants.

Nina, do you by any chance have any other explanations of
why other akusala dhammas are not asava? For example, since
Uddhacca, Ahiri, and Anottappa must co-arise with all the 4
asavas, but they are not are asavas. Why? Are there any
other reasons besides the one implied above?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nina van Gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 10:24 AM
> To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [dsg] chatting about India
>
> I find this very good, reminding us about
> conditions. What else can we do
> now but listening, studying, considering,
> verifying in daily life now what
> we learnt. I also found it helpful that A. Sujin
> said: understanding leads
> to detachment from the beginning to the end,
> stressing detachment so often.

> I was reminded that even reading the scriptures
> and wishing to gain
> understanding is often done with an idea of self.

Now the question I asked you above is asked in such a
context! Thanks for the immediate reminder.

kom
	
10410

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 3:41am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
Hi, Sarah -

Thanks for your post. Yes, as I said: "I'm aware of being conscious, 
and of experiencing feelings, emotions, sights, sounds, smells, and tastes 
..." There certainly is "in me" the awareness of many mental functions and 
their objects
, and often there is the awareness if their impermanence, insubstantiality, 
and, very much, their impersonality. But the notions of 'citta' and 'process' 
are, with their presumed well-defined (sharp) starting and ending points, 
unobserved and, at best, definitional. As a mathematician, I'd have no 
problem giving formal definitions of these notions in terms of (what *I* see 
as) the more *basic* notion of the function of discernment of objects. But 
I've lost interest, as far as really "seeing the way things are", with 
conceptual theories. 
Again, as a specific, while it may very well be true that there is but 
one object per act of discernment at a time, so that there is no parallel 
processing in effect as far as discernment, alone, is concerned, I have no 
way of knowing this detail except for taking it "on faith". And I don't see 
this as of any particular importance ianyway (compared, for example, to the 
tilakkhana). Moreover, I've never seen that fine point ever alluded to in a 
discourse. 
As far as the cetasikas are concerned, I see no reason to speak of all 
of them as "having an object" at all (some, like sa~n~na, yes), at least not 
in the same sense that vi~n~nana has an object. For example, certainly vedana 
arises from contact between vi~n~nana and and arammmana, and, in that sense, 
it is *associated* with that arammana, but I do not see that as having that 
same item as object. It is simply that feeling occurs *in response* to 
contact. In any case, *what is important here* is the *conditionality* of the 
function of vedana and its *impersonality*. And *these* things *can* be seen. 

Memorizing supposed facts along the lines of there being up to 17 
cittas per rupa is not an aspect of practice that I've ever seen suggested by 
the Buddha. Might this alleged fact be true? Sure, why not? But liberation 
won't come even 16 cittas sooner by storing this information in my arsenal. 
;-)) Getting bogged down in such things does seem, for me, to be rather much 
of an impediment, in fact. (I don't imply in the slightest that this need be 
the case for anyone else.)
My point, to summarize, is that much of abhidhamma consists of 
conceptual constucts, the result of intellectual theorizing. Of course, there 
is much of interest and value there, including some very useful ways of 
looking at things, but for me, abhidhammic theorizing has also become a 
danger, and I have to tread carefully. As I had written, I've tired of such 
theorizing, but more than that, and here is the main point, theorizing has 
come to serve in my case as a grossly inadequate substitute for the direct 
knowing, inadequate as it may be in my case at this stage, that results from 
the practice of sitting and walking meditation, and ongoing mindfulness 
practice (supported, of course, by a base of sila).

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 12/27/01 1:21:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
sarahdhhk@y... writes:


> 
> Dear Howard,
> 
> I don’t wish to bring up points that you may prefer to have a ‘break’ from 
> and
> quite understand if you prefer not to respond to this note. I also hope I’m 
> not
> taking this comment of yours to Rob Ep too much out of context:
> ..........
> Howard: “But as far as 
> providing the nitty gritty details of what, exactly, is the case in terms 
> of 
> such hard-to-find things as cittas, well, there's no way that I have the 
> slightest idea. As I said a while ago to Mike, while I'm aware of being 
> conscious, and of experiencing feelings, emotions, sights, sounds, smells, 
> and tastes, I've never experienced a citta, and I never read a sutta by the 
> 
> Buddha in which he discussed cittas.........<snip>"
> ....................
> 
> What I just wish to humbly say is that perhaps you underestimate what ‘your’
> 
> panna knows and perhaps the terminology has caused some communication
> difficulty. If we forget for a moment the word ‘citta’ and instead talk 
> about
> tasting, it may sound a little more real;-) I’m sure we’ve all had plenty 
> of
> experience ‘tasting’ over the holiday. At the moments of tasting the 
> tastes
> (which are amongst the objects there is some awareness of, you mention), 
> aren’t
> these just momentary phenomena discerning (yr usage) the tastes? The
> experiencing, the tasting, is different from that which is tasted. We are 
> used
> to think ‘I’m tasting the turkey of fried rice (in Jon’s case)’ when 
> really
> isn’t it just an experiencing of the rupa at that moment? 
> 
> So, even it it’s intellectual understanding at this moment, if it’s right 
> and
> skilful, it must be accompanied by sati and panna at this level which
> understand the nature of this citta, tasting. So it is for seeing, hearing,
> smelling, touching and thinking. These are the cittas that really can be 
> known
> directly at this moment, not just by thinking about them either. (Of 
> course,
> when we talk about bhavanga cittas, it is bound to be at an intellectual 
> level
> only, unless panna has been highly developed.)
> 
> I hope this doesn’t sound too ‘clumsy’..I’m having trouble finding the 
> right
> words today.
> 
> In the Ang Nik suttas being discussed on the luminous thread (1-10), we 
> read:
> ‘Monks, I know not of any other single thing so quick to change as the 
> mind...’
> and later read ‘Monks, if for just the lasting of a finger-snap a monk 
> indulges
> a thought of goodwill, such an one is to be called a monk. Not empty of 
> result
> is his musing..’It goes on to talk about the ‘power’ of skilful and 
> unskilful
> states of mind. 
> 
> In other words, we shouldn’t underestimate the power of the little wise
> reflection andawareness that occurs in a day. There’s no need to feel
> discouraged if there is less wise attention than we’d like.
> 
> This morning we had a mini-personal drama. In a nutshell, there was some
> uncertainty about whether Jon's mother would be able to continue with her 
> trip
> and leave Hong Kong which would have meant one or both of us having to 
> cancel
> our planned trip to Bangkok to stay and take care of her. So ‘my rapidly
> changing mind’ was having moments of genuine concern for my mother-in-law,
> aversion to all this news and worry, attachment to ‘me’ and ‘my’ plans 
> and so
> on. A few moments of kusala cittas, but many more moments of akusala cittas
> with many vipaka cittas such as seeing and hearing in between. 
> 
> This is daily life and facing up to and getting to know the different 
> cittas,
> cetasikas and rupas just a little. Just one ‘finger-snap’ of awareness at 
> a
> time. 
> 
> Fortunately the repeat blood-test gave a good result and we can all 
> continue
> with our plans. Again there were moments of gladness for my mother-in-law 
> and
> more attachment to ‘me’ and my plans and of course more seeing, hearing,
> tasting and so on. 
> 
> Howard, I haven’t really considered how frequently the Buddha discusses
> ‘citta’, using this terminology in the suttas. As others have suggested, I
> believe it is synonymous with ‘mano’ and ‘vi~n~nana’ which may be more 
> commonly
> used, I’m not sure. I’d just like to finish with these translation notes 
> by
> Gayan posted in the series of translations to Mike where the term citta is
> discussed in a sutta. 
> 
> I’ll just sign off first and hope I've helped rather than hindered or
> aggravated the proliferations;-))
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Sarah
> 
> (p.s. Rob Ep: I’ve just noticed this line which may be relevant to my post 
> to
> you yesterday, I’m not sure :�when citta is dirty, the beings become dirty�
> -)
> *********************
> Extract from Gayan’s post (8896):
> 
> 2nd Gaddula sutta , khanda samyutta , S N
> 
> " dittham vo bhikkhave caranam naama cittanti evam bhante. 
> tampi kho bhikkhave caranam naama cittam citteneva cintitam tena pi kho
> bhikkhave
> caranena cittena cittanneca cittataram,
> tasmatiha bhikkhave abhikkhanam sakam cittam paccavekkhitabbam,
> diigharattam idam cittam samkilittham raagena , dosena , mohenati.
> citta samkileso bhikkhave satta samkilissamti cittavodana satta 
> visujjhanti.
> naaham bhikkhave annam eka nikaayampi samanupassami evam cittam yathayidam
> bhikkhave
> tiracchanagataa paanaa te pi kho tiracchanagataa paanaa cittaneva cintitaa.
> tehipi kho bhikkhave tiracchanagatehi paanehi cittanneca cittataram. "
> 
> 
> monks , have you seen a 'drawing' called 'carana' ? ( citta -> citra (
> sanskrit ) )
> yes venerable sir.
> monks, even that 'carana' is thought by the citta ( mind )
> monks , ( so) the mind is more
> 'versatile/interesting/diverse...'(creatively, beautifully displayed) than
> that carana ( which is also thought by the mind )
> 
> [ carana is said to be a kind of beautiful animation graphics type of a
> thing existed those days ]
> 
> 
> monks every moment you should observe the mind.
> for a long period this mind has been subjected to the dirt of raaga, dosa,
> moha.
> when citta is dirty, the beings become dirty
> when the mind is cleaned, the beings become cleaned.
> 
> 
> monks I cant see a more versatile/diverse(creatively, beautifully 
> displayed)
> category of beings than this animal category,
> monks even those animals are thought by the mind itself.
> this mind is more versatile than the animal kingdom,
> so monks you should observe it every moment.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------
> 
> discussing above sutta, 
> when one enjoys a carana citta like above, the enjoyment comes because of
> raaga , dosa , moha.
> The carana is displayed in the mind and the end product is helped by the
> raaga, dosa, moha dirt that has been there in the mind for a long time.
> 
> Like a Movie,-> the same movie can be enjoyed by different persons with
> diffrent mind states.
> But the movie 'they' are seeing is different from eachother, because the
> movie created in the minds differ according to the person's mind state.(
> with diffrent intensities of raaga, dosa, moha )
> 
> <end quote from Gayan>
> ********************
> 


/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) 




	
10411

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 9:25am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
Hi, Anders -

In a message dated 12/27/01 6:29:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
anders.honore@g... writes:


> 27-12-01 07:20:22, Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> skrev:
> 
> >Dear Howard,
> >Howard, I haven?t really considered how frequently the Buddha discusses
> >?citta?, using this terminology in the suttas. As others have suggested, I
> >believe it is synonymous with ?mano? and ?vi~n~nana? which may be more 
> commonly
> >used, I?m not sure. I?d just like to finish with these translation notes 
> by
> >Gayan posted in the series of translations to Mike where the term citta is
> >discussed in a sutta. 
> 
> The only sutta I can remember is the "luminosity" sutta, and I think that 
> one has been discussed quite a bit already ;-)
> 
> I think what Howard may be objecting to regarding citta is the 
> non-practicality of talking about this and that citta. After all, 
> consciousness/vinnana/citta is that which sees, which discerns. Can an eye 
> see itself? If not, then why talk so much about 
> it. I agree with Howard that there are more relevant objects to focus on, 
> such as all that which the consciousness discerns, 
> be it material objects, attachments, desires, anger etc etc. Or am I 
> completely misreading you, Howard?
> 
============================
You're basically on target, Anders. To me, what is most important to 
see, and to see it directly and not theorize about or accept on faith, is the 
conditionality, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, insubstantiality, and 
impersonality of all experience, and, in the seeing, to let it go. It does me 
little good, as far as I can determine, to study detailed lists of 
unexperienced phenomena and to then debate with others or with myself as to 
how "this" unobserved phenomenon relates to "that" unobserved phenomenon. 
What I need to see, directly, is the arising of suffering, and the grasping 
which leads to it, directly, in my own life. Most of all, I think it is 
important to not let studying and reasoning "take over"and replace the 
practice taught by the Buddha. This is the trap I need to avoid. Other folks 
may have other points of vulnerability. This is mine.

