10800 From: Lucy Date: Tue Jan 15, 2002 2:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonothan Abbott" > I think you may have already found the answer to these questions in the > passage from 'Cetasikas'. But please feel free to follow up if anything > is not clear. > Yes, I went on reading, pondering and investigating. It is clearer. > > As I understand it, most 'situations' from our lives are in fact > combinations of different kinds of cittas, some kusala but most akusala, > and vary according to the individual. > And also vary at different times for the individual ! Are most really akusala - or simply neutral? I presume the Tipitaka Abhidhamma also admits a 'neutral' category? > If awareness has been developed, the kusala and akusala that arises can be > experienced and known for what it is without being identified, classified > or labelled. And this will bring more understanding about the true nature > of the realities that make up our life. Agree there. But I'm finding out with this exercise that the labelling and classification helps to be more aware. Although they are simple labels for rather complex processes, seems to make the task simpler. Sometimes feels like a train spotter standing at a station keeping note of the cetasikas that come and go !!! > > BTW, watching TV does not preclude wholesome moments of consciousness from > arising. There could for example be useful reflection on the dhamma, or > any of a number of other forms of kusala at moments one was watching TV. You're right there too. But there are times when I feel a certain pang of guilt when watching TV (too much of it in the UK over the Christmas week)...and I don't always switch it off when the "inner voice" says it's time to go and study or meditate. I still think that the disinclination to switch it off at those moments is an instance of thina, at least in part. > Hope this helps your studies for the week! > Yes, thanks Actually, I'll stay on with thina a few more days. Lucy 10801 From: m. nease Date: Tue Jan 15, 2002 3:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical? Hi Lucy, Hope you'll excuse my butting in. --- Lucy wrote: > ! Are most really > akusala - or simply neutral? I presume the Tipitaka > Abhidhamma also > admits a 'neutral' category? As I see it, all kamma is either kusala or akusala, nearly all the latter. The moments of intention/mental-verbal-physical action that seem neutral are nearly always motivated by wanting or liking, disliking--even the desire to disregard or ignore, I think (even looking at a blank wall is conditioned by a mild desire to do so, or to look away from something else). Though very mild, these moments do, I think, fall into the categories of desire, aversion or ignorance. > > If awareness has been developed, the kusala and > akusala that arises > can be > > experienced and known for what it is without being > identified, > classified > > or labelled. And this will bring more > understanding about the true > nature > > of the realities that make up our life. > > Agree there. But I'm finding out with this exercise > that the labelling > and classification helps to be more aware. I agree too. There's some great and concise material on 'naming' in 'Concepts and Realities' at zolag.uk. This is a short piece (about sixty very short pages) and both very informative and very accessible. I hope you'll have a look. > Although > they are simple > labels for rather complex processes, seems to make > the task simpler. > Sometimes feels like a train spotter standing at a > station keeping > note of the cetasikas that come and go !!! I know what mean, but for me, the train is always long gone (unfortunately...) > > BTW, watching TV does not preclude wholesome > moments of > consciousness from > > arising. There could for example be useful > reflection on the > dhamma, or > > any of a number of other forms of kusala at > moments one was watching > TV. > > You're right there too. But there are times when I > feel a certain pang > of guilt when watching TV (too much of it in the UK > over the Christmas > week)...and I don't always switch it off when the > "inner voice" says > it's time to go and study or meditate. Looking (retrospectively) at these moments of guilt etc., I think they can sometimes be clearly distinguished as various kinds of akusala masquerading as kusala--aversion to an image I'd like to have of 'myself', e.g. > I still think > that the > disinclination to switch it off at those moments is > an instance of > thina, at least in part. The proximate cause of sloth and torpoer is unwise attention (per the Atthasaalinii etc.)--so I don't doubt you may have something there. > Yes, thanks Actually, I'll stay on with thina a few > more days. Sounds like a plan to me... Thanks for letting me kibitz. mike 10802 From: Lucy Date: Tue Jan 15, 2002 4:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical? ----- Original Message ----- From: "m. nease" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical? > Hi Lucy, > > Hope you'll excuse my butting in. Not at all ! Thank you. > > As I see it, all kamma is either kusala or akusala, > nearly all the latter. The moments of > intention/mental-verbal-physical action that seem > neutral are nearly always motivated by wanting or > liking, disliking--even the desire to disregard or > ignore, I think (even looking at a blank wall is > conditioned by a mild desire to do so, or to look away > from something else). Though very mild, these moments > do, I think, fall into the categories of desire, > aversion or ignorance. > That's really interesting. Looks like my 'neutral' may actually be quite subtle akusala. Worth looking at more closely. > > Looking (retrospectively) at these moments of guilt > etc., I think they can sometimes be clearly > distinguished as various kinds of akusala masquerading > as kusala--aversion to an image I'd like to have of > 'myself', e.g. > Too true. There's also 'attachment to what I'd like to be' hidden there somewhere. I suspected that the feeling of guilt is akusala. Though somehow it seems to serve as a reminder. Presumably because there are some kusala cetasikas arising together with it. > > The proximate cause of sloth and torpoer is unwise > attention (per the Atthasaalinii etc.)--so I don't > doubt you may have something there. > That is a very helpful pointer. Gave me that 'oh yes, that's it!' feeling. Thank you again for your help Lucy 10803 From: tikmok Date: Tue Jan 15, 2002 4:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Elementary questions Dear Kenneth, As I mentioned to you privately, there are some discussions about anumoddhana in the Abhidhamma tipitaka, Kathavatthu, Ithotinnagatha. I have done a quick search on the word through the on-line Thai tipitaka, but there is no returned items. The search doesn't include commentaries. The following page explains some: http://www.dhammastudy.com/merits1.html I hope what K. Jaran and Num's explanations answer your other questions. kom --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Kom > > Honestly I do not how it works. Maybe one of the four question not answer > by Buddha. > 10804 From: tikmok Date: Tue Jan 15, 2002 4:32pm Subject: Re: vedana/nama Dear Larry and Mike, Only adding to Mike's dicussion: All vedanas (feelings: pleasant bodily feeling, unpleasant bodily feeling, indifferent feeling, pleasant mental feeling, and unpleasant mental feeling) are all nama. Feelings arise with all conciousness, although the pleasant/unpleasant bodily feelings can arise with only Kaya-vinnana (bodily conciousness) through the body doorway. In the case of being hungry, the rupa that is being cognized may be the characteristics of hardness, heat, and the wind. The conciousness arises with unpleasant feeling. The hardness, heat, and the wind are rupas: they do not cognize/know anything. The consciousness with its vedana and other mental factors are nama: they cognize the hardness, the heat, and the wind. In some cases, the rupas may not be fully known (to us, but not to the cittas!), especially when the feeling is overwhelming. When we have a stomach ache (unpleasant bodily feeling), we know there must be a rupa: either hardness, heat, or the wind. But what is the rupa? Sometimes, we do not know because our attention is focussed mostly on the unpleasant feeling. There was a news story about a pregnant woman who had a fence post penetrate (through???) her body. When this happend, she didn't even feel the fence post. Conciousness that are accompanied by pleasant?unpleasant bodily feelings are effects of good/bad kammas in the past. kom --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Larry, > > > > > Can someone explain why vedana is classified as nama > > rather than rupa? > > Presumably sense of touch is rupa. Is a stomach > > ache, considered > > objectively, nama or rupa? What's the difference > > between a stomach ache > > and a value. They both feel. > > 10805 From: tikmok Date: Tue Jan 15, 2002 4:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Elementary questions Num Added: It's also in Peta-vatthu and Vimana-vatthu, pratipitaka book # 26 / 45. Patidhana act was mentioned in there by a bhikkhu to his relatives and parents in a peta plane. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "tikmok" wrote: > Dear Kenneth, > > As I mentioned to you privately, there are some discussions about > anumoddhana in the Abhidhamma tipitaka, Kathavatthu, Ithotinnagatha. > > I have done a quick search on the word through the on-line Thai > tipitaka, but there is no returned items. The search doesn't include > commentaries. > > The following page explains some: > http://www.dhammastudy.com/merits1.html > > I hope what K. Jaran and Num's explanations answer your other > questions. > > kom > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Hi Kom > > > > Honestly I do not how it works. Maybe one of the four question not > answer > > by Buddha. > > 10806 From: Date: Tue Jan 15, 2002 5:21pm Subject: Re: vedana/nama Mike Hi Mike, you wrote: >LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Sorry, one more thought on this. If it is > consciousness that makes > something nama, Not consciousness (citta or vi~n~naana) per se, but the ability to experience something... --------------- I'm not understanding this very well. Can you say what you mean by "the ability to experience"? What is experience? Is there a capacity or potential stored somewhere as "ability to experience"? Maybe I'm looking for a linear answer where there isn't one because everything is heaped together. Nevertheless, that's what I would like ;) Larry 10807 From: Date: Tue Jan 15, 2002 6:03pm Subject: Re: vedana/nama Kom Hi Kom, Is touch the only criterion for rupa? Are the letters on this screen rupa? Is rupa inferred or experienced directly? How do you distinguish between rupa and perception (saññå) of rupa? Is there sense consciousness without saññå? Is sense consciousness rupa consciousness? Is there a difference between perception (saññå) and consciousness OF perception? Is the nåma rupa distinction a subject object distinction. Is subject attå, self? Sorry for the thousand questions. I'll be interested to see how this comes out. I just figured out how to make accents. best wishes, Larry 10808 From: Date: Tue Jan 15, 2002 8:49pm Subject: Mike/Kom Hi Mike & Kom I think I see my mistake. The body's sensitivities aren't body. They are mind. The body is just body parts. Philosophical questions about mind and body go beyond this simple distinction. Is that it? Larry 10809 From: m. nease Date: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Mike Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Mike, you wrote: > > >LBIDD@w... wrote: > > > > Sorry, one more thought on this. If it is > > consciousness that makes > > something nama, > > Not consciousness (citta or vi~n~naana) per se, but > the ability to experience something... > --------------- > > I'm not understanding this very well. Can you say > what you mean by "the > ability to experience"? What is experience? Is there > a capacity or > potential stored somewhere as "ability to > experience"? Maybe I'm looking > for a linear answer where there isn't one because > everything is heaped > together. Nevertheless, that's what I would like ;) Fair questions, but I'm not quite sure how to answer. Even though this is all pretty theoretical, it's really pretty conventional too. Like, 'mind' can know something (maybe I should've said 'know' rather than 'experience')--feelings can feel something--memory can recall or make note of something, etc. If I step on a tack in the dark, it's kayavi~n~naana, body-consciousness that has to know it--if I'm unconscious, know knowing, no feeling etc. So the knowing and feeling are in the consciousness (citta/vi~n~naana) and feeling (vedanaa), not in the ruupa that makes up the foot (though both are dependent on this ruupa as a condition for arising). The way I see it, anyway. Any better? Thanks for your patience. mike 10810 From: m. nease Date: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mike/Kom Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Mike & Kom > > I think I see my mistake. The body's sensitivities > aren't body. They are > mind. The body is just body parts. This is pretty much the way I see it. > Philosophical > questions about mind > and body go beyond this simple distinction. Is that > it? To me, this is just a practical way of breaking down conventional 'wholes' into the constituent parts that go into the arising of the concept of the whole 'body' etc.--for the purpose of detachment, especially from the concept. mike 10811 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] human/animal/fish/bird dosa Hi Jon, I expressed my opinion bc it give more logic. How does a cow know who has more virtue in human. Just like when a tiger kills, the tiger would not care what virtue a person carries as the tiger is hungry unless you talk abt Buddha. Just like when I driving if I kill someone my kamma is not as heavy as those if I kill my parents as I realise it is my parents. The someone could be a virtue parent but that does not mean my kamma is heavy. But even if my parent is not virtue (could be thief or mafia boss) but do bring my up, if I kill them, then my kamma is heavy. kind rgds Ken O --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Ken O > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Christine, > > > > In my own opinion if a cow killed an Arahant, she is not considered > > doing > > five heavy kamma bc the cow does not know the person is an Arahant. > But > > the cow do have negative kamma for killing the person bc there is dosa > > (out of fear of harm to the cow offsprings) when the cow do it. > > Are you sure about this? I always thought that the level of virtue of > the > 'victim' played a large role in determining the 'heaviness' of the > vipaka > -- hence the risk in doing any unwholsome action, since we may not know > the purity of the other person's sila etc. > > Just a thought. > > Jon > 10812 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Jan 15, 2002 11:07pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom Dear Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Hi Kom, > > Is touch the only criterion for rupa? No. There are 28 types of rupas in total. "Touch" are three types of rupas: heat, hardness/softness, and kinetic (tactile?). For details, please see the following links which list all the 28 types: http://www.abhidhamma.org/Para2.htm > Are the letters on this screen > rupa? There are 7 "external" rupas that are frequently mentioned, one of which is what appears to the seeing consciousness (to the eye). The 7 includes: 1) Visible object (what appears to the eye) 2) Taste (what appears to the tounge) 3) Smell (what appears to the nose) 4) Sound (what appears to the ear) 5-7) touch: as discussed The letters on this screen is not rupa, as it has no sabhava (its own characteristic that can be directly experienced), and it cannot be experienced without thinking. >Is rupa inferred or experienced directly? Rupa characteristic is experienced directly only, with or without wisdom (panna). >How do you distinguish > between rupa and perception (sa???) of rupa? This is a very difficult questions of which I don't know the answer. It has been discussed in the list's Useful Posts under "Sanna": http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_ Posts > Is there sense > consciousness without sa???? Conciousness never arises without Sanna. Sanna always arise with the other 3 nama kandhas. > Is sense consciousness rupa > consciousness? If by sense consciousness, you mean the 10 vinnana consciousness including: seeing (kusala vipaka/akusala vipaka) tasting (kusala vipaka/akusala vipaka) smelling (kusala vipaka/akusala vipaka) hearing (kusala vipaka/akusala vipaka) touching (kusala vipaka/akusala vipaka) Each of this 10 consciousness has the characteristic of a rupa as the object of cognition. >Is there a difference between perception (sa???) > and consciousness OF perception? Sanna characteristics is to mark its object, as discussed more in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/10378 > Is the n?ma rupa distinction a > subject object distinction. Is subject att?, self? In a sense, yes, and no nama always has an object of cognition, because nama cognizes. Rupa can be an object of cognition. Rupa doesn't have an object of cognition because it cannot cognize. Nama can also be an object of cognition. Nama and rupa is not atta because: 1) it doesn't last 2) it is uncontrollable 3) it is unchangeable kom 10813 From: m. nease Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 2:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical? Hello Again Lucy, --- Lucy wrote: > That's really interesting. Looks like my 'neutral' > may actually be > quite subtle akusala. Worth looking at more closely. If I understand this correctly, by the way, if kamma is not concerned with sila, daana or bhaavanaa, it is akusala (corrections welcomed). The way I usually think of the pervasiveness of akusala in everyday life is just the extent to which my own thoughts, speech and actions are motivated by liking or disliking--that is, almost all of them. > > Looking (retrospectively) at these moments of > guilt > > etc., I think they can sometimes be clearly > > distinguished as various kinds of akusala > masquerading > > as kusala--aversion to an image I'd like to have > of > > 'myself', e.g. > > > > Too true. There's also 'attachment to what I'd like > to be' hidden > there somewhere. I think so too--I think of this as a conventional form of bhaavatanha, attachment to becoming (though I suspect this is abhidhammically incorrect), in the form of 'becoming a good buddhist, a better person etc. I also think of the desire to stop being who I imagine I am as vibhaavatanha--attachment to annihilation--also probably without foundation in abhidhamma. > I suspected that the feeling of > guilt is akusala. > Though somehow it seems to serve as a reminder. > Presumably because > there are some kusala cetasikas arising together > with it. Of course the understanding of akusala (or the difference between kusala and akusala) must be particularly kusala, I think. Interesting to note that kukkucca, remorse--the closest I find in the tipitaka to the conventional sense of guilt--is a nivarana, particularly bad akusala--even though it is concerned specifically with regret for akusala committed and kusala omitted. This doesn't mean you should go watch TV. (Just kidding). mike 10814 From: dearranil2 Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 5:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Did you get your identity? Dear Mike, First of all apologies for taking so long to reply... What I wanted to point out was that we (we - that is normal terms you and me..etc. ) should not be stuck with the frames which has fallen on us in this life. By thinking about sansara (or by thinking more broadly) we can use all our good thoughts to grow... and to control the bad thoughts. The other thoughts ("untold, unimaginable, more than astronomical numbers of moments of kamma") could be positively to understand the danger of sansara and therefore to be "appamada" - or not be late. Ofcourse... who knows... you might have been an Ariyan :). To Gauthama Buddha or in any previous Buddha's family in the past... Thank you very much for your thoughts.... ~with much meththa Ranil > Are you sure about all this? I'd trade in my > personality in a heartbeat if I could--for an Ariyan > one, preferably. Unfortunately, a few moments (or > minutes, hours, or years) of intention don't seem to > me to make much of a dent in the accumulated > formations of the untold, unimaginable, more than > astronomical numbers of moments of kamma that have > accreted (and continue to accrete, alas) to this > unfortunate khandha. > > Just a passing thought. > > Best Wishes, > > mike > > p.s. If you have any hints as to how we can control > this (and what 'we' is), I'd be genuinely interested > to read them. > > --- ranil gunawardena wrote: > > > > ...in a person there is a sansaric identity - an > > identity where we can > > change any time, any where. an identity we have > > fully control of. So when we > > are going to do something, we can think like; "is > > this me? (meaning - have I > > behaved like this in the whole of sansara) " "do I > > want to do this? (meaning > > - have I wanted to do this in the whole of > > sansara)?" > > So if it is a wrong thing which we are going to > > do...then I can think like - > > "NO! - This is not me... So I will not do it". > > > > If I am going to do a good thing... I can be happy > > thinking... "Yes, This is > > me... this is what I have been doing all my > > sansara". > > > > If I feel difficult to do some good thing... I can > > think... "NO!... I have > > been doing such good things in Sansara - SO! I am > > going to do it - no matter > > what hardship comes..." > > > > more a person can think... "This life has added a > > frame on "ME" as to - you > > are this and this persons son/daughter, your family > > is this - these ARE YOUR > > QUALITIES" - ..... a lot of labels have been pasted > > on us at birth... > > > > It is up to US (Ourselves not united states :) ) - > > to refine this "ME" > > labeled on US. > > > > Therefore, a person born in a poor family, with > > courage and his sansaric > > identity...can uplift the whole family from poverty > > with courage... thinking > > "I have been courageous in the whole of sansara... > > this is my opportunity to > > uplift my family"... So the society will not see him > > as the son of those > > poor parents - but the other way around -- that is > > -- oohh those are his > > parents... > > > > So! it is up to each one of us to take control of > > our sansaric identity... > > the most flexible identity we ever have... the > > moment we think,,,,,we can > > change it... > > > > May you find the most inner peace you are looking... > > in this life itself... > > > > ~with much meththa > > Ranil > 10815 From: Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 3:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom Hi, Larry - I like your questions, Larry. They really hold the promise of much to learn from - the mark of good questions! BTW, how DO you produce the diacritical marks? With metta, Howard In a message dated Tue, 15 Jan 2002 9:11:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Kom, > > Is touch the only criterion for rupa? Are the letters on this screen > rupa? Is rupa inferred or experienced directly? How do you distinguish > between rupa and perception (saññå) of rupa? Is there sense > consciousness without saññå? Is sense consciousness rupa > consciousness? Is there a difference between perception (saññå) > and consciousness OF perception? Is the nåma rupa distinction a > subject object distinction. Is subject attå, self? > > Sorry for the thousand questions. I'll be interested to see how this > comes out. I just figured out how to make accents. > > best wishes, Larry > > > > 10816 From: Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 3:39am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom Hi, Kom (and Larry) - In the following you say that the letters on the screen are not rupa. By this, I take it that you mean that they are concepts. But something isn't quite right about that. It seems like some sort of category mistake (not of yours, but in general). What I mean is that we don't read, print, delete, erase, and write over concepts. It seems to me that there there is the concept/idea of 'letter', on the one hand, and there also are the patterned collections of interrelated visual objects (visual "percepts", if you will) that constitute what we call letters. There is no doubt, it seems to me, that our concept of 'letter' plays an essential role in our apprehension of letters, but the letters so apprehended are not concept-only. Letters, it seems to me, are not just ideas, but are, instead, complex events occurring in time, and involving both visual and mental discernment of elementary visual objects, as well as observable relational patterns among them. If one can say that letters are not rupa, then one can al so say that kaya is not rupa, for the same reason. But if memory serves me, kaya/body is considered as rupa (but, of course, not elementary rupa such as earth, air, fire, and water). With metta, Howard In a message dated Wed, 16 Jan 2002 2:13:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, Kom Tukovinit writes: > Dear Larry, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > > > > Hi Kom, > > > > Is touch the only criterion for rupa? > > No. There are 28 types of rupas in total. "Touch" are > three types of rupas: heat, hardness/softness, and kinetic > (tactile?). > For details, please see the following links which list all > the 28 types: > http://www.abhidhamma.org/Para2.htm > > > Are the letters on this screen > > rupa? > > There are 7 "external" rupas that are frequently mentioned, > one of which is what appears to the seeing consciousness (to > the eye). The 7 includes: > 1) Visible object (what appears to the eye) > 2) Taste (what appears to the tounge) > 3) Smell (what appears to the nose) > 4) Sound (what appears to the ear) > 5-7) touch: as discussed > > The letters on this screen is not rupa, as it has no sabhava > (its own characteristic that can be directly experienced), > and it cannot be experienced without thinking. > > >Is rupa inferred or experienced directly? > Rupa characteristic is experienced directly only, with or > without wisdom (panna). > > >How do you distinguish > > between rupa and perception (sa???) of rupa? > > This is a very difficult questions of which I don't know the > answer. It has been discussed in the list's Useful Posts > under "Sanna": > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_ > Posts > > > > Is there sense > > consciousness without sa???? > > Conciousness never arises without Sanna. Sanna always arise > with the other 3 nama kandhas. > > > Is sense consciousness rupa > > consciousness? > > If by sense consciousness, you mean the 10 vinnana > consciousness including: > seeing (kusala vipaka/akusala vipaka) > tasting (kusala vipaka/akusala vipaka) > smelling (kusala vipaka/akusala vipaka) > hearing (kusala vipaka/akusala vipaka) > touching (kusala vipaka/akusala vipaka) > > Each of this 10 consciousness has the characteristic of a > rupa as the object of cognition. > > >Is there a difference between perception (sa???) > > and consciousness OF perception? > > Sanna characteristics is to mark its object, as discussed > more in: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/10378 > > > > Is the n?ma rupa distinction a > > subject object distinction. Is subject att?, self? > > In a sense, yes, and no > nama always has an object of cognition, because nama > cognizes. > Rupa can be an object of cognition. Rupa doesn't have an > object of cognition because it cannot cognize. > Nama can also be an object of cognition. > > Nama and rupa is not atta because: > 1) it doesn't last > 2) it is uncontrollable > 3) it is unchangeable > > kom 10817 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 8:44am Subject: Photos of Rob Ep now posted, for better or worse... Dear dsg Friends, A little while ago I coarsely demanded the photos of the dsg meeting in Thailand. Sukin was kind enough to send them to me, and ever since I have owed dsg members a look at myself, to be fair. With Sarah's permission, I have now inaugurated the dsg photo album on the yahoogroups site with three photos, two of me and one of my daughter, whom I can't resist showing off. I don't know why I was chosen for this honor, but I must have done something meritorious in a past life. If anyone would like to say 'hello' to me, you can take a look at the photo files. I should say that it was a great pleasure to see the photos of several of you. What a nice group! Sarah told me that she hopes that others will join in and post photos of themselves as well. Regards, Robert Ep. 10818 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 9:56am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom Dear Howard, You made very good observations. > -----Original Message----- > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 8:40 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom > > > Hi, Kom (and Larry) - > In the following you say that the letters on > the screen are not rupa. By this, I take it that > you mean that they are concepts. Yes, when our mind cognizes a letter, the letter can only be a concept. > But something > isn't quite right about that. It seems like some > sort of category mistake (not of yours, but in > general). What I mean is that we don't read, > print, delete, erase, and write over concepts. No comment here... > It > seems to me that there there is the concept/idea > of 'letter', Agreed. > on the one hand, and there also are > the patterned collections of interrelated visual > objects (visual "percepts", if you will) that > constitute what we call letters. This dependendly arising visual objects (constituents) are categorized as rupas. They have their own (dependent) characteristics (sabhava) that are cognized by the mind. > There is no > doubt, it seems to me, that our concept of > 'letter' plays an essential role in our > apprehension of letters, When the mind cognize the pattern of the visual objects, the pattern is categorized as concepts (and not rupa!), one that doesn't have its own charactersitcs. Although the mind cognize this as well, there are differences between the mind that cognizes concepts and the mind that cognizes objects with characteristics. My understanding is that only objects with its own characterstics can be an object of satipathanna (wisdom development that leads to nibbana). > but the letters so > apprehended are not concept-only. Letters, it > seems to me, are not just ideas, but are, > instead, complex events occurring in time, and > involving both visual and mental discernment of > elementary visual objects, as well as observable > relational patterns among them. I think this observation is logically right, but there are further observations. Concepts are mostly formed by our assembly of namas and rupas. Therefore, just because the fundamental rupas constitute a pattern, the pattern is not call a rupa. Again, we are differentiating this based on its being object of cognition and its dependent characteristics (concept has NO characteristics). By the abhidhamma model, only one object is cognized by a consciousness. The cognized object can be either real, or concepts (and no others). When the seeing consciousness sees the visible object, it cognizes a reality. When the following mind-door consciousness cognizes shape or form of the letter, the letter itself (being an English letter, etc.), the consciousness is cognizing something that is not real (and is not a rupa) > If one can say > that letters are not rupa, then one can al > so say that kaya is not rupa, for the same > reason. I am not sure if this is right or not: if you extend this logic, then you can say a person is real from the standpoint of being an assembly of interelated patterns (all the rupas). However, a person, as an object of cognition, doesn't have its own characteristics (it cannot be experienced without additional assembly / thoughts). A person cannot be an object of satipatthana. > But if memory serves me, kaya/body is > considered as rupa (but, of course, not > elementary rupa such as earth, air, fire, and water). > This point may be the differences in our understanding of rupas. If you take abhidhamma models, there are only 28 types of rupas. The category of kaya/body you speak of may be different from this. For example, I don't think standing/sitting posture are rupas. However, the constituents of the standing body (hardness/softness that appear, for example) are rupas. When people with the abhidhamma bend says rupas, they may be strictly referring to the 28 rupas mentioned. The assembly of such thing would always be concept. kom 10819 From: Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 6:17am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom Hi, Kom - Thank you for this excellent post. I just spent 15 minutes on a lengthy reply to it only to lose my entire post due to an idiosyncracy of using AOL remotely! It's just a bit too much to try to do it all over again right now. I'll get to it in a week, when I reurn home. With metta, Howard In a message dated Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:59:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, Kom Tukovinit writes: > Dear Howard, > > You made very good observations. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 8:40 AM > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom > > > > > > Hi, Kom (and Larry) - > > In the following you say that the letters on > > the screen are not rupa. By this, I take it that > > you mean that they are concepts. > > Yes, when our mind cognizes a letter, the letter can only be > a concept. > > > But something > > isn't quite right about that. It seems like some > > sort of category mistake (not of yours, but in > > general). What I mean is that we don't read, > > print, delete, erase, and write over concepts. > > No comment here... > > > It > > seems to me that there there is the concept/idea > > of 'letter', > > Agreed. > > > on the one hand, and there also are > > the patterned collections of interrelated visual > > objects (visual "percepts", if you will) that > > constitute what we call letters. > > This dependendly arising visual objects (constituents) are > categorized as rupas. They have their own (dependent) > characteristics (sabhava) that are cognized by the mind. > > > There is no > > doubt, it seems to me, that our concept of > > 'letter' plays an essential role in our > > apprehension of letters, > > When the mind cognize the pattern of the visual objects, the > pattern is categorized as concepts (and not rupa!), one that > doesn't have its own charactersitcs. Although the mind > cognize this as well, there are differences between the mind > that cognizes concepts and the mind that cognizes objects > with characteristics. My understanding is that only objects > with its own characterstics can be an object of satipathanna > (wisdom development that leads to nibbana). > > > but the letters so > > apprehended are not concept-only. Letters, it > > seems to me, are not just ideas, but are, > > instead, complex events occurring in time, and > > involving both visual and mental discernment of > > elementary visual objects, as well as observable > > relational patterns among them. > > I think this observation is logically right, but there are > further observations. Concepts are mostly formed by our > assembly of namas and rupas. Therefore, just because the > fundamental rupas constitute a pattern, the pattern is not > call a rupa. Again, we are differentiating this based on > its being object of cognition and its dependent > characteristics (concept has NO characteristics). > > By the abhidhamma model, only one object is cognized by a > consciousness. The cognized object can be either real, or > concepts (and no others). When the seeing consciousness > sees the visible object, it cognizes a reality. When the > following mind-door consciousness cognizes shape or form of > the letter, the letter itself (being an English letter, > etc.), the consciousness is cognizing something that is not > real (and is not a rupa) > > > If one can say > > that letters are not rupa, then one can al > > so say that kaya is not rupa, for the same > > reason. > > I am not sure if this is right or not: if you extend this > logic, then you can say a person is real from the standpoint > of being an assembly of interelated patterns (all the > rupas). However, a person, as an object of cognition, > doesn't have its own characteristics (it cannot be > experienced without additional assembly / thoughts). A > person cannot be an object of satipatthana. > > > But if memory serves me, kaya/body is > > considered as rupa (but, of course, not > > elementary rupa such as earth, air, fire, and water). > > > > This point may be the differences in our understanding of > rupas. If you take abhidhamma models, there are only 28 > types of rupas. The category of kaya/body you speak of may > be different from this. For example, I don't think > standing/sitting posture are rupas. However, the > constituents of the standing body (hardness/softness that > appear, for example) are rupas. > > When people with the abhidhamma bend says rupas, they may be > strictly referring to the 28 rupas mentioned. The assembly > of such thing would always be concept. > > kom 10820 From: Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:54am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom Hi again, Kom - I have a bit of time; so I'll try now a synoptic retrival of my attempted but failed post. In a message dated Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:59:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, Kom Tukovinit writes: > Dear Howard, > > You made very good observations. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 8:40 AM > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom > > > > > > Hi, Kom (and Larry) - > > In the following you say that the letters on > > the screen are not rupa. By this, I take it that > > you mean that they are concepts. > > Yes, when our mind cognizes a letter, the letter can only be > a concept. > > > But something > > isn't quite right about that. It seems like some > > sort of category mistake (not of yours, but in > > general). What I mean is that we don't read, > > print, delete, erase, and write over concepts. > > No comment here... > > > It > > seems to me that there there is the concept/idea > > of 'letter', > > Agreed. > > > on the one hand, and there also are > > the patterned collections of interrelated visual > > objects (visual "percepts", if you will) that > > constitute what we call letters. > > This dependendly arising visual objects (constituents) are > categorized as rupas. They have their own (dependent) > characteristics (sabhava) that are cognized by the mind. > > > There is no > > doubt, it seems to me, that our concept of > > 'letter' plays an essential role in our > > apprehension of letters, > > When the mind cognize the pattern of the visual objects, the > pattern is categorized as concepts (and not rupa!), one that > doesn't have its own charactersitcs. ---------------------------- Howard: I get your point and agree with it. The pattern is apprehended conceptually, through the mind door only, by mental discernment. However, the relational pattern involves a relationship among rupas, and I think that it might be useful to coin the adjective 'rupic' in this respect. We are dealing here with an interrelationship among rupas, as opposed to one among feelings, emotions, dispositions, or thoughts. The *basis* is rupic. ----------------------------- Although the mind > cognize this as well, there are differences between the mind > that cognizes concepts and the mind that cognizes objects > with characteristics. My understanding is that only objects > with its own characterstics can be an object of satipathanna > (wisdom development that leads to nibbana). > > > but the letters so > > apprehended are not concept-only. Letters, it > > seems to me, are not just ideas, but are, > > instead, complex events occurring in time, and > > involving both visual and mental discernment of > > elementary visual objects, as well as observable > > relational patterns among them. > > I think this observation is logically right, but there are > further observations. Concepts are mostly formed by our > assembly of namas and rupas. Therefore, just because the > fundamental rupas constitute a pattern, the pattern is not > call a rupa. -------------------------------- Howard: Agreed. But it is a pattern among rupas. -------------------------------- Again, we are differentiating this based on > its being object of cognition and its dependent > characteristics (concept has NO characteristics). > > By the abhidhamma model, only one object is cognized by a > consciousness. The cognized object can be either real, or > concepts (and no others). When the seeing consciousness > sees the visible object, it cognizes a reality. When the > following mind-door consciousness cognizes shape or form of > the letter, the letter itself (being an English letter, > etc.), the consciousness is cognizing something that is not > real (and is not a rupa) ------------------------------- Howard: I think that *degrees* of reality might come in handy here. Concepts are *less* real than the dhammas they subsume due to the extra layer of mental compounding involved. But *all* the dhammas we worldlings deal with are sankhata. The tree in my garden is not absolutely unreal. It is the referent of a grounded concept, grounded in an interrelated pattern of rupas, as opposed to a unicorn, which is not, which is concept-only. ---------------------------------- > > > If one can say > > that letters are not rupa, then one can al > > so say that kaya is not rupa, for the same > > reason. > > I am not sure if this is right or not: if you extend this > logic, then you can say a person is real from the standpoint > of being an assembly of interelated patterns (all the > rupas). However, a person, as an object of cognition, > doesn't have its own characteristics (it cannot be > experienced without additional assembly / thoughts). A > person cannot be an object of satipatthana. > > > But if memory serves me, kaya/body is > > considered as rupa (but, of course, not > > elementary rupa such as earth, air, fire, and water). > > > > This point may be the differences in our understanding of > rupas. If you take abhidhamma models, there are only 28 > types of rupas. The category of kaya/body you speak of may > be different from this. For example, I don't think > standing/sitting posture are rupas. However, the > constituents of the standing body (hardness/softness that > appear, for example) are rupas. > > When people with the abhidhamma bend says rupas, they may be > strictly referring to the 28 rupas mentioned. The assembly > of such thing would always be concept. > > kom ============================== With metta, Howard 10821 From: cldwlkrray Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 1:00pm Subject: Help!!!! Greetings, good sangha members! Please help. I am new to this group and I must admit that all the technical terminologies are throwing me back a tad. I've been with the Dharma since forever, but my emphasis has been dharma where the rubber meets the road; practical, no-nonsense, and samuraii-sword sharp. Am I missing something with all this talk that seems intent on doctrinal discussion? Seems to remind me of the theological discussions that used to transpire within the Christian organizations I once belonged to. I mean no disrespect, so please take this question in the spirit of humble query in which it is formulated. Three deep bows; Ray 10822 From: Yulia Klimov Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 1:34pm Subject: Big question Hello everyone, I would like to ask you a question which bothers me for a while now. My father is Jewish and when we came here he wanted to become a "real" Jewish. But after we went to synagogue a few times, we instantly disliked it. Everything was explained. So people were kind of logically living. Rabbi was able to explain everything. For my Jewish father, who even is a math professor, it was somehow odd too (even he get used to logic in life :). So, I rejected the religion for too much logic and some other reasons as well. Now, today, I am very confused with Buddhism too. I read emails every day and I am lost in the logic behind it. It seems to me we are drown in explanations and "understanding" instead of living the experience of Buddha. May be this sounds rude, sorry if so. Does it really matter for what reason cow killed the guy? And does it matter if cow has it's own Kamma? How this applies to our life? I am picking on this topics just because this was recent. And I went to read the sutra about the Bahiya person, I felt when it was discussed here, something was missing. Please, help me out. All of you are so great, very helpful and knowledgeable, you must know is the logical understanding brings us anywhere? Thank you for your time, Love, Yulia 10823 From: tikmok Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 2:50pm Subject: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom Dear Howard, Please don't mind me responding somewhat frequently here (just a little gap in work!). Please add to the discussions when you have time. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > > on the one hand, and there also are > > > the patterned collections of interrelated visual > > > objects (visual "percepts", if you will) that > > > constitute what we call letters. > > > > This dependendly arising visual objects (constituents) are > > categorized as rupas. They have their own (dependent) > > characteristics (sabhava) that are cognized by the mind. > > > > > There is no > > > doubt, it seems to me, that our concept of > > > 'letter' plays an essential role in our > > > apprehension of letters, > > > > When the mind cognize the pattern of the visual objects, the > > pattern is categorized as concepts (and not rupa!), one that > > doesn't have its own charactersitcs. > ---------------------------- > Howard: > I get your point and agree with it. The pattern is apprehended >conceptually, through the mind door only, by mental discernment. >However, the relational pattern involves a relationship among rupas, >and I think that it might be useful to coin the adjective 'rupic' in >this respect. We are dealing here with an interrelationship among >rupas, as opposed to one among feelings, emotions, dispositions, or >thoughts. The *basis* is rupic. I agree with you that for the sake of discussion and its conciseness, it might be useful to coin some term that represents the interrelationship of the rupas (concept), especially when it appears as continuity to us. However, I think it is extremely important to use the words nama and rupa very precisely (as something that is not concept) because these terms are common throughout the tipitaka. Furthermore, as also discussed, only namas and rupas (and not concepts) can be objects of satipatthana, and it is important to reduce (if not eliminate) the confusion between realities and concepts. > Again, we are differentiating this based on > > its being object of cognition and its dependent > > characteristics (concept has NO characteristics). > > > > By the abhidhamma model, only one object is cognized by a > > consciousness. The cognized object can be either real, or > > concepts (and no others). When the seeing consciousness > > sees the visible object, it cognizes a reality. When the > > following mind-door consciousness cognizes shape or form of > > the letter, the letter itself (being an English letter, > > etc.), the consciousness is cognizing something that is not > > real (and is not a rupa) > ------------------------------- > Howard: > I think that *degrees* of reality might come in handy here. >Concepts are *less* real than the dhammas they subsume due to the >extra layer of mental compounding involved. But *all* the dhammas we >worldlings deal with are sankhata. The tree in my garden is not >absolutely unreal. It is the referent of a grounded concept, >grounded in an interrelated pattern of rupas, as opposed to a >unicorn, which is not, which is concept-only. OK. I have some disagreements on the following points: 1) From my standpoint, the differences between realities and concepts (conceptually) are immense, one is extant and is true, the other isn't there even if it might be true. 2) Only things that exist are sakhata. Sankhata, as I understand it, means realities that have been conditioned to arise, and must immediately fall away. You can directly experience the falling/fading away of realities, but not of concepts (because there is no characteristic of rising / falling away to be observed). 3) Trees (concept) don't fall away (from cognizing the characteristic standpoints). The concept changes because the consciousness that is thinking up the first concept has been replaced by subsequent consciousness that think of a different concept. You cannot directly experience a tree falling away. 4) Things that exist only appear to us for infinitesimally small amount of time, but yet, we think that the things exist always or worse, think of something that doesn't even exist. This leads us to gross and subtle sakaya-dithi. Examples: a) We hear a voice of a familiar person behind us, we think the person is there. We turn, only to find it is a voice recording. We thought other rupas (besides the voice) associated with the person were there, but they never were. This is a gross delusion (moha). b) We take something as "our thoughts", even though the characteristic of our thought that was experienced has already fallen away. This is gross-to-subtle, and extremely prevalent delusion. 5) Things that are truly grounded are characteristic of realities that appears now. It is completely provable to oneself that it exists. What you think of may exist, or may not exist. What you don't directly experience (and never experience) don't effect you in anyway: only the thinking effects you. 6) Thinking of either a unicorn or a horse is similar to me. While I am thinking about it, there is no actual characteristics of realities that are being experienced. Maybe lightning bolts are incinerating all the horses right now and then horses are becoming as mythical as unicorns. I simply just don't know for sure (if a horse exists). Mind you, I don't really live with fairy, and I am not saying that knowing the differences between the two make no differences. 7) When I think of something that I experience in the past, I sometimes wonder if I dreamt it all up. I cannot assure myself now, one way or another, if it really happens / if it was real. All thinking is sort of like that: just like dreaming, with no present direct experience of reality to back it up (since when you think, you don't experience a reality). kom 10824 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 3:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Help!!!! Dear Ray, Good qustion and not disrespectful at all....I'm sure others will be interested in hearing responses. Unfortunately I'm running late, so hope to hear from others myself;-)) Sarah --- cldwlkrray wrote: > Greetings, good sangha members! > > Please help. I am new to this group and I must admit that > all the technical terminologies are throwing me back a tad. > I've been with the Dharma since forever, but my emphasis has > been dharma where the rubber meets the road; practical, no-nonsense, > and samuraii-sword sharp. Am I missing something with all this > talk that seems intent on doctrinal discussion? Seems to remind me of > the theological discussions that used to transpire within the > Christian organizations I once belonged to. > > I mean no disrespect, so please take this question in the spirit of > humble query in which it is formulated. > > > Three deep bows; > Ray 10825 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 3:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Photos of Rob Ep now posted, for better or worse... Dear Rob, Thanks for doing this and I hope Sukin, Num, Gayan and others will follow your good example. If anyone needs any technical help to do so, pls contact Rob Ep off-list for help. Sarah > With Sarah's permission, I have now inaugurated the dsg photo album on > the > yahoogroups site with three photos, two of me and one of my daughter, > whom I can't > resist showing off. > > I don't know why I was chosen for this honor, but I must have done > something > meritorious in a past life. > > If anyone would like to say 'hello' to me, you can take a look at the > photo files. > I should say that it was a great pleasure to see the photos of several > of you. > What a nice group! > > Sarah told me that she hopes that others will join in and post photos of > themselves as well. > > Regards, > Robert Ep. 10826 From: Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 5:43pm Subject: Re: vedana/nama Mike Thanks Mike for your careful considerations. Thinking about this in the light of Kom and Howard's discussion maybe what I said about rupa being body parts isn't quite correct because "body part" is a concept. So I guess rupa is just the object of sense sensations, sensations themselves being nama. I don't know; the more I think about this, the more convoluted it gets. I have a couple of books I should review. Do you have any more clarifications on this? When you wrote, "To me, this is just a practical way of breaking down conventional 'wholes' into the co?stituent parts that go into the arising of the concept of the whole 'body' etc.--for the purpose of detachment, especially from the concept." I had a similar thought that it was a good way to break down attachment to body because what amounts to body rupa is hardly anything at all. Either way, detachment from concept or body is probably a good idea ;-) Larry 10827 From: Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 5:53pm Subject: Re: vedana/nama Kom Kom, thank you so much for giving such fine detailed answers to all those questions. Some of the answers I want to think about before I ask more. Your discussion with Howard is producing a lot of clarification as well. Could you answer one question about this discussion? I have been thinking of sankhara as concept as well as some other mental phenomena. How do you define sankhara and what is concept if not sankhara? thanks again, Larry 10828 From: tikmok Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 6:14pm Subject: Re: vedana/nama Kom Dear Larry, I assume you are referring to Sankhara kandha in this case. (Sankhara is used in two contexts: a) all conditioned realities encompassing all rupas and namas [as in Sankhara dhamma], b) only 50 cetasikas excluding sanna and vedana [as in Sankhara kandha]). --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Your discussion with Howard is producing a lot of clarification as well. > Could you answer one question about this discussion? I have been > thinking of sankhara as concept as well as some other mental phenomena. > How do you define sankhara and what is concept if not sankhara? The word sankhara-khandha and its meaning is a concept that points to realities. You don't experience sankhara-khandha by thinking of the word or its meaning, but you experience the realities by cognizing its characteristics (for example, when you feel angry, but not when you think that you are angry). The following sniplet is from: http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm The Abhidhammattha Vibhavani (Book 8) distinguishes between six kinds of concepts that are names, nama-pannatti (see Visuddhimagga VIII, note 11). 1. Vijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known what is real, for example the words rupa, nama, vedana (feeling), or sanna (perception) 10. 2. Avijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known what is not real, such as the words Thai or foreigner. These concepts do not represent absolute realities, citta and cetasika which are nama, and rupa. Thai or foreigner are not real in the absolute sense, they are conventional realities, sammutti dhammas. Could akusala citta11 (unwholesome consciousness) be Thai or foreign? Akusala citta is a paramattha dhamma (a reality), it is a dhamma which has its own characteristic, it is not Thai or foreign. 3. Vijjamanena avijjamana pannattis, concepts of the non-existent based on the existent. There is the expression "the person with the six abhinnas."12 The six abhinnas are real but person is not real. Thus this concept stands for what is real and for what is not real. 4. Avijjamanena vijjamana pannattis, concepts of the existent based on the non-existent. There is the expression "woman's voice". The sound is real, but the woman is not real. 5. Vijjamanena vijjamana pannattis, concepts of what is real based on what is real. There is the term cakkhu-vinnana (eye- consciousness). Cakkhu (eye) is a reality, namely the cakkhu-pasada- rupa (eyesense, a reality sensitive to colour or visible object), and vinnana (consciousness) is also a reality, namely the reality which experiences. 6. Avija amanena avijjamana pannattis, concepts of what is not real based on what is not real. There is the expression "the kings son". Both king and son are not real, they are sammutti dhammas, conventional realities. 10829 From: Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 2:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom Hi, Kom - Wonderful post, full of deep, incisive and illuminating analyses! Thank you. As regards horses vs unicorns, I agree that *thinking* about one is not radically different from thinking about the other. However, *observing* a horse (which we do quite frequently) is quite different from observing a unicorn (which we never do, and never will). I consider it false to say that horses are nonexistent in an absolute sense. Horses are discerned, they are cognized, they are recognized. They are complex objects of consciousness, mentally compounded from the more basic ones which are called rupas. They are not nothing at all, whereas, for example, a core or self in anything is, indeed, nothing at all. With metta, Howard In a message dated Wed, 16 Jan 2002 5:51:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, "tikmok" writes: > Dear Howard, > > Please don't mind me responding somewhat frequently here (just a > little gap in work!). Please add to the discussions when you have > time. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > > > > on the one hand, and there also are > > > > the patterned collections of interrelated visual > > > > objects (visual "percepts", if you will) that > > > > constitute what we call letters. > > > > > > This dependendly arising visual objects (constituents) are > > > categorized as rupas. They have their own (dependent) > > > characteristics (sabhava) that are cognized by the mind. > > > > > > > There is no > > > > doubt, it seems to me, that our concept of > > > > 'letter' plays an essential role in our > > > > apprehension of letters, > > > > > > When the mind cognize the pattern of the visual objects, the > > > pattern is categorized as concepts (and not rupa!), one that > > > doesn't have its own charactersitcs. > > ---------------------------- > > Howard: > > I get your point and agree with it. The pattern is apprehended > >conceptually, through the mind door only, by mental discernment. > >However, the relational pattern involves a relationship among rupas, > >and I think that it might be useful to coin the adjective 'rupic' in > >this respect. We are dealing here with an interrelationship among > >rupas, as opposed to one among feelings, emotions, dispositions, or > >thoughts. The *basis* is rupic. > > I agree with you that for the sake of discussion and its conciseness, > it might be useful to coin some term that represents the > interrelationship of the rupas (concept), especially when it appears > as continuity to us. However, I think it is extremely important to > use the words nama and rupa very precisely (as something that is not > concept) because these terms are common throughout the tipitaka. > Furthermore, as also discussed, only namas and rupas (and not > concepts) can be objects of satipatthana, and it is important to > reduce (if not eliminate) the confusion between realities and > concepts. > > > > Again, we are differentiating this based on > > > its being object of cognition and its dependent > > > characteristics (concept has NO characteristics). > > > > > > By the abhidhamma model, only one object is cognized by a > > > consciousness. The cognized object can be either real, or > > > concepts (and no others). When the seeing consciousness > > > sees the visible object, it cognizes a reality. When the > > > following mind-door consciousness cognizes shape or form of > > > the letter, the letter itself (being an English letter, > > > etc.), the consciousness is cognizing something that is not > > > real (and is not a rupa) > > ------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I think that *degrees* of reality might come in handy here. > >Concepts are *less* real than the dhammas they subsume due to the > >extra layer of mental compounding involved. But *all* the dhammas we > >worldlings deal with are sankhata. The tree in my garden is not > >absolutely unreal. It is the referent of a grounded concept, > >grounded in an interrelated pattern of rupas, as opposed to a > >unicorn, which is not, which is concept-only. > > OK. I have some disagreements on the following points: > 1) From my standpoint, the differences between realities and concepts > (conceptually) are immense, one is extant and is true, the other > isn't there even if it might be true. > > 2) Only things that exist are sakhata. Sankhata, as I understand it, > means realities that have been conditioned to arise, and must > immediately fall away. You can directly experience the > falling/fading away of realities, but not of concepts (because there > is no characteristic of rising / falling away to be observed). > > 3) Trees (concept) don't fall away (from cognizing the characteristic > standpoints). The concept changes because the consciousness that is > thinking up the first concept has been replaced by subsequent > consciousness that think of a different concept. You cannot directly > experience a tree falling away. > > 4) Things that exist only appear to us for infinitesimally small > amount of time, but yet, we think that the things exist always or > worse, think of something that doesn't even exist. This leads us to > gross and subtle sakaya-dithi. Examples: > > a) We hear a voice of a familiar person behind us, we think the > person is there. We turn, only to find it is a voice recording. We > thought other rupas (besides the voice) associated with the person > were there, but they never were. This is a gross delusion (moha). > b) We take something as "our thoughts", even though the > characteristic of our thought that was experienced has already fallen > away. This is gross-to-subtle, and extremely prevalent delusion. > > 5) Things that are truly grounded are characteristic of realities > that appears now. It is completely provable to oneself that it > exists. What you think of may exist, or may not exist. What you > don't directly experience (and never experience) don't effect you in > anyway: only the thinking effects you. > > 6) Thinking of either a unicorn or a horse is similar to me. While I > am thinking about it, there is no actual characteristics of realities > that are being experienced. Maybe lightning bolts are incinerating > all the horses right now and then horses are becoming as mythical as > unicorns. I simply just don't know for sure (if a horse exists). > Mind you, I don't really live with fairy, and I am not saying that > knowing the differences between the two make no differences. > > 7) When I think of something that I experience in the past, I > sometimes wonder if I dreamt it all up. I cannot assure myself now, > one way or another, if it really happens / if it was real. All > thinking is sort of like that: just like dreaming, with no present > direct experience of reality to back it up (since when you think, you > don't experience a reality). > > kom 10830 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 8:01pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom Dear Howard, I want to tell you what I thought were interesting stories. > -----Original Message----- > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 7:17 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom > > > Hi, Kom - > > As regards horses vs unicorns, I agree that > *thinking* about one is not radically different > from thinking about the other. However, > *observing* a horse (which we do quite > frequently) is quite different from observing a > unicorn (which we never do, and never will). I > consider it false to say that horses are > nonexistent in an absolute sense. Horses are > discerned, they are cognized, they are > recognized. They are complex objects of > consciousness, mentally compounded from the more > basic ones which are called rupas. They are not > nothing at all, whereas, for example, a core or > self in anything is, indeed, nothing at all. > I was thinking some more about horses and unicorns. I personally have never ridden a horse, or touched a horse. I have seen [seeing] a horse (for real and TV), heard [hearing] a horse (for real and TV), and have smelled [smelling] a horse (for real, still waiting for the TV that also make scents.) I have seen [seeing] a unicorn (TV) and heard [hearing] a unicorn (TV). From the actual realities experienced, my input on the horse is only one more than the unicorn. From thinking stand points, a unicorn is obviously not real. However, had I not known that TV is full of unreal stuffs, I might have mistaken a unicorn as being as real as a horse. There was a public TV show the other day showing the lives of the African boys known as "the Lost Boys." The wandered around surviving by themselves from one country to another for a while, and then the US government decided to take them as refugees. When the came over, after seeing Mr. Ed [talking horse sit-com], they actually thought there were horses that could talk. I was at a meditation retreat, and one of the instructors showed us a filled water glass brimmed with ice, with all the condensed water sticking to the outside of the glass. He asked us, what do you see? "Cold glass of water with ice" He then asked, is the glass cold? "Yes". It turned out that the glass was a prop: there is no water, there is no ice, there is no glass, and the glass was not remotely cold. Seeing is different from touching/thinking, indeed. kom 10831 From: khow14 Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 10:01pm Subject: Re: Help!!!! Hello Ray and Yulia Welcome from me to dsg. Ray wrote; Please help. I am new to this group and I must admit that all the technical terminologies are throwing me back a tad. I've been with the Dharma since forever, but my emphasis has been dharma where the rubber meets the road; practical, no-nonsense, and samuraii-sword sharp. Am I missing something with all this talk that seems intent on doctrinal discussion? --------------------------- Yes, I think you are; consider this bit of `doctrinal discussion' between Lucy and Mike earlier today: Lucy:> Too true. There's also 'attachment to what I'd like > to be' hidden there somewhere. Mike: I think so too--I think of this as a conventional form of bhaavatanha, attachment to becoming (though I suspect this is abhidhammically incorrect), in the form of 'becoming a good buddhist, a better person etc. I also think of the desire to stop being who I imagine I am as vibhaavatanha--attachment to annihilation--also probably without foundation in abhidhamma. ------------------------------------------------- Such lines of discussion bring us a little closer each time to an appreciation of the Middle Way, the way taught by, and only by, the Buddha. It is a very, very, very hard way to see. Try as we might, we worldlings see only the non-middle ways (extremes), of eternity belief and annihilation belief. The Middle Way is so hard for a worldling to see that the Buddha considered for a moment that it might be pointless for him to even try to teach it. With all due respect to those various "rubber meets the road" schools of Buddhism, I would like suggest that what they teach is not very hard to see at all. If we bear with the technical explanations for a while, we will surely come to see that what we have taken for so long to be the Middle Way is,in fact, only the two extremes -- albeit camouflaged by various techniques and practices. Understanding this is, in itself, priceless progress. It is one of the many ways in which dsg members (including lurkers like myself), are profoundly grateful to those good people who regularly share their "doctrinal" understanding with us. Thanks for your honest questions, Yulia and Ray, I hope you will become regular dsg contributors. Kind regards Ken Howard 10832 From: Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 10:07pm Subject: concepts/Kom Hi Kom, I understand there are concepts that point to realities and concepts that are errors. However, they both truely exist as concepts. A mirage, for example, is an illusion but it is a real phenomenon. Or is it? Is rupa the only reality? What about suffering, dukkha? Does rupa really suffer? Is suffering a reality? Also, what did you mean when you said concept can't be the object of satipatthana? Aren't the four noble truths concepts? Sorry for all these questions. It's getting a little embarrasing. Larry 10833 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 10:54pm Subject: RE: [dsg] concepts/Kom HI Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > > Hi Kom, > > I understand there are concepts that point to > realities and concepts > that are errors. However, they both truely exist > as concepts. I think we agree... > A mirage, > for example, is an illusion but it is a real > phenomenon. Or is it? If you see a mirage, the seeing consciousness is real, what appears to the seeing consciousness is real, but the mirage is just a concept. > Is > rupa the only reality? The 5 kandhas, including Rupas and Nama, are realities. Nibanna is a reality. They have their own characteristics that can be experienced, which is unlike concepts. > What about suffering, > dukkha? Does rupa really > suffer? Dukhas in the four noble truths include both Nama and rupas (but excludes Nibbana). They are dukkhas because they are impermanent, they cannot last, and they must fall away immediately. > Is suffering a reality? Both unpleasant bodily feeling and unpleasant mental feeling are realities that have their own characteristics. > > Also, what did you mean when you said concept > can't be the object of > satipatthana. Panna develops by directly seeing that all conditioned realities are impermanent, dukkha, and non-self. These are all characteristics of realities. Concepts has no such characteristics. You cannot develop the (direct) wisdom of impermanence by thinking about impermanence! > Aren't the four noble truths concepts? The four noble truths include all the conditioned Nama and rupas, and nibbana, all realities. Each reality has their own characteristics, and can be an object of Satipatthana. Noble truths as concepts (as we normally experience) cannot be object of satipathana because it doesn't have the three characteristics of impermanence, dukkha, and non-self. > Sorry for all these questions. It's getting a > little embarrasing. One of the pre-requisites of developing panna is to sit close to those with panna (when you read the tipitakas - the teaching of the self-enlightened one), listen to their dhammas, and ask lots of questions. I think it is to anyone's advantage to ask questions (not that they will have answers!). I think the moderators created this list explicitly for that purpose. I myself try to develop thick skins, so I can ask really embarrasing questions. I hope the moderators will eventually add their usually very useful tips and reminders. kom 10834 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 11:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical? Dear Lucy and all, I’ve been appreciating all the questions, comments and reminders on this thread. I don’t think I have anything of substance to add (read too ‘lazy’ to find further references;-)), so let me, by way of a kind of light-hearted summary, list the many myths we tend to have on this topic. To make it clear that we’re referring to Thina (sloth) and Middha (torpor) as described in the Pali Canon, I’ll use use T&M from now on to abbreviate thina and middha. Please let me know if you disagree or wish for any further clarification on any of these ‘myths’;-) MYTH #1. We understand T&M pretty well and they are similar to our conventional ideas about “sleepiness, drowsiness, fogginess” MYTH#2. There’s no T&M while doing Tai Chi, playing tennis or other occasions of high activity MYTH#3. T&M is directly related to excess Xmas and holiday pounds/kilos. MYTH#4 In certain situations like watching TV, there is bound to be more T&M than at other times MYTH#5. Guilt about watching TV may help to spur action and thereby reduce T&M MYTH#6. There is bound to be T&M whenever we are lying in bed MYTH#7. There’s more T&M when the weather’s bad MYTH#8 When we study dhamma or meditate there’s no T&M MYTH#9. T&M don’t need to arise together MYTH#10 Whenever there is T&M it must mean bad kamma MYTH#11 There’s no energy (viriya) when there’s T&M MYTH#12 T&M are a hindrance to the development of satipatthana and should be/can be eradicated at an early stage of insight. ********** Best wishes, Sarah ====================================================== 10835 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 11:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Help!!!! Dear Ray, I’d like to explore your points just a little further as I think they are very relevant and I know you’ve considered the Teachings carefully: --- cldwlkrray wrote: > > Please help. I am new to this group and I must admit that > all the technical terminologies are throwing me back a tad. > I've been with the Dharma since forever, but my emphasis has > been dharma where the rubber meets the road; practical, no-nonsense, > and samuraii-sword sharp. The question, perhaps, is what does it mean when we say the Dhamma/Dharma is rubber meets the road and so on. We find that there are many different ideas here on just what this is and I think we’d all be glad to hear yours with a little more detail. Am I missing something with all this > talk that seems intent on doctrinal discussion? One thing I’ve really learnt after 2yrs on dsg is that different people need to hear and consider different aspects. There are many, many topics which have been discussed at length which I had never considered or been inclined to consider before. We all have different ‘blocks’ to understanding and it can be a useful test of patience for me to really try and understand where others are ‘coming from’ and why a particular phrase, such as ‘luminous’ for one current example, may hold such signifcance. I appreciate it must be particularly confusing when one first joins (or listens in as a lurker) and would also suggest being somewhat discriminative as to what you read initially. Seems to remind me of > the theological discussions that used to transpire within the > Christian organizations I once belonged to. I think it would be very valid and respectful (rather than the reverse) to reply to any message or topic and ask for clarifcation of the practical relevance. I sometimes play a word game with my students in which anyone has the right to say ‘challenge!’ whenever they think another is bluffing. so please feel free to challenge any posts (preferably more politely than my students sometimes do;-) > I mean no disrespect, so please take this question in the spirit of > humble query in which it is formulated. Not at all, we’d all much rather you ask these questions on list to give us a chance to respond. Ray, please elaborate further on “dharma where the rubber meets the road; practical, no-nonsense,and samuraii-sword sharp”. Sarah p.s Ken H...just seen yr response....always great to hear from you and congratulations Ray for encouraging him out of ‘lurk-mode’....hope you ask him more questions!!! ====================================================== 10836 From: Victor Yu Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 11:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts/Kom Hello Larry, I think people understand concept differently: in other words, people have different concept about "concept." The word "concept" is usually defined in dictionary as 1. a general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences; 2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. As I understand it, a concept is conditioned, formed/fabricated. Concept is impermanent, is dukkha, is not self. That is just my view on concept. Regards, Victor ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 1:07 AM Subject: [dsg] concepts/Kom > Hi Kom, > > I understand there are concepts that point to realities and concepts > that are errors. However, they both truely exist as concepts. A mirage, > for example, is an illusion but it is a real phenomenon. Or is it? Is > rupa the only reality? What about suffering, dukkha? Does rupa really > suffer? Is suffering a reality? 10837 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 11:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Big question Dear Yulia, --- Yulia Klimov wrote: > Now, today, I am very confused with Buddhism too. I read emails every > day > and I am lost in the logic behind it. It seems to me we are drown in > explanations and "understanding" instead of living the experience of > Buddha. > May be this sounds rude, sorry if so. As I just said to Ray, I think these are important questions and it’s good to really ask what is bothering us. Otherwise it just simmers away. You can always be sure you’re doing others a big favour who have the same question and are shy to ask it. It doesn’t sound rude at all and I’m very interested to hear more about your background....Actually there are quite a few people from Jewish backgrounds here, but not many from Russia too;-) >Does it really matter for what > reason > cow killed the guy? And does it matter if cow has it's own Kamma? How > this > applies to our life? I’m going to leave this to all the ‘cow thread’ people to defend, not being a cow expert myself;-) May I just say that sometimes someone will relate a story or sutta and assume a particular meaning whereas it may turn out to be otherwise. It doesn’t necessarily matter or have any special relevance, but perhaps it’s better to get the facts right for when one tells the story another time. Perhaps it also shows us how extraordinarily intricate causes and kamma are..only a Buddha can know all the real reasons why something happens. By getting just a ‘taste’ of these intricacies, perhaps it can lead to more detachment from the idea of a self that can control or act in a certain way. Responses and actions are conditioned by so many different factors. Do you think this is relevant in life? Can it be of practical relevance to learn that what we understand or take for laziness (sloth and torpor) may actually consist of many different skilful and unskilful mental states? >I am picking on this topics just because this was > recent. And I went to read the sutra about the Bahiya person, I felt > when it > was discussed here, something was missing. I hope those on the Bahiya thread will help further. As I just mentioned to Ray, we’d all be happy to hear you ‘challenge’ any particular topics or posts so that we can all understand the relevance to ‘practice’ and understanding at the present moment. > Please, help me out. All of you are so great, very helpful and > knowledgeable, you must know is the logical understanding brings us > anywhere? Thank you for your good questions and look forward to more. I hope others add to this thread and you also encourage Ken H to add more detail;-) Please also start any new threads on what would seem to be “living the experience of Buddha” issues for you. Sarah ====================================================== 10838 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Thu Jan 17, 2002 0:49am Subject: Re: Photos of Rob Ep now posted, for better or worse... --- Thanks for the photos Rob. I might even post one of myself, with Sarah's permission. robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear dsg Friends, > A little while ago I coarsely demanded the photos of the dsg meeting in Thailand. > Sukin was kind enough to send them to me, and ever since I have owed dsg members a > look at myself, to be fair. > > With Sarah's permission, I have now inaugurated the dsg photo album on the > yahoogroups site with three photos, two of me and one of my daughter, whom I can't > resist showing off. > > I don't know why I was chosen for this honor, but I must have done something > meritorious in a past life. > > If anyone would like to say 'hello' to me, you can take a look at the photo files. > I should say that it was a great pleasure to see the photos of several of you. > What a nice group! > > Sarah told me that she hopes that others will join in and post photos of > themselves as well. > > Regards, > Robert Ep. > > 10839 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 17, 2002 1:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Photos of Rob Ep now posted, for better or worse... Hi Rob K, Look forward to yours (w/kids?) and anyone else's...pls anyone go ahead w/out asking us- it's the 'photo' section on the homepage: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup Btw I'd be glad to hear about any of any of your discussions in bkk last week. Hope you had a good trip back to Japan (?) and hope the kids are well. Sarah --- "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > --- > Thanks for the photos Rob. I might even post one of myself, with > Sarah's permission. > robert 10840 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Thu Jan 17, 2002 2:54am Subject: Bangkok Dear Group, It was nice to meet Mike for the first time:He is just as humble in person as he is on the web. BTW he has almost finished formating Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket *trans. by Nina and we are hoping to publish 10,000 copies for free distribution if sufficient funds can be garnered. It was also nice to meet with Sukin and Amara and Betty and Ivan and others. We discussed some about paticcasamupada and also about the ayatana and other profound details from the texts. T.A. Sujin stressed how patience must be so strong so that there is not deviation from the path of understanding the moment. Avijja (ignorance) moha has almost always being present for such a long time and if it is mixed with craving -such as wanting quick results,or wanting to have special experiences- then there is no way for insight to develop. She explained that all namas and rupas arise by conditions. So that, for instance, hardness or seeing or dosa or craving arise when the conditions are present and so too sati arises when the onditins are present. She said sati (awareness) is a very natural dhamma at he level of hearing and considering Dhamma, it may be happening right now. But what is less common is the developed sati and panna that truly and clearly distinguishes nama and rupa. Still if there are sufficient conditions no one could stop it from happening. WE also talked about knowing nama and how some people may be aware of rupa but neglect to understand nama. When there is awareness of nama what is important is to see, whatever dhamma it is - whether it is lobha or dosa or seeing or pain or pleasure or citta- as simply nama. Then there can be growing insight into the characteristic of nama as distinct from rupa. Then there is not a preference for some namas or rupas over others, there is more detachment. robert 10841 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 17, 2002 5:00am Subject: RE: [dsg] concepts/Kom Hi Kom, Great discussions between you, Larry, Mike and Howard ..a real treat. --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > One of the pre-requisites of developing panna is to sit > close to those with panna (when you read the tipitakas - the > teaching of the self-enlightened one), listen to their > dhammas, and ask lots of questions. I think it is to > anyone's advantage to ask questions (not that they will have > answers!). I think the moderators created this list > explicitly for that purpose. Well yes and to hear and share different viewpoints and understandings. I myself try to develop thick > skins, so I can ask really embarrasing questions. Now I'm curious to hear them.....;-)) > I hope the moderators will eventually add their usually very > useful tips and reminders. Hey Kom, we're appreciating listening to you guys and there are others around far more qualified to add further 'tips and reminders' if needbe (which is unlikely after your comprehensive efforts;-) Now I know why we all missed you when you had your long vacation. Sarah p.s hope you can find a way of scanning yr colourful photo into the album too;-) 10842 From: Date: Thu Jan 17, 2002 3:09am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom Hi, Kom - Again, i just lost a lengthy reply to your post. Let me now try again much more briefly. This post of yours maj=kes me think about the *differences* among concepts. The concept of 'hardness', is mentally componded from multiple experiences, all much the same, of the cetasika of hardness, and no "external projection" is involved in the concept. But the concept of 'tree', for example, is mentally compounded of a varity of quite different experiences, mostly visual, but not solely visual, but most importantly, carrying the sense of an "external thing" which goes beyond the merely seen, the merely heard, the merely felt, etc as in the Bahiya Sutta. I think that it is in the external projecting that unreality lies. There is much more to n=be said, including some disclaimers, but I'd better mail this before I lose it. With metta, Howard In a message dated Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:03:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, Kom Tukovinit writes: > Dear Howard, > > I want to tell you what I thought were interesting stories. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 7:17 PM > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom > > > > > > Hi, Kom - > > > > As regards horses vs unicorns, I agree that > > *thinking* about one is not radically different > > from thinking about the other. However, > > *observing* a horse (which we do quite > > frequently) is quite different from observing a > > unicorn (which we never do, and never will). I > > consider it false to say that horses are > > nonexistent in an absolute sense. Horses are > > discerned, they are cognized, they are > > recognized. They are complex objects of > > consciousness, mentally compounded from the more > > basic ones which are called rupas. They are not > > nothing at all, whereas, for example, a core or > > self in anything is, indeed, nothing at all. > > > > I was thinking some more about horses and unicorns. I > personally have never ridden a horse, or touched a horse. I > have seen [seeing] a horse (for real and TV), heard > [hearing] a horse (for real and TV), and have smelled > [smelling] a horse (for real, still waiting for the TV that > also make scents.) I have seen [seeing] a unicorn (TV) and > heard [hearing] a unicorn (TV). From the actual realities > experienced, my input on the horse is only one more than the > unicorn. > > From thinking stand points, a unicorn is obviously not real. > However, had I not known that TV is full of unreal stuffs, I > might have mistaken a unicorn as being as real as a horse. > > There was a public TV show the other day showing the lives > of the African boys known as "the Lost Boys." The wandered > around surviving by themselves from one country to another > for a while, and then the US government decided to take them > as refugees. When the came over, after seeing Mr. Ed > [talking horse sit-com], they actually thought there were > horses that could talk. > > I was at a meditation retreat, and one of the instructors > showed us a filled water glass brimmed with ice, with all > the condensed water sticking to the outside of the glass. > He asked us, what do you see? "Cold glass of water with > ice" He then asked, is the glass cold? "Yes". It turned > out that the glass was a prop: there is no water, there is > no ice, there is no glass, and the glass was not remotely > cold. Seeing is different from touching/thinking, indeed. > > kom > > > > 10843 From: Date: Thu Jan 17, 2002 3:19am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom Note to Kom: This is the post I had "lost". I've retieved it, so I'm sending it on. (Actually, my shorter substitute post is probably just as good - or bad! ;-) Hi, Kom - This post of yours gives me an opportunity to jot down a few notions that have been "going through my head". I had been thinking about the fact that besides our having concepts of such things as 'a tree', we also have concepts of such things as 'hardness'. Now, what is the difference? I see it as follows: These are equally concepts, with each the result of a mental compounding of direct experiences. The thing is, the concept of 'hardness' is the concept of an *experience*, a compounding of various experiences all of the very same tactile sort, with no projection of an "external thing". The concept of 'a tree', however, is mentally compounded from experiences of widely differing types, including a wide variety of differing visual experiences plus possible tactile, olfactory, and even auditory experiences, and, most importantly, including the projection of an "external thing", something which goes beyond the merely seen, heard, touched, etc as in the Bahiya Sutta. It is in this projecting "external things", beyond and independent of experience, I think, that unreality lies. (One disclaimer though: We do "see tree s" - so long as we understand that to be a mental construct giving some insight into relations among elementary dhammas, and avoid pojection, there is no harm. Also, in our observing of people, for example, we make the inference that there truly are namarupic streams associated with those apparently external "beings". This inference certainly seems to be warranted.) With metta, Howard In a message dated Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:03:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, Kom Tukovinit writes: > Dear Howard, > > I want to tell you what I thought were interesting stories. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 7:17 PM > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom > > > > > > Hi, Kom - > > > > As regards horses vs unicorns, I agree that > > *thinking* about one is not radically different > > from thinking about the other. However, > > *observing* a horse (which we do quite > > frequently) is quite different from observing a > > unicorn (which we never do, and never will). I > > consider it false to say that horses are > > nonexistent in an absolute sense. Horses are > > discerned, they are cognized, they are > > recognized. They are complex objects of > > consciousness, mentally compounded from the more > > basic ones which are called rupas. They are not > > nothing at all, whereas, for example, a core or > > self in anything is, indeed, nothing at all. > > > > I was thinking some more about horses and unicorns. I > personally have never ridden a horse, or touched a horse. I > have seen [seeing] a horse (for real and TV), heard > [hearing] a horse (for real and TV), and have smelled > [smelling] a horse (for real, still waiting for the TV that > also make scents.) I have seen [seeing] a unicorn (TV) and > heard [hearing] a unicorn (TV). From the actual realities > experienced, my input on the horse is only one more than the > unicorn. > > From thinking stand points, a unicorn is obviously not real. > However, had I not known that TV is full of unreal stuffs, I > might have mistaken a unicorn as being as real as a horse. > > There was a public TV show the other day showing the lives > of the African boys known as "the Lost Boys." The wandered > around surviving by themselves from one country to another > for a while, and then the US government decided to take them > as refugees. When the came over, after seeing Mr. Ed > [talking horse sit-com], they actually thought there were > horses that could talk. > > I was at a meditation retreat, and one of the instructors > showed us a filled water glass brimmed with ice, with all > the condensed water sticking to the outside of the glass. > He asked us, what do you see? "Cold glass of water with > ice" He then asked, is the glass cold? "Yes". It turned > out that the glass was a prop: there is no water, there is > no ice, there is no glass, and the glass was not remotely > cold. Seeing is different from touching/thinking, indeed. > > kom > > > > 10844 From: Date: Thu Jan 17, 2002 3:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts/Kom Hi, Victor - In a message dated Thu, 17 Jan 2002 2:44:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Victor Yu" writes: > Hello Larry, > > I think people understand concept differently: in other words, people have > different concept about "concept." The word "concept" is usually defined in > dictionary as 1. a general idea derived or inferred from specific instances > or occurrences; 2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. > As I understand it, a concept is conditioned, formed/fabricated. Concept is > impermanent, is dukkha, is not self. > That is just my view on concept. ----------------------------------- Howard: Sounds good to me, Victor! :-) ----------------------------------- > > Regards, > Victor ================================== With metta, Howard > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 1:07 AM > Subject: [dsg] concepts/Kom > > > > Hi Kom, > > > > I understand there are concepts that point to realities and concepts > > that are errors. However, they both truely exist as concepts. A mirage, > > for example, is an illusion but it is a real phenomenon. Or is it? Is > > rupa the only reality? What about suffering, dukkha? Does rupa really > > suffer? Is suffering a reality? > 10845 From: cldwlkrray Date: Thu Jan 17, 2002 1:02pm Subject: Re: Help!!!! Ken: Thank you for your response. A few lines of clarification are necessary, perhaps. My request for help came not because of the discusion per se, but the technical "buzzwords" used that tend to bog the flow of thought down. The "rubber meets the road" comment i made referred not to any particular "schools" (i was not aware of any such) but to attitude of approach. Emphasis on doing, on practice, with discussion added to clarify confusion arising out of practice. Also, after some 25 years of practice, I do not now consider the middle way as hard to see. Hard to maintian in practice, yes! Deep bows in gratitude; Ray --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "khow14" wrote: > Hello Ray and Yulia > > Welcome from me to dsg. > > Ray wrote; > Please help. I am new to this group and I must admit that > all the technical terminologies are throwing me back a tad. > I've been with the Dharma since forever, but my emphasis has > been dharma where the rubber meets the road; practical, no-nonsense, > and samuraii-sword sharp. Am I missing something with all this > talk that seems intent on doctrinal discussion? > --------------------------- > Yes, I think you are; consider this bit of `doctrinal discussion' > between Lucy and Mike earlier today: > > Lucy:> Too true. There's also 'attachment to what I'd like > > to be' hidden there somewhere. > > Mike: I think so too--I think of this as a conventional form of > bhaavatanha, attachment to becoming (though I suspect this is > abhidhammically incorrect), in the form of 'becoming a good buddhist, > a better person etc. I also think of the desire to stop being who I > imagine I am as vibhaavatanha--attachment to annihilation--also > probably without foundation in abhidhamma. > ------------------------------------------------- > > Such lines of discussion bring us a little closer each time to an > appreciation of the Middle Way, the way taught by, and only by, the > Buddha. It is a very, very, very hard way to see. Try as we might, we > worldlings see only the non-middle ways (extremes), of eternity > belief and annihilation belief. > > The Middle Way is so hard for a worldling to see that the Buddha > considered for a moment that it might be pointless for him to even > try to teach it. With all due respect to those various "rubber meets > the road" schools of Buddhism, I would like suggest that what they > teach is not very hard to see at all. > > If we bear with the technical explanations for a while, we will surely > come to see that what we have taken for so long to be the Middle Way > is,in fact, only the two extremes -- albeit camouflaged by various > techniques and practices. Understanding this is, in itself, > priceless progress. It is one of the many ways in which dsg members > (including lurkers like myself), are profoundly grateful to those > good people who regularly share their "doctrinal" understanding with > us. > > Thanks for your honest questions, Yulia and Ray, I hope you will > become regular dsg contributors. > > Kind regards > Ken Howard 10846 From: Date: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Big question Hi Yulia, Ray and everyone; <<<<< I would like to ask you a question which bothers me for a while now. My father is Jewish and when we came here he wanted to become a "real" Jewish. But after we went to synagogue a few times, we instantly disliked it. Everything was explained. So people were kind of logically living. Rabbi was able to explain everything. For my Jewish father, who even is a math professor, it was somehow odd too (even he get used to logic in life :). So, I rejected the religion for too much logic and some other reasons as well. >>>>>>> There is a saying " when you hear hoofbeats in the street, think of horses, not zebras." Does this statement always be true and logical?? In the commonsense, daily life, routine day, it probably does. (I imply this for common sense or rubber meets the road as well). Sould we think much about it? To me, everyone has different accumulation, in general the statement above is pretty much true but we can say it in different language and context depends on whom you talk to and who is your audiences. It can be said in a term of probability, likelihood ratio, odds ratio or log of odds (let me KISS (Keep It Short and Simple), a lot of Math professors here ;) ), to convince some group of people. Some people need a lot of explanation or study, some just clicked with just a verse or two of teaching (Ven. Sariputta). Nina mentioned about a monk (Chulabhantaka!!), during the Buddha time, who cannot remember just one verse in 6-month period he was staying with his brother. His brother gave up on him and asked him to leave. The Buddha knew difference in ones accumulation, gave him a piece of cloth and he kept meditating and focusing on that piece of cloth until finally he saw the reality of truth (ariyasacca) while the cloth was getting soiled. My point is everyone is unique in the his/her background and accumulation. <<<<<<<< Now, today, I am very confused with Buddhism too. I read emails every day and I am lost in the logic behind it. It seems to me we are drown in explanations and "understanding" instead of living the experience of Buddha. May be this sounds rude, sorry if so. Does it really matter for what reason cow killed the guy? And does it matter if cow has it's own Kamma? How this applies to our life? I am picking on this topics just because this was recent. And I went to read the sutra about the Bahiya person, I felt when it was discussed here, something was missing. >>>>>>>>> For me, personally, there are a lot of interesting things going on around me. I cannot pursue every of my interest. I told my self, this thing is interesting, this information is valuable, this one is critical and this is vital. The same thing can have different meaning and value to different person. In my personal opinion is nobody knows everything and, in my work, knowing what I do not know is very vital. I like to read and get explanation but I am aware that I cannot understand everything I read. Something I do not understand it now, it does not mean I will not be able to understand it in the future. There is also something, if I try to pursue, can lead me to no end as well. This reminded me of Malunkayaputta sutta, you probably heard about it before, the Bhudda asked MLKP that if a guy shot by an arrow and keeps asking a lot of no end and irrelevant questions and pays no attention to the arrow which is struck in his chest here and now, he will die without getting the answer. How to apply this to our lives? I have no clear answer, but things, events and realities depend on a lot of factors and conditions. Stories in suttanta and Jataka have a lot of teaching hidden in it. I am too, got carried away by time, place, person and name in the suttanta but if we can really see a reality, here and now, we will be able to understand the story in suttanta better, I think. Nina and Jaran mentioned about how much one should study. Let me cut and paste it here again; I think it's a very good reminder. __________________________ Jaran: As A. Sujin always says, study what you can understand [its characteristics]. This does not mean one should be selective of what to study, but it reminds all of us to look back and ask ourselves "can I understand this? Do I really, truely understand this? Does it help me study realities appearing right now? Do the realities appearing right now agree with what I just learned?". And when one succeeds in answering these questions honestly (being a phu-trong), one will gain real benefit from studying dhamma. She often ends the conversation regarding this topic by saying 'and one should be a phu-trong when it comes to the purpose of studying dhamma'. My point is...study what you can understand. The more you learn, the more confused and worried you are, then you are probably doing something wrong (hopefully not from the begining!). _____________________________ Best wishes, Num PS. To Sarah and everyone : I will be quiet on dsg for a while. There are some trips and datelines coming up for me. I will mainly keep lurking in the mean time. 10847 From: Date: Thu Jan 17, 2002 11:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Big question In a message dated 1/17/02 5:48:34 PM Central Standard Time, srnsk@a... writes: > PS. To Sarah and everyone : I will be quiet on dsg for a while. There are > some trips and datelines coming up for me. I will mainly keep lurking in > the > mean time. > Oppssss, I meant to say deadlines, what's a slip of tongue!!! Hmmm, my wishful thinking, crossing a dateline :) Num 10848 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:31pm Subject: Attachment and Expectations Dear Friends, I received a question about the disappointment and distress we feel when those we respect treat others in ways that seem unskilful or even harsh. In particular. the writer wondered whether those who have studied the Buddhist Teachings should behave better and set a good example in this respect. This is a very useful question for me to consider and I think others may be able to give more helpful comments, but I’d like to say a few words first as I’ve just been reflecting on it. It seems to me that whenever we feel disappointment and distress at others’ behaviour, the problem is rooted in 'our' own attachments and expectations of these people. Whether they are Buddhists, family, close friends, colleagues or even society at large, we cling to a certain outcome, to certain ‘shoulds’ about how they will behave. So often we are lost in stories (all those concepts again) about how others are acting, what their motives are and how they could have behaved better. Usually there is no awareness of our own unskilful mental states at these times and no remembering that the world, the others, the stories, the fanatasies are really just moments of sights and sounds, thinking and attachment, memory and feelings. Again we take the people and the stories for being real and forget that the only problems that can truly be known in life relate to our own kilesa (defilements). We have ideas of how society could treat the poor, the dogs or the underprivileged better. We have ideas about how wise people or those who have studied Buddhism shoud behave with compassion, but we forget about the danger of our