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) 




10412

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 3:01pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Memory, Objects, and Continuity

 	
Num

Many thanks for this reply, and anumodana in your work in analysing the
texts and commentaries.

The Canonial references seem to be rather few. I must say I had been
hoping to uncover something further! However, the supplementary opinions
of various writers are interesting.

I may follow up while in Bangkok (I am now at Hong Kong airport), and will
get back to you on the subject later.

Thanks again for the most informative reply.

Jon

--- srnsk@a... wrote: > Hi Jon,
> 
> > Do you have any references on the 4 manifestations of sanna that you
> > mention --'registration (marking), retention, retrieval and recall'? 
> I
> > would be interested to know where I can read more about this.
> > 
> 
> 
> The bottom-line of how I came up with those descriptions is from
> multiple 
> sources. Hmm, let me tell you how I came up.
> 
> I have been reading lakkhanaticcatuka, (four characters:
> {characteristics 
> (lakkhanam: specific or generic attribute) function (rasa: function or 
> achievement), manifestation (paccupat-thana: manifestation, appearance
> or 
> effect) and proximate cause (padatthanam) }), from various sources,
> English, 
> Pali and couple of different translations of these 4 characteristics in
> Thai, 
> from Milindapanha, a little bit from my tipitaka online search. And I
> have to 
> admit that I also reflect about it from my background, my training and 
> practice at work.
> 
> I cut this from Nina's "Cetasikas": 
> " {The Atthasalini (I, Part IV, Chapter 1, 110) states about
> sanna: 
> ...It has the characteristic of noting (In Pali: sanjanati, cognizing
> well) 
> and the function of recognizing what has been previously noted.}". 
> Which is 
> consistent with pali description that I have in my Thai abdms. 
> 
> I think Nina put it together very nicely, from the same page, 
> " { The Visuddhimagga (XIV, 130) gives a similar definition. We
> can 
> use the words perceiving, noting, recognizing and 'marking' in order to 
> designate the reality, which is sanna, but words are inadequate to
> describe 
> realities. We should study the characteristic and function of sanna. 
> Sanna is not the same as citta which is the 'leader' in 
> cognizing an object. As we have seen, sanna recognizes the object and it
> 
> 'marks' it so that it can be recognized again. This is explained by way
> of a 
> simile: carpenters put tags or signs on logs so that they can recognize
> them 
> at once by means of these marks. This simile can help us to understand
> the 
> complex process of recognizing or remembering. What we in conventional 
> language call "remembering" consists of many different moments of citta
> and 
> each of these moments of citta is accompanied by sanna which connects
> past 
> experiences with the present one and conditions again recognition in the
> 
> future. This connecting function is represented by the words
> 'recognition' 
> and 'marking' (1 See Abhidhamma Studies, by the Ven. Nyanaponika, 1976,
> page 
> 70, where it is explained that the making of marks and remembering is 
> included in every act of perception.) when the present experience has
> fallen 
> away it has become past and what was future becomes the present, and all
> the 
> time there is sanna which performs its function so that an object can
> be 
> recognized. If we remember that sanna accompanies every citta, we will
> better 
> understand that the characteristic of sanna is not exactly the same as
> what 
> we mean by the conventional terms of 'recognition', 'perception' or
> 'marking' 
> . Each citta which arises falls away immediately and is succeeded by the
> next 
> citta, and since each citta is accompanied by sanna which recognizes and
> 
> 'marks 'the object, one can recognize or remember what was perceived or 
> learnt before. }"
> 
> To me noting, marking or the term I usually use in my work, registration
> 
> point to same thing to make a mark of the input for later recall. Rasa
> or 
> function as quoted above "recognizing what has been previously noted",
> which 
> I use the word "recall". I put it the word retention and retrieval to
> fill 
> the process between noting and recall. And I think that's part of sanna
> as 
> well. When some one has memory problem, the way I was trained is where
> on 
> the process has pathology. Registration problem is usually from
> attention 
> span, level of consciousness. Recall usually with neuropathology or at
> times 
> psychological. Anterograde amnesia is when one cannot retain new
> information 
> and retrograde amnesia is when one cannot retrieve what had been
> retained 
> before. 
> 
> The following I cut from online abdms by Nárada Thera, Vájiráráma,
> Colombo. I 
> think he put the examples from Milindapanha, Atthasalini and
> Visuddhimagga 
> together.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 4. Saññá - Sam + ñá, to know, (Compare Latin cognoscere, to know.)
> The meaning of this term widely varies according to the context. To
> avoid 
> unnecessary confusion, it is best to understand the specific meaning
> used in 
> the particular connection as a universal mental state. 
> 
> The chief characteristic of saññá is the cognition of an object by way
> of a 
> mark as blue etc. It is saññá that enables one to recognize an object
> that 
> has once been perceived by the mind through the senses. "Its procedure
> is 
> likened to the carpenter's recognition of certain kinds of wood by the
> mark 
> he had made on each; to the treasurer's specifying certain articles of 
> jewelry by the ticket on each; to the wild animal's discernment in the 
> scarecrow of the work of man." 
> 
> Saññá, therefore, means simple sense perception. 
> "Perception," according to a modern Dictionary of Philosophy, "is the 
> apprehension of ordinary sense-objects, such as trees, houses, chairs,
> etc., 
> on the occasion of sensory stimulation." 
> 
> Perception is not used here in the sense employed by early modern 
> philosophers such as Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. 
> 
> As one of the five khandhas (Aggregates) saññá is used in the sense of 
> perception. 
> 
> Could it be that memory is due to this saññá? 
> 
> Saññá, viññána and paññá should be differentiated from one another.
> Saññá is 
> like the mere perception of a rupee coin by a child. By its whiteness, 
> roundness and size it merely recognizes the coin as a rupee, utterly
> ignorant 
> of its monetary value. A man, for instance, discerns its value and its 
> utility, but is not aware of its chemical composition. Viññána is
> comparable 
> to the ordinary man's knowledge of the rupee. Paññá is like the
> analytical 
> knowledge of a chemist who knows all its chemical properties in every
> detail. 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I feel like word or term have limitation but it impotant in
> communication. 
> Even sanna is appearing here and now but word cannot describe it all.
> 
> Further input and feedback are appreciated. 
> 
> Num

	
10413

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 3:09pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Dukkha (was, Concepts)

 	
Victor

--- yuzhonghao <victoryu@s...> wrote: > Hello Jon,
> 
> It is good that you understand that:
> Conditioned phenomenon is impermanent. 
> Conditioned phenomenon is unsatisfactory/dukkha. 
> Conditioned phenomenon 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."

Flattery will get you nowhere!! I am much more interested in hearing what
you have to say about how the truths taught by the Buddha are to be
understood.

Please share your thoughts with us, Victor. No need to be afraid -- we
are a friendly lot here!

Jon


> > While I understand the meaning of what you are saying, there is 
> surely
> > more to it than this. Did the Buddha give any clues as to *how this
> > understanding is to be developed*? Otherwise, one is just 
> repeating the
> > words of the suttas.
>> 

   	
10414

From: m. nease <mlnease@y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 3:28pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept

 	
Hi Kenneth,

--- Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> wrote:
> Hi Mike

> > Concepts can't be the objects of satipa.t.thaana,
> so can't produce this
> kind of understanding.

> k: I beg to differ. I think concepts are the
> prelimnary stage for
> satipatthana. 

I didn't say that concepts are not necessary, or not a
preliminary stage to satipa.t.t.haana, or that they
can't be the objects of understanding--just not the
kind of understanding that eradicates defilements
(satipa.t.thaana vipassanaa). This is completely
different from conceptual understanding, as I see it. 


Concepts, pa.n.natti, are absolutely necessary as a
preliminary stage for satipa.t.thaana, as I undersatnd
it. What I meant to say (in brief) is that, as I
understand it, concepts can't be the objects of
satipa.t.t.haana, they cannot be directly experienced
by sati, pa~n~naa etc. because they do not have the
characteristic (sabhaava) necessary for direct
experience.

> Without realising concepts as it is,
> then deeper level of
> satipatthana could not be established. 

I agree that understanding the nature of concept is
important, and that having the right concepts
(pariyatti) is essential.

> Only through
> satipatthana the mind
> becomes much "sharper" present moments become more
> and more minute. 

No comment on this...

> then
> paramatha dhamma could be understand through
> breaking down of concepts.

Paramattha dhammas are understood (by pa~n~naa) by
direct experience of them with pa~n~naa. Concepts are
not paramattha dhammas.

> the concept level started with the study of body
> parts, slowly to other
> namas. As in the book of dispeller of delusion, the
> study of body parts
> is discussed at great length, i think even such
> discussion at length is 
> of paramount importance for the precendent study of
> paramtha dhamma. The
> study of concepts are impt bc we are still living at
> the conceptual world.

I have never suggested otherwise, sorry if I gave that
impression.

> Through detail studying then there is a possiblity
> of studying paramtha
> dhammas. 

Certainly--I have never disagreed with this.

> Till then, the investigating of
> paramatthas dhammas is could
> only be applied on conceptual level (i.e. a series
> of cittas to constitute
> the present moment we have) and not at paramttha
> dhamma level (citta by
> citta). 

Certainly I would agree that, without the pariyatti,
the likelihood of ever discovering the paramattha
dhammas would be next to nil.

> Merry Christmas and A happy new year to you :)

Thanks and best wishes to you, too, Kenneth,

mike

	



10415

From: <srnsk@a...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 10:44am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
Hi Howard,


> Again, as a specific, while it may very well be true that there is but 
> one object per act of discernment at a time, so that there is no parallel 
> processing in effect as far as discernment, alone, is concerned, I have no 
> way of knowing this detail except for taking it "on faith". And I don't see 
> 
> this as of any particular importance ianyway (compared, for example, to the 
> 
> tilakkhana). Moreover, I've never seen that fine point ever alluded to in a 
> 
> discourse. 
> As far as the cetasikas are concerned, I see no reason to speak of 
> all 
> of them as "having an object" at all (some, like sa~n~na, yes), at least 
> not 
> in the same sense that vi~n~nana has an object. For example, certainly 
> vedana 
> arises from contact between vi~n~nana and and arammmana, and, in that 
> sense, 
> it is *associated* with that arammana, but I do not see that as having that 
> 
> same item as object. It is simply that feeling occurs *in response* to 
> contact. In any case, *what is important here* is the *conditionality* of 
> the 
> function of vedana and its *impersonality*. And *these* things *can* be 
> seen. 
> 

You reminded me of maha-satipatthana-sutta. Let me cut just two sections from 
the sutta, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn22.html You 
probably have read it before. The sutta talks about things here and now in 
daily routine life. I understand that is what is you referred to. I agree 
that understanding, reality is here and now not there and then in the 
tipitaka. 
------------------------------------------------------------------
(B. Feelings)"And how does a monk remain focused on feelings in & of 
themselves? There is the case where a monk, when feeling a painful feeling, 
discerns that he is feeling a painful feeling. When feeling a pleasant 
feeling, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling. When feeling a 
neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he discerns that he is feeling a 
neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. "When feeling a painful feeling of the 
flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a painful feeling of the flesh. When 
feeling a painful feeling not of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a 
painful feeling not of the flesh. When feeling a pleasant feeling of the 
flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh. When 
feeling a pleasant feeling not of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a 
pleasant feeling not of the flesh. When feeling a 
neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling of the flesh, he discerns that he is 
feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling of the flesh. When feeling a 
neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling not of the flesh, he discerns that he is 
feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling not of the flesh. "In this way 
he remains focused internally on feelings in & of themselves, or externally 
on feelings in & of themselves, or both internally & externally on feelings 
in & of themselves. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination 
with regard to feelings, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to 
feelings, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to 
feelings. Or his mindfulness that 'There are feelings' is maintained to the 
extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by 
(not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused 
on feelings in & of themselves. 

(C. Mind)"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. "When the mind is restricted, he discerns that the mind is 
restricted. When the mind is scattered, he discerns that the mind is 
scattered. When the mind is enlarged, he discerns that the mind is enlarged. 
When the mind is not enlarged, he discerns that the mind is not enlarged. 
When the mind is surpassed, he discerns that the mind is surpassed. When the 
mind is unsurpassed, he discerns that the mind is unsurpassed. When the mind 
is concentrated, he discerns that the mind is concentrated. When the mind is 
not concentrated, he discerns that the mind is not concentrated. When the 
mind is released, he discerns that the mind is released. When the mind is not 
released, he discerns that the mind is not released. "In this way he remains 
focused internally on the mind in & of itself, or externally on the mind in & 
of itself, or both internally & externally on the mind in & of itself. Or he 
remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the mind, on 
the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the mind, or on the phenomenon 
of origination & passing away with regard to the mind. Or his mindfulness 
that 'There is a mind' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & 
remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) 
anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the mind in & of 
itself. 
--------------------------------------------------------

I agree with you about limitation of conceptualization of studying dhamma. 
As I mentioned before I personally do not like the word Abhidhamma, I mean to 
me dhamma is dhamma. I also mentioned that I like to read and definitely 
books of abhidhamma are fascinated me ( I feel abhidhamma is kind of a dry 
bone, suttanta is kind of lively and vinaya is kind of a mirror to remind 
myself how deep and pervasive kilesa can be). At this point my reading is 
kind of orientation to terms and vocabularies in dhamma, (very pannatti). I 
cannot prove nor disprove a lot of things I have read. Definitely the 17 
series of citta is beyond my ability to discern. I can read and memorize 
(sometimes) the 17 moments back and forth but it does not mean I really see 
it. And as Nina mentioned, a lot of time I read or look up sutta are a 
mixture of greed to know and at times b/c I know I know very little and aware 
that to understand more in useful. I do not try to hypnotize myself to 
believe in all I have read. To me wisdom (panna) is illuminating and 
spontaneous. Anyhow, I still favor reading and gathering more information 
for being a food of thought. To me during reading, not matter I aware or 
not, mind (citta, consciousness, .....whatevere the term is), color, 
sound,.... come and go all the time. Always a good reminder that concept 
is not a reality as well as theory. 

Have to run to my tennis tournament. One thing I know that my mind have to 
move couple steps ahead of my opponent and the ball, if I want get deep in to 
the match.

Best wishes,

Num


	
10416

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 6:35pm
Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
: )

Nice to read your words.

Robert Ep.

=======

--- Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> wrote:
> Hi Robert
> 
> I think my water analogy is wrong. I have mixed up bhavanga cittas with
> other type of cittas. I find that the the parent and child analogy of
> bhavanga cittas by the commentaries are not adequate to explain the
> meaning of bhavanga cittas. 
> 
> To me I equate defiled as vibrations. the bhavanga cittas are vibrated by
> sensory objects through causes and conditions (defilements) even though
> their objects are not sensory ones. Such vibrations (or disturbances)
> includes kusala and akusala, as long as there is vibrations hurling at
> bhavanga cittas, it is meant to be defiled.
> 
> We could not at one hand saying that is it only being defiled by just
> aksuala bc it leave a loop hole "what happen if it is being disturbed by
> kusala". To me it should be viewed that whatever vibrates bhavanga cittas
> are defilements since bhavanga cittas are by nature luminious in this
> context.
> 
> When it is not being vibrated, it is considered luminious. 
> 
> I believe that you have understand that bhavanga cittas are also used for
> sense proccess and in between sense process. I think I have a problem,
> how come there is citta that is beyond our six senses.
> 
> And that also remind me of dreaming. I believe there are latent tendecies
> in bhavanga cittas also and such tendecies are manifested mostly affected
> by lobha mula tendecies. When at times we seem to be very awake at
> dreaming (half awake and half dreaming) the mind door sense process are
> awake but not strong enough to be truly really awake. At that time of
> such weak mind door sense process, there is an ability to see, hear and
> taste and also memory. Such weak mind door sense process only, there is a
> possiblity of reasoning or perceptions in our dream. Just guessing, he he
> :) for the fun of it.
> 
> 
> Kind regards
> Ken O
> 
> 
> --- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > Hi Kenneth.
> > I guess we can get someone else to chime in again on this, but my
> > understanding is
> > that the bhavanga cittas never make any contact with sense objects and
> > thus are
> > never defiled. They only get 'turned on' in deep sleep, unconsciousness
> > or death
> > to ensure the continuity during the 'blank periods' when the conscious
> > mind and
> > sensory phenomena are absent. So when there is sense object impinging
> > on a citta,
> > it is never bhavanga citta, it is always the 'waking' citta. When
> > bhavanga citta
> > awakens, there is never any object there. Bhavanga citta only has as
> > its object
> > the last object before the previous death, and it never varies, so there
> > is no
> > chance of any defilement.
> > 
> > If the above is true, by this logic, I cannot see how the bhavanga citta
> > can be
> > the one referred to in the statement: 'Mind is luminous, but is defiled
> > by
> > incoming defilements'. It would be quite impossible.
> > 
> > And in fact, the commentaries seems to assume as I do that the bhavanga
> > cittas
> > cannot be directly defiled. That is why they employ the 'parent and
> > child'
> > analogy, which says that the waking cittas, which are defiled, ruin the
> > reputation
> > of the parents, the bhavanga cittas, even though the bhavanga cittas are
> > never
> > themselves defiled. So in a sense the Buddha could be saying that the
> > bhavanga
> > cittas are defiled by the other cittas, even though they themselves are
> > actually
> > *not* defiled. With respect, this seems to be stretching the meaning of
> > the
> > Buddha's very simple declarative statement quite a bit, in my opinion. 
> > 
> > I look forward to reading a greater part of the commentary on this
> > subject, if
> > Suan takes on the time-consuming task of translating it, and I hope it
> > will
> > clarify the above.
> > 
> > Until then, I think it is interesting to note the different 'streams' of
> > cittas
> > that are taking place on different levels in the human structure, as it
> > is
> > constructed from moment to moment by a series of changing conditions and
> > events. 
> > There are the subconsious cittas, the bhavanga cittas; the conscious
> > ones, which
> > perceive namas and rupas, and the supra-mundane cittas, which discern
> > the reality
> > of arising namas and rupas and some of which are capable of perceiving
> > Nibbana. 
> > But as I understand it, it is still the case that only one of these
> > cittas appears
> > at a time. It is an interesting picture of reality.
> > 
> > Best,
> > Robert Ep.
> > 
> > ============
> > 
> > --- Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> wrote:


	
10417

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 6:38pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga cittas

 	
thanks, Jon.
Robert Ep.

========

--- Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> wrote:
> Rob
> 
> --- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > Hi Sarah. : )
> ................
> > Nina's statement that the bhavanga cittas take place in between
> > sense-door and
> > mind-door moments to maintain continuity was a new piece of info for me.
> > I was
> > looking at the bhavangas as a separate process that only took place
> > during the
> > sleep state or in unconsciousness or death.
> 
> You might find the passage from CMA on bhavanga citta below of interest. 
> 
> Jon
> 
> CMA III, #8 (Guide) 
> … 
> The word bhavanga means factor(anga) of existence (bhava), that is, the
> indispensable condition of existence. Bhavanga is the function of
> consciousness by which the continuity of the individual is preserved
> through the duration of any single existence, from conception to death. … 
> … . Bhavangacittas arise and pass away every moment during life whenever
> there is no active cognitive process taking place. …
> 
> When an object impinges on a sense door, the bhavanga is arrested and an
> active cognitive process ensues for the purpose of cognizing the object. 
> Immediately after the cognitive process is completed, again the bhavanga
> supervenes and continues until the next cognitive process arises. Arising
> and perishing at every moment during this passive phase of consciousness,
> the bhavanga flows on like a stream, without remaining static for two
> consecutive moments.
> 


	
10418

From: Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 6:41pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: luminous mind: To Kenneth Ong And Like-minded Dhamma Friends

 	
Dear Suan,
Looking forward to it!

Regards,
Robert Ep.

======

--- abhidhammika <abhidhammika@y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Ken
> 
> How are you?
> 
> Thank you for your kind encouragement.
> 
> Personally, I do have an attitude of equanimity towards those who 
> criticize commentaries.
> 
> The reason I mentioned my reluctance to post translation of them is 
> that I do not want to impose these profound commentarial discussions 
> on the critics and the general readers alike. 
> 
> Another reason is that they are the preserves of advanced students 
> and teachers of Tipitaka who knows Pali. They are not for beginners 
> and laypersons. In terms of modern academic ranking, they belong to 
> the level of post-graduate or doctoral studies and post-doctral 
> research. Therefore, if you post them for general laypersons, your 
> action amounts to baffling, tiring and torturing them. In fact, one 
> of the reasons the commentaries received criticisms could well be 
> that we haven't convinced the critics of the value of the 
> commentaries.
> 
> Well, now, I know that there are are serious readers on this list, 
> and I am willing to post the commentarial discussions here.
> 
> And, as the latest news on the matter, I have already finished full 
> translation of commentary and subcommentary on the luminous mind. 
> When I have finished re-checking and editing them, I will be able to 
> post them for the intellectual entertainment of the serious dhamma 
> friends on this list.
> 
> Coming very soon!
> 
> With best wishes,
> 
> Suan
> 
> http://www.bodhiology.org
> 
> 


	
10419

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Dec 27, 2001 2:15pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
Hi, Num -

Thank you for a very friendly and helpful post!

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 12/27/01 6:47:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, srnsk@a... 
writes:


> 
> Hi Howard,
> 
> 
> > Again, as a specific, while it may very well be true that there is but 
> > one object per act of discernment at a time, so that there is no parallel 
> 
> > processing in effect as far as discernment, alone, is concerned, I have 
> no 
> > way of knowing this detail except for taking it "on faith". And I don't 
> see 
> > 
> > this as of any particular importance ianyway (compared, for example, to 
> the 
> > 
> > tilakkhana). Moreover, I've never seen that fine point ever alluded to in 
> a 
> > 
> > discourse. 
> > As far as the cetasikas are concerned, I see no reason to speak of 
> 
> > all 
> > of them as "having an object" at all (some, like sa~n~na, yes), at least 
> > not 
> > in the same sense that vi~n~nana has an object. For example, certainly 
> > vedana 
> > arises from contact between vi~n~nana and and arammmana, and, in that 
> > sense, 
> > it is *associated* with that arammana, but I do not see that as having 
> that 
> > 
> > same item as object. It is simply that feeling occurs *in response* to 
> > contact. In any case, *what is important here* is the *conditionality* of 
> 
> > the 
> > function of vedana and its *impersonality*. And *these* things *can* be 
> > seen. 
> > 
> 
> You reminded me of maha-satipatthana-sutta. Let me cut just two sections 
> from 
> the sutta, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn22.html You 
> 
> probably have read it before. The sutta talks about things here and now in 
> daily routine life. I understand that is what is you referred to. I agree 
> 
> that understanding, reality is here and now not there and then in the 
> tipitaka. 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> (B. Feelings)"And how does a monk remain focused on feelings in & of 
> themselves? There is the case where a monk, when feeling a painful feeling, 
> 
> discerns that he is feeling a painful feeling. When feeling a pleasant 
> feeling, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling. When feeling a 
> neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he discerns that he is feeling a 
> neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. "When feeling a painful feeling of 
> the 
> flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a painful feeling of the flesh. When 
> feeling a painful feeling not of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling 
> a 
> painful feeling not of the flesh. When feeling a pleasant feeling of the 
> flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh. When 
> 
> feeling a pleasant feeling not of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling 
> a 
> pleasant feeling not of the flesh. When feeling a 
> neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling of the flesh, he discerns that he is 
> feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling of the flesh. When feeling a 
> 
> neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling not of the flesh, he discerns that he 
> is 
> feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling not of the flesh. "In this 
> way 
> he remains focused internally on feelings in & of themselves, or externally 
> 
> on feelings in & of themselves, or both internally & externally on feelings 
> 
> in & of themselves. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination 
> with regard to feelings, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to 
> feelings, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to 
> 
> feelings. Or his mindfulness that 'There are feelings' is maintained to the 
> 
> extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained 
> by 
> (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused 
> 
> on feelings in & of themselves. 
> 
> (C. Mind)"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. "When the mind is restricted, he discerns that the mind 
> is 
> restricted. When the mind is scattered, he discerns that the mind is 
> scattered. When the mind is enlarged, he discerns that the mind is 
> enlarged. 
> When the mind is not enlarged, he discerns that the mind is not enlarged. 
> When the mind is surpassed, he discerns that the mind is surpassed. When 
> the 
> mind is unsurpassed, he discerns that the mind is unsurpassed. When the 
> mind 
> is concentrated, he discerns that the mind is concentrated. When the mind 
> is 
> not concentrated, he discerns that the mind is not concentrated. When the 
> mind is released, he discerns that the mind is released. When the mind is 
> not 
> released, he discerns that the mind is not released. "In this way he 
> remains 
> focused internally on the mind in & of itself, or externally on the mind in 
> & 
> of itself, or both internally & externally on the mind in & of itself. Or 
> he 
> remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the mind, 
> on 
> the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the mind, or on the 
> phenomenon 
> of origination & passing away with regard to the mind. Or his mindfulness 
> that 'There is a mind' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & 
> remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) 
> anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the mind in & 
> of 
> itself. 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I agree with you about limitation of conceptualization of studying dhamma. 
> 
> As I mentioned before I personally do not like the word Abhidhamma, I mean 
> to 
> me dhamma is dhamma. I also mentioned that I like to read and definitely 
> books of abhidhamma are fascinated me ( I feel abhidhamma is kind of a dry 
> bone, suttanta is kind of lively and vinaya is kind of a mirror to remind 
> myself how deep and pervasive kilesa can be). At this point my reading is 
> kind of orientation to terms and vocabularies in dhamma, (very pannatti). 
> I 
> cannot prove nor disprove a lot of things I have read. Definitely the 17 
> series of citta is beyond my ability to discern. I can read and memorize 
> (sometimes) the 17 moments back and forth but it does not mean I really see 
> 
> it. And as Nina mentioned, a lot of time I read or look up sutta are a 
> mixture of greed to know and at times b/c I know I know very little and 
> aware 
> that to understand more in useful. I do not try to hypnotize myself to 
> believe in all I have read. To me wisdom (panna) is illuminating and 
> spontaneous. Anyhow, I still favor reading and gathering more information 
> for being a food of thought. To me during reading, not matter I aware or 
> not, mind (citta, consciousness, .....whatevere the term is), color, 
> sound,.... come and go all the time. Always a good reminder that 
> concept 
> is not a reality as well as theory. 
> 
> Have to run to my tennis tournament. One thing I know that my mind have to 
> move couple steps ahead of my opponent and the ball, if I want get deep in 
> to 
> the match.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Num
> 
> 


/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) 




	
10420

From: Purnomo . <purnomo9@h...> 
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2001 3:41am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept

 	
Dear friend,

I agree what you said.

nice,

purnomo


>From: "m. nease" <mlnease@y...>
>Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
>To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept
>Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 15:42:03 -0800 (PST)
>
>Dear Purnomo,
>
>As I understand it a naama is characterized by its
>ability to experience an object.
>
>For example, tactile consciousness (kayavi~n~naa.na)
>experiences tangible object, heat for example--feeling
>(vedanaa) arising with tactile conciousness
>experiences feeling, (pleasant or unpleasant in this
>case). So kayavi~n~naa.na, a citta, and vedanaa, a
>cetasika, are both experiencing the same object
>(aarammana), heat--they are both naamas (heat is a
>ruupa, it doesn't experience anything). Of course,
>many other cetasikas arise at the same time as
>vedanaa, all experiencing the same aarammana.
>
>The concept of pleasant or unpleasant heat arises
>afterwards but doesn't experience anything, it is an
>idea made up of memories of the experiences. To me,
>this is important only because the experiences
>(naamas) and the things they can experience
>(aarammanas, naamas or ruupas) can be the objects of
>satipa.t.thaana and so can produce the kind of
>understanding (sati-pa~n~naa) that destroys
>defilements. Concepts can't be the objects of
>satipa.t.thaana, so can't produce this kind of
>understanding.
>
>This is the way I see it, anyway.
>
>Always nice to see you here, Purnomo,
>
>mike
>




	
10421

From: Purnomo . <purnomo9@h...> 
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2001 3:51am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept

 	
dear all,

I agree what you said. I think "Universe" is a concept.

Purnomo


>From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...>
>Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
>To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept
>Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 12:59:09 +0800 (CST)
>
>Dear Rob Ep,
>
> --- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > Dear Sarah,
> > It's getting a little clearer, I hope.
>
>Good!
> >
> > A concept can be the object of a citta, but a concept is never a nama.
>
>Right!
>
> > A concept of the Universe is not a citta, because the 'Universe' is not 
>a
> > real
> > object, but a conceptual, imaginary one.
>
>Mmmm, yes the Universe is a concept and and the “Universe’ is not a real
>object. Even if it were a concept of a real object, it would not be a 
>citta.
>The reason that neither a concept or a rupa is ever a citta is because a 
>citta
>is a reality which experiences an object which concepts and rupas don’t do.
>
> > But the citta that thinks about the concept of the Universe can have 
>that
> > concept
> > as its 'unreal' object. Is this correct?
>
>Yes, spot on! (Cittas in the mind-door process only).
>
> > A citta that recognizes a concept as a concept, an unreal object, occurs 
>with
> > sati
> > and perhaps with panna,
>
>Mmmmmm, sati arises with all kusala (wholesome) cittas and panna with any
>related to bhavana (mental development). So if there is wise reflection 
>about
>concepts, like now hopefully, this reflection will be accompanied by sati 
>and
>panna. However, as Jon wrote in a post yesterday, if it is sati of
>satipatthana, accompanied by panna, the object can only be a reality and 
>never
>a concept. So there is no ‘knowing’ a concept, because a concept doesn’t 
>exist
>except in our imagination. Sati and panna know that at these moments the
>reality is thinking which can be understood precisely.
>
> >but a citta that mistakes a concept for a reality --
> > that
> > thinks the 'Universe' is a real object, not a concept -- occurs with 
>moha,
> > and is
> > a 'deluded' citta. Is this correct?
>
>Certainly there is moha at these moments. When there is the ‘deluded’ citta
>which wrongly takes concept for reality, there is also (micha) ditthi at 
>these
>moments. This is why we can consider ditthi as the most ‘dangerous’ 
>cetasika
>(to quote K.Sujin) and the first one that has to be eradicated.
>
>I think you’re getting ‘very warm’ indeed,
>
>Speak soon,
>Sarah
> ==========

	
10422

From: Purnomo . <purnomo9@h...> 
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2001 3:58am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept

 	
Dear Ong,

Concept is important to we understand, but if we want to get deeper level of 
satipathanna so we have to release all our concept. Do you agree ?

nice,
purnomo


>From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...>
>Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
>To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept
>Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 07:01:03 +0000 (GMT)
>
>Hi Mike
>
> > Concepts can't be the objects of satipa.t.thaana, so can't produce this
>kind of understanding.
>
>k: I beg to differ. I think concepts are the prelimnary stage for
>satipatthana. Without realising concepts as it is, then deeper level of
>satipatthana could not be established. Only through satipatthana the mind
>becomes much "sharper" present moments become more and more minute. then
>paramatha dhamma could be understand through breaking down of concepts.
>the concept level started with the study of body parts, slowly to other
>namas. As in the book of dispeller of delusion, the study of body parts
>is discussed at great length, i think even such discussion at length is
>of paramount importance for the precendent study of paramtha dhamma. The
>study of concepts are impt bc we are still living at the conceptual world.
> Through detail studying then there is a possiblity of studying paramtha
>dhammas. Till then, the investigating of paramatthas dhammas is could
>only be applied on conceptual level (i.e. a series of cittas to constitute
>the present moment we have) and not at paramttha dhamma level (citta by
>citta).
>
>Merry Christmas and A happy new year to you :)
>
>
>Kind regards
>Ken O
>
>
> >
> > This is the way I see it, anyway.
> >
> > Always nice to see you here, Purnomo,
> >
> > mike



	
10423

From: Purnomo . <purnomo9@h...> 
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2001 4:31am
Subject: grandma

 	
Dear all,

october 26, 2001, it's nightmare for me. Tomorrow, I should be happy because 
I have finished my study. Unfortunely, My grandma was died.

December 24, 2001: My family and I called my 'grandma'. According my 
culture, 'soul' my grandma was called. I confused and not believe but this 
is true. I saw that 'grandma' appeared in someone(she who called my 
grandma). This someone acted if as that was my grandma.

Grandma said that she was there so sad. She always cried. I so sad what she 
said. I know, my grandma have been born in niraya realm. I know I have to 
'pindapatta' to help my grandma.

Please, give me some messages which can help my grandma so she will be born 
in happier realm.

nice,

purnomo



	
10424

From: Anders Honore <anders.honore@g...> 
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2001 4:30am
Subject: ...

 	
This was written to me by a friend who has absolutely no affiliations with Buddhism whatsoever:

"Our illusory self seeks purity, perfection and so on - but this is all a concept, and so is the "I" that seeks this. This "purity" of 
self is simply the opposite of not pu?e, which just reflects ones conditioning.
You cant have one without the other, and so the individual who sets out to be "pure" denies that he or she is also "not 
pure." Otherwise how would the individual know pure from not pure.
In other words, whatever you do to try to be free of the illusion of self, (or try to strive for, achieve, or realise, or understand,) 
still remains of this conceptual, conditioned self."

Anders
	
10425

From: Anders Honore <anders.honore@g...> 
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2001 4:27am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
27-12-01 23:25:47, upasaka@a... skrev:

>Hi, Anders -
>
>In a message dated 12/27/01 6:29:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
>anders.honore@g... writes:
>> I think what Howard may be objecting to regarding citta is the 
>> non-practicality of talking about this and that citta. After all, 
>> consciousness/vinnana/citta is that which sees, which discerns. Can an eye 
>> see itself? If not, then why talk so much about 
>> it. I agree with Howard that there are more relevant objects to focus on, 
>> such as all that which the consciousness discerns, 
>> be it material objects, attachments, desires, anger etc etc. Or am I 
>> completely misreading you, Howard?
>============================
> You're basically on target, Anders. To me, what is most important to 
>see, and to see it directly and not theorize about or accept on faith, is the 
>conditionality, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, insubstantiality, and 
>impersonality of all experience, and, in the seeing, to let it go.

As I was reading above where you said "what is most important to 
see" I thought "hmm, the most important thing to me is not-clinging, and then you write just below "to let it go".

> It does me 
>little good, as far as I can determine, to study detailed lists of 
>unexperienced phenomena and to then debate with others or with myself as to 
>how "this" unobserved phenomenon relates to "that" unobserved phenomenon. 

Yes, that's what I am trying to stress as well. Study is a support for practise. The study that isn't related to practise 
becomes speculative and, imo, is no longer beneficial.
The danger isn't really in the speculative discussions themselves, but it is extremely difficult to not become entrenched in 
them. And once that happens, it's all downhill.

>What I need to see, directly, is the arising of suffering, and the grasping 
>which leads to it, directly, in my own life. Most of all, I think it is 
>important to not let studying and reasoning "take over"and replace the 
>practice taught by the Buddha. This is the trap I need to avoid. Other folks 
>may have other points of vulnerability. This is mine.

<deep bows>
	
10426

From: Anders Honore <anders.honore@g...> 
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2001 4:14am
Subject: Re: [dsg] luminous mind

 	
27-12-01 11:50:50, Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> skrev:

>Dear Anders,
>
>I know I really shouldn't be getting into new discussions just as I'm going
>away, but I just can't resist making a couple of quick comments here;-)
>
> --- Anders Honore <anders.honore@g...> wrote: > Personally, I don't
>believe the commentaries at face value, and I believe
>> that Bikkhu Bodhi has more or less skilfully 
>> pointed that they are sometimes even dead-wrong as they contradict some
>> suttas. 
>
>This is interesting. B.Bodhi is certainly a lot, lot, lot more familiar with
>the suttas and commentaries than I am, but I have yet to come across such a
>contradiction and would be happy to have any (contradictions) pointed out <no
>hurry> Sometimes it just depends on how one understands both (as with the
>'luminous' sutta discussion).

He made some comments in his notes (or was it his introduction?) to his translation of the Samyutta Nikaya. I can't 
remember where it is (and there's quite few pages to skim through) though, so it may be a while before I can be more 
specific about this.
Btw, did I mention that I now have his full translations of the Digha, Majhima and Samyutta Nikayas? A friendly soul sent 
them to me for free shortly after I I took a break from dsg.

>A lot of what is found in the 
>> commentaries (which are often abidhammically inspired) doesn't rely find
>> backing in the suttas themselves, which, along 
>> with the Vinaya Pitaka, is the only source I will personally acknowledge as
>> being actually authoritative.
>> That the commentators were all supposedly Arahants is something I find more
>> credible to be a later invention by the 
>> supporters of the commentaries, to lend authority to their claims.
>
>You may find it interesting to read back over the series of posts I've been
>doing on a weekly basis from 'Intro to Vinaya'. These are the areas I'm
>considering in them.

I'll go and have a look in the archives.

>> That it is not to say that they can't be extremely helpful in clarifying
>> certain points (I have certainly found them to be so), 
>> but I would personally recommend that they should be taken with a grain of
>> salt
>
>Sounds like you're in my category 2 group, i.e. you accept those which conform
>with your understanding of the Suttas in question;-) (Category 1 were the
>dinosaurs, that accept them all and category 3 were those who reject them all).

I should add that I don't neccesarily believe that all the suttas are the quoted words of the Buddha either. When you have 
thousands of them such as you have in the Pali Canon and you wait a few hundreds before recording them in writing, 
there's bound to be some minor errors or fabrications.

Perhaps I should clarify my own relationship with the commentaries. I evaluate them in the context of the suttas 
themselves. If I find that there isn't any valid basis for what the commentaries propose in the suttas themselves, then I 
don't buy it. It doesn't mean that I reject it as untrue or anything, because quite frankly I don't bother myself with having to 
label things as being "untrue" or "true". It just means that I don't find them relevant for me.
Now, eveluating in the context of the suttas is a highly subjective matter of course, and the suttas themselves I interpret in 
the light of two things: Faith and practise. Things that I don't have any direct experience of myself from my practise (such 
as the jhanas, supernatural powers etc.) I can only take on faith. Since faith is a rather uncertain thing, I am wary of 
maintaining any positions on these matters. They are pointers for practitioners on higher stages than me, and so are not 
things I need concern myself with at the moment.
When the suttas deal with things that I have direct experience of in my own practise, I tend to lend authority to my practise 
over my intellect, as it is the practise that it skilfully removing clinging, and not the intellect and I think the Buddha was 
quite aware of that.

>Good to have you around, Anders......I reckon you and Kom were just waiting for
>each other like Erik and Dan wait for each other here too;-))

Haha, probably.

>Best wishes in the New Year for good results in your studies and ever-growing
>panna.

Thank you. Enjoy your trip!

Anders
	
10427

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2001 3:02am
Subject: Re: [dsg] grandma

 	
Hi, Purnomo -

In a message dated 12/28/01 7:33:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
purnomo9@h... writes:


> Dear all,
> 
> october 26, 2001, it's nightmare for me. Tomorrow, I should be happy 
> because 
> I have finished my study. Unfortunely, My grandma was died.
> 
> December 24, 2001: My family and I called my 'grandma'. According my 
> culture, 'soul' my grandma was called. I confused and not believe but this 
> is true. I saw that 'grandma' appeared in someone(she who called my 
> grandma). This someone acted if as that was my grandma.
> 
> Grandma said that she was there so sad. She always cried. I so sad what she 
> 
> said. I know, my grandma have been born in niraya realm. I know I have to 
> 'pindapatta' to help my grandma.
> 
> Please, give me some messages which can help my grandma so she will be born 
> 
> in happier realm.
> 
> nice,
> 
> purnomo
> 
================================
I'm very sorry for your loss. Of course, I don't know in what realm 
your grandmother has taken rebirth, but I don't think you need presume it is 
a hell realm. We are in a relatively wonderful realm, and yet we are often 
very sad right here! Also, in some Buddhist traditions, it takes a bit of 
time before the final "destination" is determined. So we really don't know 
the facts. Ultimately, it is our kamma that is the primary determiner in this 
sort of matter. 
Meanwhile, I, and I'm certain, all the rest of us, have loving 
thoughts for you, your family, and for your grandmother, and we can hope that 
in some way that may be of help. And please, while being mindful of your 
feelings of loss, let them come and go without magnifying them, and do recall 
the truth of the quotation at the end of this post.

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) 




	
10428

From: Kom Tukovinit <tikmok@y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2001 8:07am
Subject: RE: [dsg] grandma

 	
Dear Purnomo,

My condolences for you grandmother's death. Her death can
remind us that we too must die, sooner or later. It's
important to develop wisdom and kusala whenever we could.

What's your grandmother's name? We will think of her
whenever a kusala deed is done.

kom


	
10429

From: yklimov <yklimov@l...> 
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2001 8:31am
Subject: Re: grandma

 	
Dear Purnomo,

I would like to say I am very sorry for your loss. I have never 
lost anyone yet, but I've lost a friend and I've seen my friends lost 
their daughter. Be supportive to your Mom or Dad, whoever Mother 
passed away. 
The freind of mine, when she was little, her grandma passed away, 
then when all her relatieves got together, father got a book and 
asked everyone to tell something good about grandma, then he wrote it 
into this book. She cherished this book all her life, and now gave it 
to her teenager son, I feel it's a great way to be close to you 
ancestors. Today we have camcorders, you can just kind of tape 
everyone saying something good about her. In my country it's a custom 
when someone dies, tell whatever good he's done, so he won't forget, 
leaving us.

Love,
Yulia

PS Congratulation on finishing your study!
	
10430

From: <srnsk@a...> 
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2001 4:19am
Subject: Re: [dsg] grandma

 	
Dear Purnomo,

Hope you and your family have strength to carry on during this hard time.

I do not know where your grandma has gone. As it said, good seed will bring 
good fruit; I wish her good seeds took her into a good place.

As couple people here have already said, if you can, try to turn this 
opportunity into learning experience. Our loss is our gain. Dhamma (both good 
and bad, pleasant and painful, tranquil and agitated) here and now, is our 
best teacher.

This is my magic, OK: Grief when shared is half. Happiness when shared is 
double.

May the force always be with you.

Num
	
10431

From: Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2001 10:09am
Subject: Gayan's text

 	
Dear Gayan, thanks very much for the Pali text, I am very happy with it. I
have not finished studying it and will come back to you, best wishes, Nina.
	
10432

From: Anders Honore <anders.honore@g...> 
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2001 1:16pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] grandma

 	
Perhpas this sutta will help you in this situation:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn136.html

28-12-01 13:31:36, "Purnomo ." <purnomo9@h...> skrev:

>Dear all,
>
>october 26, 2001, it's nightmare for me. Tomorrow, I should be happy because 
>I have finished my study. Unfortunely, My grandma was died.
>
>December 24, 2001: My family and I called my 'grandma'. According my 
>culture, 'soul' my grandma was called. I confused and not believe but this 
>is true. I saw that 'grandma' appeared in someone(she who called my 
>grandma). This someone acted if as that was my grandma.
>
>Grandma said that she was there so sad. She always cried. I so sad what she 
>said. I know, my grandma have been born in niraya realm. I know I have to 
>'pindapatta' to help my grandma.
>
>Please, give me some messages which can help my grandma so she will be born 
>in happier realm.
>
>nice,
>
>purnomo

	
10433

From: m. nease <mlnease@y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2001 3:22pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
Hi Howard,

--- upasaka@a... wrote:

> To me,
> what is most important to 
> see, and to see it directly and not theorize about
> or accept on faith, is the 
> conditionality, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness,
> insubstantiality, and 
> impersonality of all experience, and, in the seeing,
> to let it go. It does me 
> little good, as far as I can determine, to study
> detailed lists of 
> unexperienced phenomena and to then debate with
> others or with myself as to 
> how "this" unobserved phenomenon relates to "that"
> unobserved phenomenon.

I don't like studying detailed lists either, or
debating--or see the merit in either one (a different
matter of course). Here's and example of what I do
like and do see the merit in from the Dhammavinaya:

"'The six classes of consciousness should be known.'
Thus it was said. In reference to what was it said?
Dependent on the eye & forms there arises
consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear &
sounds there arises consciousness at the ear.
Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises
consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue &
flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue.
Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there
arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the
intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the
intellect. 'The six classes of consciousness should be
known.' Thus it was said. And in reference to this was
it said. This is the third sextet. ...
"If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that
wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the
eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away
are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises &
falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if
anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye
is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Forms are the
self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is
not-self and forms are not-self. If anyone were to
say, 'Consciousness at the eye is the self,' that
wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms
are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self. If
anyone were to say, 'Contact at the eye is the self,'
that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self,
forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is
not-self, contact at the eye is not-self. If anyone
were to say, 'Feeling is the self,' that wouldn't be
tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are
not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self,
contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self.
If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that
wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of
craving are discerned. And when its arising & falling
away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self
arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be
tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self.'
Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self,
consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the
eye is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is
not-self."

Majjhima Nikaya 148
Chachakka Sutta
The Six Sextets

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html

To me, these are not just lists, or subjects for
pointless debates. Although I've included only the
third of the Six Sixes, it's clear to me that these
particular 'lists' are essential to what the Buddha
taught. He never excluded or suggesting excluding the
sense bases from consideration because they can't
sense 'themselves', e.g.--this notion will not be
found in the Tipitaka.

Don't mean to preach at you, your post just reminded
me of this, one of my favorite suttas. Hope you don't
find it empty or meaningless and get some enjoyement,
at least, out of it.

mike


	
10434

From: m. nease <mlnease@y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2001 3:48pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] grandma

 	
Dear Purnomo,

It's always hard for me to know how to respond to a
friend's grief. This kind of terrible unhappiness is
so much about what the Buddha taught. Before he was
the Buddha, he didn't want his relatives to suffer and
die either--he wanted to find a way out of this, for
himself and for others.

What he found (in part) is that grief, sorrow,
suffering, lamentation and dispair are all conditioned
by birth--that only by putting and end to rebirth can
we put an end to this cycle of suffering.

I don't know what to say about helping your grandma
now, this is beyond anything I know. But I hope this
sadness you experience now will help you to understand
and someday be free from suffering.

Best Wishes,

mike


	
10435

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2001 1:02pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
Hi, Mike -

I'm *completely* in agreement with you on the following. I've never 
read any suttas from which I haven't gained. I have found NONE of them to be 
empty or meaningless. Just the opposite!! In fact, I just started re-reading 
a modern commentary on the Kalakarama Sutta, one of my very favorites. I have 
never experienced empty theorizing in the suttas, and while I consider study 
of the suttas as secondary to the direct practice of sila, samadhi, and 
vipassana bhavana, sutta study is very important to me and is something I 
continually engage in.

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 12/28/01 6:23:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
mlnease@y... writes:


> 
> Hi Howard,
> 
> --- upasaka@a... wrote:
> 
> > To me,
> > what is most important to 
> > see, and to see it directly and not theorize about
> > or accept on faith, is the 
> > conditionality, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness,
> > insubstantiality, and 
> > impersonality of all experience, and, in the seeing,
> > to let it go. It does me 
> > little good, as far as I can determine, to study
> > detailed lists of 
> > unexperienced phenomena and to then debate with
> > others or with myself as to 
> > how "this" unobserved phenomenon relates to "that"
> > unobserved phenomenon.
> 
> I don't like studying detailed lists either, or
> debating--or see the merit in either one (a different
> matter of course). Here's and example of what I do
> like and do see the merit in from the Dhammavinaya:
> 
> "'The six classes of consciousness should be known.'
> Thus it was said. In reference to what was it said?
> Dependent on the eye & forms there arises
> consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear &
> sounds there arises consciousness at the ear.
> Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises
> consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue &
> flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue.
> Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there
> arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the
> intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the
> intellect. 'The six classes of consciousness should be
> known.' Thus it was said. And in reference to this was
> it said. This is the third sextet. ...
> "If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that
> wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the
> eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away
> are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises &
> falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if
> anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye
> is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Forms are the
> self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is
> not-self and forms are not-self. If anyone were to
> say, 'Consciousness at the eye is the self,' that
> wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms
> are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self. If
> anyone were to say, 'Contact at the eye is the self,'
> that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self,
> forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is
> not-self, contact at the eye is not-self. If anyone
> were to say, 'Feeling is the self,' that wouldn't be
> tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are
> not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self,
> contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self.
> If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that
> wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of
> craving are discerned. And when its arising & falling
> away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self
> arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be
> tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self.'
> Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self,
> consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the
> eye is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is
> not-self."
> 
> Majjhima Nikaya 148
> Chachakka Sutta
> The Six Sextets
> 
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html
> 
> To me, these are not just lists, or subjects for
> pointless debates. Although I've included only the
> third of the Six Sixes, it's clear to me that these
> particular 'lists' are essential to what the Buddha
> taught. He never excluded or suggesting excluding the
> sense bases from consideration because they can't
> sense 'themselves', e.g.--this notion will not be
> found in the Tipitaka.
> 
> Don't mean to preach at you, your post just reminded
> me of this, one of my favorite suttas. Hope you don't
> find it empty or meaningless and get some enjoyement,
> at least, out of it.
> 
> 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) 




	
10436

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn@y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2001 6:51pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept

 	
Hi Purnomo,

I thought that is what I trying to point out. 

Sorry I am always lousy in sayings words to pple loss. My wife always
complaint (very loudly) to me that I am not a sentimental which I agree
with. Bc to me, what will happen will happen, if it comes, let it comes,
there is nothing we could do abt it so what is the point to be attached or
to be sad. To me this is life. Even if one day, my children would die
earlier than me, I told my wife, this is life. 

I could empathise your emotion loss as I have witnessed the passing of my
father and one of my close sister abt eleven years ago when I was 19 yrs
old. As my sister died of suicide, the impact was traumatic. That emotion
baggage was with me for seven years until the day I learnt Buddhism. Her
loss taught me the importance of being kind to everyone I meet as I regret
of not being kinder to her while she was alive. Even now when I write
this to you, saddness still lingers in my heart. I always wish I could
turn back the clock and help her. But this is life. I have to accept it
whether I like it or not and carry with my life.




My deepest condolences
Ken O



--- "Purnomo ." <purnomo9@h...> wrote: > Dear Ong,
> 
> Concept is important to we understand, but if we want to get deeper
> level of 
> satipathanna so we have to release all our concept. Do you agree ?
> 
> nice,
> purnomo
> 
> 

	
10437

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2001 2:06pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
Hi again , Mike -

One more point. In a message dated 12/28/01 6:23:03 PM Eastern 
Standard Time, mlnease@y... writes:


> He never excluded or suggesting excluding the sense bases from consideration 
> because they can't
> sense 'themselves', e.g.--this notion will not be
> found in the Tipitaka.
> 
=============================
For sure he didn't! And what Buddhist would dismiss sense bases from 
consideration? I, myself, said, if you will recall, that I'm *aware* of being 
conscious, of seeing, tasting, hearing, and so on and so forth. All objects 
are objects of the six senses, and it is there that we must "look" to see 
emptiness, impermanence, insubstantiality, and impersonality.
Theoretical constructs such as cittas, and, particularly such things 
as bhavanga cittas with unobservable objects are another matter. What sort of 
discernment has no discernable object? Even the discernment of an absence 
discerns that absence! But, whether or not there are such things as bhavanga 
cittas with unobservable objects has no bearing whatsoever on the goal of the 
Dhamma, namely the cessation of suffering. The Dhamma, as I see it, is 
neither about belief (though some tentative belief can be useful) nor about 
deduction and theorizing (though some of that may be useful), but is all 
about moral action, guarding the senses, and cultivating the mind.

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) 




	
10438

From: Kom Tukovinit <tikmok@y...> 
Date: Fri Dec 28, 2001 11:48pm
Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
Dear Howard,

I believe the most important thing about learning about the
bhavanga is that it too can be discerned as an object of
Satipatthana. Without the discernment with panna, it is
likely that someone with the accumulation of taking the
kandha as self will take bhavanga as also self when bhavanga
appears to them.

As for having "theoretical constructs", I think all the
teachings about dhamma is theoretical, until what is taught
appears to panna. Nibbana is as theoretical to me as the
object that bhawanga citta discerns.

kom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...]
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 7:07 PM
> To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary
> (Part Two) To Robert
> Epstein
>
> Theoretical constructs such as cittas,
> and, particularly such things
> as bhavanga cittas with unobservable objects are
> another matter. What sort of
> discernment has no discernable object? Even the
> discernment of an absence
> discerns that absence! But, whether or not there
> are such things as bhavanga
> cittas with unobservable objects has no bearing
> whatsoever on the goal of the
> Dhamma, namely the cessation of suffering. The
> Dhamma, as I see it, is
> neither about belief (though some tentative
> belief can be useful) nor about
> deduction and theorizing (though some of that may
> be useful), but is all
> about moral action, guarding the senses, and
> cultivating the mind.
>
> With metta,
> Howard
	
10439

From: Anders Honore <anders.honore@g...> 
Date: Sat Dec 29, 2001 1:27am
Subject: Re: RE: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
29-12-01 08:48:23, Kom Tukovinit <tikmok@y...> skrev:

>Dear Howard,
>
>I believe the most important thing about learning about the
>bhavanga is that it too can be discerned as an object of
>Satipatthana. Without the discernment with panna, it is
>likely that someone with the accumulation of taking the
>kandha as self will take bhavanga as also self when bhavanga
>appears to them.
>
>As for having "theoretical constructs", I think all the
>teachings about dhamma is theoretical, until what is taught
>appears to panna. Nibbana is as theoretical to me as the
>object that bhawanga citta discerns.

Kom, the very point that is being made is that precisely because they are theoretical, there is no point in dwelling on it, since 
Buddhism (at least as I perceive it) is a practise and not a philosophical discipline.
	
10440

From: Anders Honore <anders.honore@g...> 
Date: Sat Dec 29, 2001 1:24am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
29-12-01 03:02:54, upasaka@a... skrev:

>Hi, Mike -
>
> I'm *completely* in agreement with you on the following. I've never 
>read any suttas from which I haven't gained. I have found NONE of them to be 
>empty or meaningless. Just the opposite!! In fact, I just started re-reading 
>a modern commentary on the Kalakarama Sutta, one of my very favorites. I have 
>never experienced empty theorizing in the suttas, and while I consider study 
>of the suttas as secondary to the direct practice of sila, samadhi, and 
>vipassana bhavana, sutta study is very important to me and is something I 
>continually engage in.

I quite agree. To me, they are secondary to the actual practise as well, but can serve as useful pointers and guidelines to the 
practise.
	
10441

From: Kom Tukovinit <tikmok@y...> 
Date: Sat Dec 29, 2001 6:21am
Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
Dear Howards,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...]

> of my very favorites. I have
> never experienced empty theorizing in the suttas,
> and while I consider study
> of the suttas as secondary to the direct practice
> of sila, samadhi, and
> vipassana bhavana, sutta study is very important
> to me and is something I
> continually engage in.
>

I am glad you found this to be true. After reading your
previous post on this thread, I was compelled to post some
details of the Kandaraka sutta that someone mentioned
recently, to counter the point that direct practice can be
done without listening to the dhamma (or listening to more
even after the person has begun the direct practice) or
consideration of what was heard.

Given that you have no such perception anyway, I still post
this, to extoll the virtues of the commentators who expand
on the meaning of the points otherwise cannot be known.

The full sutta is at:
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/
Majjhima2/051-kandaka-e1.htm

The point that I wanted to raise was in the passage:

Soon after the elephant rider’s son had left. The Blessed
One addressed the bhikkhus: Bhikkhus, if the elephant rider’
s son had waited some more time until I explained these four
persons, he would have amassed, much knowledge. O! Blessed
One, this is the time to explain these four persons. The
bhikkhus, hearing it from the Blessed One would bear it in
mind. Bhikkhus, listen carefully, I will tell..

However, I found the passage from B. Bodhi's more complete,
as it matches more to the Thai tipitaka:

Soon after he had left, the Blessed One addressed the
bhikkhus thus: "Bihkkhus, Pessa, the elephant driver's son,
is wise, he has great wisdom. If he had sat a while longer
until I had expounded for him in detail these four kinds of
persons, he would have greatly benefited. Still he has
already greatly benefited even as it is".

The commentators explained that Pessa is wise because he
develops Satipatthana. Also, from B. Bodhi's note
explaining the two benefits mentioned:

MA: (Commentators): Pessa would have attained the fruit of
stream-entry, but he rose from his seat and left before the
Buddha had completed his discourse. The benefits he did
receive are two: he gained greater confidence in the Sangha,
and he gave rise to a new method for comprehending the
foundations of mindfulness.

It appears to me in this specific case that by not having
the opportunity to listen to the Buddha's explanation, even
when Pessa is already developing Satipathana, he missed the
chance of an attainment.

kom
	
10442

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Dec 29, 2001 2:48am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
Hi, Kom -

In a message dated 12/29/01 2:49:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
tikmok@y... writes:


> Dear Howard,
> 
> I believe the most important thing about learning about the
> bhavanga is that it too can be discerned as an object of
> Satipatthana. Without the discernment with panna, it is
> likely that someone with the accumulation of taking the
> kandha as self will take bhavanga as also self when bhavanga
> appears to them.
> 
> As for having "theoretical constructs", I think all the
> teachings about dhamma is theoretical, until what is taught
> appears to panna. Nibbana is as theoretical to me as the
> object that bhawanga citta discerns.
> 
> kom
> 
===========================
So, are you saying that you have discerned bhavanga cittas? (I don't 
recall the Buddha discussing observing bhavanga cittas in the Satipatthana 
Sutta.) How did they seem? Was there, indeed, no evident object? Was there 
anything about them you noticed that made you inclined to think they were a 
"self" more than, for example, an experience of craving?
While I have been aware of craving, I've never been aware of bhavanga 
cittas. For me personally, they are only hypothesized referents of concepts 
concocted to solve some discontinuity problems in a theory. Direct 
observation of them would certainly change my perspective on their existence, 
though not on their importance.

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) 




	
10443

From: Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Sat Dec 29, 2001 10:04am
Subject: Re: [dsg] chatting about India

 	
op 27-12-2001 17:02 schreef Kom Tukovinit op tikmok@y...:


> You have got I think almost all of the big impressions I
> have from the trip. :-) The other (big) one that still
> stays in my mind (as I am still trying to make sense out of
> it) is what most of the teachings in the tipitaka ultimately
> describe.
> 
> K. Jaran and A. Supi was discussing about Kilesa, and why
> only 10 akusala cetasikas are kilesas, and the other 4 are
> not. The answer, I think you also wrote in Cetasikas, is
> each Kilesa defiles the mind, where as the other four defile
> the mental factors. At that point, I was asking him
> questions about the other groupings of defilements including
> Asava, etc.

Dear Kom, thank you for bringing up these points. As to the 10 kilesas, I
leant that they defile the dhammas that are conascent with them. Thus, in
the case of sloth that is listed but not torpor: when there is sloth, torpor
is always conascent with it, it is defiled by it. Regret (not listed as
kilesa) is defiled by dosa conascent with it and also by the other kilesas
which (not all of them) are conascent with it.
> 
> Kom: A. Supi said at this point that to understand some of the
> teachings, one has to keep in mind that the teaching
> ultimately describes realities. The descriptions point to
> the characteristics of realities: they are there so that we
> can understand the realities as such. He then used the
> example of the 8-fold path, and we discussed why it is that
> in the sutta, the 8-fold path sounds conventional and very
> much like concepts, but why it is that it really describes
> realities.
> 
> For example, regarding Samma ditthi, we hear that right
> views include:
> a) Kamma is real.
> b) The benefaction of father and mother is real
> c) There exists ones who know, as it truly is, the existence
> of life before this, this life, and next life.
> 
> This may sound very much to some of us like concepts: this
> is due to fact that there is no penetration of dhammas as
> they truly are. However, if panna, cognizing the realities,
> starts to develop, we would understand more, and in more
> intricate details, about what the statements really mean.
> For example, if one understands the difference between
> paramatha dhammas and concepts, then one starts to
> understand why Kamma and Kusala dhammas (benefaction of
> father and mother) are real, but father and mother are not
> real. Then, if one penetrates how kusala and akusala are
> different from one another, then one understands even more
> about a) and b). The more one penetrates the dhamma, the
> deeper and detailed one's understading of Samma-ditthi is,
> as the characteristics of realities as they truly are.
N: Think of kammassakata ~naa.na, which arises with each vipassana ~naa.na,
as A. Sujin explained. When you understand seeing as only an element, not
self, you will also have a deeper understanding of vipaka caused by kamma.
Not in conventional terms, but by real, deep understanding.
> 
K: In using this explanation, A. Supi didn't explicitly link
> the explanation to my question of why there are only 3
> dhammas in the asava, but I think the above explanation
> implies an answer to my question. We read that Asava:
> 1) flows from the lowest realm of existence to the highest
> ones
> 2) is fermented. (The thai explanation also says it is
> accumulated and fermented)
> 3) is like poisonous drug or intoxicants.
> 
> Nina, do you by any chance have any other explanations of
> why other akusala dhammas are not asava? For example, since
> Uddhacca, Ahiri, and Anottappa must co-arise with all the 4
> asavas, but they are not are asavas. Why? Are there any
> other reasons besides the one implied above?

N: The classification by way of asavas shows the danger of these four that
arise time and again, under a particular aspect. It shows that they are as
dangerous as poison or drogen that can cause great harm, but we do not
notice it, also at this moment. After a moment of seeing or hearing cankers
arise but we do not know it, we are so intoxicated, the poison is working.
Ignorance is so persistent even now, and only the arahat has eradicated this
asava. 

N's original post:>
>> I find this very good, reminding us about
>> conditions. What else can we do
>> now but listening, studying, considering,
>> verifying in daily life now what
>> we learnt. I also found it helpful that A. Sujin
>> said: understanding leads
>> to detachment from the beginning to the end,
>> stressing detachment so often.
> 
>> I was reminded that even reading the scriptures
>> and wishing to gain
>> understanding is often done with an idea of self.
> 
> K: Now the question I asked you above is asked in such a
> context! Thanks for the immediate reminder.
> 
N: Thank you too for the reminders by way of questions and remarks.

	
10444

From: Kom Tukovinit <tikmok@y...> 
Date: Sat Dec 29, 2001 0:34pm
Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
Dear Howards,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...]

> So, are you saying that you have discerned
> bhavanga cittas? (I don't
> recall the Buddha discussing observing bhavanga
> cittas in the Satipatthana
> Sutta.)

All discernments which are functions of cittas are covered
under citta-nupassana satipatthana. Bawhanga is a
discernable object of satipatthana, but not as commonly
discerned as other cittas that rise in the waking hours.
You ask why it is that the Buddha didn't mention bawhanga
explicitly in the Satipatthana sutta. I obviously can't
answer the question. However, do you know that Anapana-sati
sutta is considered to describe Satipatthana completely,
even without all the details about objects of discernment
that are described in the Satipatthana sutta? Do you know
that the single short sentence that V. Asashi described to,
and brought, V. Sariputta to become a sotapanna is
considered to completely describe the 4 noble truths, even
without all the explicit details? It is not just the
wordings of the suttas that matter, it is also the wisdom of
those who expound on, and listen to, the teachings.

>How did they seem? Was there, indeed, no
> evident object?

You fall asleep, right? What's the difference between the
consciousness that is awake and conciousness that is in deep
sleep? Deep sleep means not dreaming (as dreaming is
virtually identical to thinking while awake). You already
know some details of bawhanga: there is no apparent object
of discernments (even though there is). This is in contrast
to the waking conciousness: there is (often more than not,
is it always?) an evident object of conciousness. The
bawhanga would appear just like all its (true) descriptions,
as consciousness that differs from other conciousness
pre-eminently for its object of discernment. It is
described this way: it is like being in a world with no
seeing, no sound, no smell, no taste, no tactile inputs, no
thinking (completely dark, completely free of noise, etc.),
and suddenly other things appear.

>Was there
> anything about them you noticed that made you
> inclined to think they were a
> "self" more than, for example, an experience of craving?
> While I have been aware of craving, I've
> never been aware of bhavanga
> cittas.

Obviously not, we will take things that appear commonly to
be self more often (and more avijja is accumulated) than
ones that don't appear as often. However, dhamma is truly
subtle. Do you know of the different shades of subtleties
of the "self-craving" that you have to all the 6 sense
bases? If panna becomes keen, then more subtleties are
known. The thing is, without the understanding about the
different subtleties, and the different possible objects of
discernments, then panna cannot develop to see the
subtleties (and other possible objects of discernments) as
just dhammas and not-self.

Do you remember Gayan's translation of the "cheating"
dhammas? Before you listen to that, how many do you know
personally? How many do you know now? Without listening to
and considering those pointers, do you think you can figure
all those out by yourself? (These questions are obviously
rhetorical, and require no answer).

> For me personally, they are only
> hypothesized referents of concepts

As I mentioned (I think Num said the same thing), everything
we learn in the tipitaka (also, for some: commentaries,
their teacher's words, their own logics and intuition, their
own pre-disposition toward certain concepts), everything
remains theoretical until proven by panna.

> concocted to solve some discontinuity problems in
> a theory.

How about dependent origination? Is it a theory and lots of
thinking, or do they represent objects of discernments?
Again, I think we would only know until panna discerns it to
be identical, or not.

> Direct
> observation of them would certainly change my
> perspective on their existence,
> though not on their importance.

I am glad that this is true as I believe Buddhism is a
religion of wisdom, of direct observation, and of realities.
Each develops wisdom (hopefully, and not micha-dithi)
his/her own way.

This is somewhat longer than I expected. I don't mean to
preach or to convince, but I am pointing out that the
problem of understanding bawhanga is not its being
conceptual, but that it is the listener's confidence of the
source of the concept. For some, the concept of bawhanga,
even if it remains unexperienced, is as valid as Nibbana.
For others, it represents other teachings not of the
buddha's.

kom
	



10445

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Dec 29, 2001 9:25am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
Hi, Kom -

In a message dated 12/29/01 3:35:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
tikmok@y... writes:


> Dear Howards,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...]
> 
> > So, are you saying that you have discerned
> > bhavanga cittas? (I don't
> > recall the Buddha discussing observing bhavanga
> > cittas in the Satipatthana
> > Sutta.)
> 
> All discernments which are functions of cittas are covered
> under citta-nupassana satipatthana. Bawhanga is a
> discernable object of satipatthana, but not as commonly
> discerned as other cittas that rise in the waking hours.
> You ask why it is that the Buddha didn't mention bawhanga
> explicitly in the Satipatthana sutta. I obviously can't
> answer the question. However, do you know that Anapana-sati
> sutta is considered to describe Satipatthana completely,
> even without all the details about objects of discernment
> that are described in the Satipatthana sutta?
> 
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Yes, I'm familiar with both these suttas. They are certainly among the 
most important.
----------------------------------------------------------
Do you know > that the single short sentence that V. Asashi described to,
> and brought, V. Sariputta to become a sotapanna is
> considered to completely describe the 4 noble truths, even
> without all the explicit details?
> 
--------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I'm not familiar with what you're discussing here.
------------------------------------------------------
It is not just the> 
> wordings of the suttas that matter, it is also the wisdom of
> those who expound on, and listen to, the teachings.
> 
> >How did they seem? Was there, indeed, no
> > evident object?
> 
> You fall asleep, right? What's the difference between the
> consciousness that is awake and conciousness that is in deep
> sleep? Deep sleep means not dreaming (as dreaming is
> virtually identical to thinking while awake).
> 
--------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Yes, I'm familiar with falling asleep. In fact, I get to experience it 
all too often while meditating! ;-)) However, I've not been aware of deep 
sleep. Have you? I'm aware that it is said that the mind moves from bhavanga 
citta to bhavanga citta during deep, dreamless sleep. But, as I said, I've 
not experienced it.
------------------------------------------------------
You already > 
> know some details of bawhanga: there is no apparent object
> of discernments (even though there is). This is in contrast
> to the waking conciousness: there is (often more than not,
> is it always?) an evident object of conciousness.
> 
----------------------------------------------------
Howard:
So I have heard it said. But I have had no basis in directly knowing 
this.
--------------------------------------------------
The> 
> bawhanga would appear just like all its (true) descriptions,
> as consciousness that differs from other conciousness
> pre-eminently for its object of discernment. It is
> described this way: it is like being in a world with no
> seeing, no sound, no smell, no taste, no tactile inputs, no
> thinking (completely dark, completely free of noise, etc.),
> and suddenly other things appear.
> 
> >Was there
> > anything about them you noticed that made you
> > inclined to think they were a
> > "self" more than, for example, an experience of craving?
> > While I have been aware of craving, I've
> > never been aware of bhavanga
> > cittas.
> 
> Obviously not, we will take things that appear commonly to
> be self more often (and more avijja is accumulated) than
> ones that don't appear as often. However, dhamma is truly
> subtle. Do you know of the different shades of subtleties
> of the "self-craving" that you have to all the 6 sense
> bases? If panna becomes keen, then more subtleties are
> known. The thing is, without the understanding about the
> different subtleties, and the different possible objects of
> discernments, then panna cannot develop to see the
> subtleties (and other possible objects of discernments) as
> just dhammas and not-self.
> 
---------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I appreciate your telling me this, Kom, but I do not believe I need to 
know about alleged bhavanga cittas to help me along the path, even should 
they be realities and not just theoretical constructs. It *is* useful for me 
to be aware of the impermanence, conditionality, unsatisfactoriness, and 
impersonality of *all* that I experience, and to let all these things come 
and go without craving, aversion, and grasping.
---------------------------------------------------------

> 
> Do you remember Gayan's translation of the "cheating"
> dhammas? Before you listen to that, how many do you know
> personally? How many do you know now? Without listening to
> and considering those pointers, do you think you can figure
> all those out by yourself? (These questions are obviously
> rhetorical, and require no answer).
> 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
There's no need for me to have a large repertoire of observed objects, 
nor for me to know their particular characteristics. The only characteristics 
I need to observe are the universal ones which comprise the tilakkhana.
------------------------------------------------------------

> 
> > For me personally, they are only
> > hypothesized referents of concepts
> 
> As I mentioned (I think Num said the same thing), everything
> we learn in the tipitaka (also, for some: commentaries,
> their teacher's words, their own logics and intuition, their
> own pre-disposition toward certain concepts), everything
> remains theoretical until proven by panna.
> 
> > concocted to solve some discontinuity problems in
> > a theory.
> 
> How about dependent origination? Is it a theory and lots of
> thinking, or do they represent objects of discernments?
> 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Dependent origination is directly discernable, with varying degrees of 
depth and understanding. In any case, I rarely if *ever* question things 
directly put forward by the Buddha, especially in the suttas. To the best of 
my knowledge, bhavanga cittas first appeared in commentaries, rather than the 
tipitaka. My order of reliability is (1) suttas, (2) abhidhamma, and (3) 
commentaries. (BTW, there is very good evidence that the Abhidhamma did not 
originate with the Buddha, but was a later codification of Buddhist ideas.) 
------------------------------------------------------------------

> Again, I think we would only know until panna discerns it to
> be identical, or not.
> 
> > Direct
> > observation of them would certainly change my
> > perspective on their existence,
> > though not on their importance.
> 
> I am glad that this is true as I believe Buddhism is a
> religion of wisdom, of direct observation, and of realities.
> Each develops wisdom (hopefully, and not micha-dithi)
> his/her own way.
> 
> This is somewhat longer than I expected. I don't mean to
> preach or to convince, but I am pointing out that the
> problem of understanding bawhanga is not its being
> conceptual, but that it is the listener's confidence of the
> source of the concept. For some, the concept of bawhanga,
> even if it remains unexperienced, is as valid as Nibbana.
> 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I find the comparison of these two to be "way out". Nibbana is at the 
very core of the Buddha's teaching! To say the least, bhavanga cittas are 
not.
------------------------------------------------------------

> For others, it represents other teachings not of the
> buddha's.
> 
> kom
> 
==============================
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) 




	
10446

From: m. nease <mlnease@y...> 
Date: Sat Dec 29, 2001 3:18pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parinibbana Subcommentary (Part Two) To Robert Epstein

 	
Hi Howard,

--- upasaka@a... wrote:

> I'm *completely* in agreement with you on the
> following. 

I'm glad and relieved we're in agreement on this--this
is mostly attachment of course...

> I've never 
> read any suttas from which I haven't gained. I have
> found NONE of them to be 
> empty or meaningless. Just the opposite!! In fact, I
> just started re-reading 
> a modern commentary on the Kalakarama Sutta, one of
>