own attachments and expectations, our hopes and wishes, our ideas that personalities and tendencies are under control. This doesn’t mean we should have non-stop equanimity and detachment at all. If we begin to think like this it again shows the expectations once more, in this case of ourselves. It also doesn’t mean we cannot work to help or alleviate the suffering of others either. It just means, as Kom and Jaran have been pointing out recently, that the purpose of all our studies is to develop understanding of the truths at this moment within our limits. Of course if we ourselves are considering the Teachings and developing more wisdom, our own behaviour will be considered and known more carefully and as awareness grows, so will the honesty to recognise more and more the unsavoury behaviour and mental states that we were happy to ignore before. When we are concerned about the others in this regard, however, we have yet another opportunity to know more about our own thinking and expectations; more opportunities to learn how very far we have to go on the path of detachment and understanding. Usually we don’t wish to face up to the truth, but are we brave enough to see that it’s not the others that hurt us, but our own kilesa(defilements) that cause all the trouble in the world? I find I cannot reflect on the Piya Sutta (Dear) and Piyajatika Sutta (From One Who is Dear) enough: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn03-004.html http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/087-piyajatika-e2.htm Sarah ====================================================== 10849 From: Date: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:36pm Subject: Re: concepts/Kom Hi Kom, I'm still not really getting this but what you said about satipatthana and the four noble truths did change my mind about mindfulness of mind objects. My question has to do with this. You wrote: >Panna develops by directly seeing that all conditioned realities are impermanent, dukkha, and non-self. These are all characteristics of realities. Concepts has no such characteristics. You cannot develop the (direct) wisdom of impermanence by thinking about impermanence! I agree. But can you take vitakka, concept, as an object of satipatthana? Many concepts don't lend themselves to meditation but simply noting "breathing in", for example, or noting anything, is a concept. Also it is possible to observe and recognize discursive thought, vicara, and see that it is not self. In other words, the distinction I am making is between being caught-up in a thought, and, on the other hand, observing it from outside, so to speak. I think my confusion is that I still don't understand the nama rupa distinction. In looking at an object without any conceptual overlay it would be similar to looking at unidentified shapes and colors and maybe depth, but the looking aspect would not be included in the bare rupa object eventhough shape and color are visual sensations. Somehow we are making a distinction between shape and color of the object and shape and color of the visual sensations. I'm calling visual sensations eye consciousness. Is this right??? Also, would you answer a question related to a side matter? Why is dukkha included with anicca and anatta? Things aren't inherently dukkha are they? Seems like dukkha is a reaction, a disappointment in attempting to grasp what doesn't exist, permanence and self. Thanks for all your help, apologies for a slightly disjointed email; I've had to re-work it several times. Larry 10850 From: Date: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:51pm Subject: concepts/Victor Hello Victor, I agree. I like to think of concepts as formations to emphasize the movement aspect and it allows for different kinds of cognitions as in visual, auditory etc. "Visual concept" seems feasible. Larry ------------------- >Victor wrote: Hello Larry, I think people understand concept differently: in other words, people have different concept about "concept." The word "concept" is usually defined in dictionary as 1. a general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences; 2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. As I understand it, a concept is conditioned, formed/fabricated. Concept is impermanent, is dukkha, is not self. That is just my view on concept. Regards, Victor 10851 From: m. nease Date: Fri Jan 18, 2002 0:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Attachment and Expectations Hi Sarah, --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I received a question about the disappointment and > distress we feel when > those we respect treat others in ways that seem > unskilful or even harsh. > In particular. The writer wondered whether those who > have studied the > Buddhist Teachings should behave better and set a > good example in this > respect. This reminded me of the Lokavipatti Sutta. This citation is probably too long, but I thought it seemed pertinent: "For an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person there arise gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. For a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones there also arise gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. So what difference, what distinction, what distinguishing factor is there between the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones and the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person?" The Blessed One said, "Gain arises for an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person. He does not reflect, 'Gain has arisen for me. It is inconstant, stressful, & subject to change.' He does not discern it as it actually is. "Loss arises... Status arises... Disgrace arises... Censure arises... Praise arises... Pleasure arises... "Pain arises. He does not reflect, 'Pain has arisen for me. It is inconstant, stressful, & subject to change.' He does not discern it as it actually is. "His mind remains consumed with the gain. His mind remains consumed with the loss... with the status... the disgrace... the censure... the praise... the pleasure. His mind remains consumed with the pain. "He welcomes the arisen gain and rebels against the arisen loss. He welcomes the arisen status and rebels against the arisen disgrace. He welcomes the arisen praise and rebels against the arisen censure. He welcomes the arisen pleasure and rebels against the arisen pain. As he is thus engaged in welcoming & rebelling, he is not released from birth, aging, or death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, or despairs. He is not released, I tell you, from suffering & stress. "Now, gain arises for a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones. He reflects, 'Gain has arisen for me. It is inconstant, stressful, & subject to change.' He discerns it as it actually is. "Loss arises... Status arises... Disgrace arises... Censure arises... Praise arises... Pleasure arises... "Pain arises. He reflects, 'Pain has arisen for me. It is inconstant, stressful, & subject to change.' He discerns it as it actually is. "His mind does not remain consumed with the gain. His mind does not remain consumed with the loss... with the status... the disgrace... the censure... the praise... the pleasure. His mind does not remain consumed with the pain. "He does not welcome the arisen gain, or rebel against the arisen loss. He does not welcome the arisen status, or rebel against the arisen disgrace. He does not welcome the arisen praise, or rebel against the arisen censure. He does not welcome the arisen pleasure, or rebel against the arisen pain. As he thus abandons welcoming & rebelling, he is released from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is released, I tell you, from suffering & stress. "This is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor between the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones and the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person." Gain/loss, status/disgrace, censure/praise, pleasure/pain: these conditions among human beings are inconstant, impermanent, subject to change. Knowing this, the wise person, mindful, ponders these changing conditions. Desirable things don't charm the mind, undesirable ones bring no resistance. His welcoming & rebelling are scattered, gone to their end, do not exist. Knowing the dustless, sorrowless state, he discerns rightly, has gone, beyond becoming, to the Further Shore. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an08-006.html Of course the exemplar at the end is ariyan, so this state is a pipe-dream as far as I'm concerned. Pleasant one though. mike 10852 From: khow14 Date: Fri Jan 18, 2002 4:39am Subject: Re: Help!!!! Hello again Ray, You wrote: Thank you for your response. A few lines of clarification are necessary, perhaps. My request for help came not because of the discusion per se, but the technical "buzzwords" used that tend to bog the flow of thought down. ----------------------------------------- KH: They do, I agree. Some people are so familiar with the meaning of those terms that they use them quite naturally in conversation. Thankfully, they usually observe the convention of putting the plain English meaning alongside the technical terms. ---------------------------------- Ray: The "rubber meets the road" comment i made referred not to any particular "schools" (i was not aware of any such) . . ----------------------------------- KH: Well said, point taken. --------------------------------- Ray: . . but to attitude of approach. ----------------------------- KH: I think you will find that the attitude of approach that is *generally* favoured here is profoundly different from that which is found in modern, popular forms of Buddhism. The group's aim is to ascertain and adopt the approach contained in the Buddhadhamma as preserved in the Pali Canon. The original Theravadin approach is consistent, not only with the Sutta Pitaka and the Vinaya Pitaka, but also with the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the ancient commantaries and sub- commentaries. (I must stress that I am out of my depth here and am just restating what I am learning from others.) --------------------------- Ray: Emphasis on doing, on practice, with discussion added to clarify confusion arising out of practice. Also, after some 25 years of practice, I do not now consider the middle way as hard to see. Hard to maintian in practice, yes! ----------------------------- KH: If I could speak for dsg members in general, I would say that doing and practice are emphasised here too but not in the conventional sense of those words. In the conventional sense, there is a being who can do and practice whereas, in the ultimate sense, in the sense of the Middle Way,there are only mental phenomena (nama) and physical phenomena (rupa)arising and falling away. If the presently arising phenomena include those namas known as right understanding, right thought, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration, then we can say there is right practice. Such phenomena arise only when the conditions for their arising are present. Their arising is conditioned only by other namas and rupas, not by concepts. (I hope I have expressed that correctly.) There are several knowledgeable members of dsg who advocate formal practices for bringing about right mindfulness (as, I gather, do you). However, they do encounter a lot of awkward questions as to how such an outcome could be possible, bearing in mind that the practices and the beings who practice them are concepts. Don't be put off by my ham-fisted explanations, Ray -- there are people here far more qualified to discuss approaches and practices with you. But as Sarah has said, thanks for luring me out of "lurk mode," I do tend to leave everything to the experts. Kind regards Ken H 10853 From: Sarah Date: Fri Jan 18, 2002 4:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Attachment and Expectations Hi Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > > This reminded me of the Lokavipatti Sutta. This > citation is probably too long, but I thought it seemed > pertinent: > > "For an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person there > arise gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, > pleasure, & pain. For a well-instructed disciple of > the noble ones there also arise gain, loss, status, > disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. So what > difference, what distinction, what distinguishing > factor is there between the well-instructed disciple > of the noble ones and the uninstructed run-of-the-mill > person?" Thanks Mike, very appropriate and also good to reflect on just how 'run-of-the-mill' we all are;-) Sarah p.s. 'run-of-the-mill' doesn't seem so commonly used these days. For those more familiar with Pali or other languages than these quirky English phrases, it means 'very ordinary' . 10854 From: cldwlkrray Date: Fri Jan 18, 2002 9:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Help!!!! Sarah... Hi! In response to your considerate contribution to my continued clarity: Dharma meets the road means practical dharma instruction culled from experience (empirical dharma, so to speak), free of the technical pali/sanskrit/whatever terms. Just the Dharma, only the Dharma with complete clarity of focus. Many times one word or phrase cuts through the fog of illusion to reveal the Crystal Lake of Mind- Clarity. I know that, in the past, I have fallen into the stream-of- words trap, using what in Christian circles is called theological symantics to explain even the most direct qustion. I have worked with conviction to clear away that underbrush to find the Gem hidden beneath. To cut through the fog of illusion requires a "samuraii- sharp" sword of illumination. Meta; Ray --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Dear Ray, > > I'd like to explore your points just a little further as I think they are > very relevant and I know you've considered the Teachings carefully: > > --- cldwlkrray wrote: > > > > Please help. I am new to this group and I must admit that > > all the technical terminologies are throwing me back a tad. > > I've been with the Dharma since forever, but my emphasis has > > been dharma where the rubber meets the road; practical, no- nonsense, > > and samuraii-sword sharp. > > The question, perhaps, is what does it mean when we say the Dhamma/Dharma > is rubber meets the road and so on. We find that there are many different > ideas here on just what this is and I think we'd all be glad to hear yours > with a little more detail. > > Am I missing something with all this > > talk that seems intent on doctrinal discussion? > > One thing I've really learnt after 2yrs on dsg is that different people > need to hear and consider different aspects. There are many, many topics > which have been discussed at length which I had never considered or been > inclined to consider before. We all have different `blocks' to > understanding and it can be a useful test of patience for me to really try > and understand where others are `coming from' and why a particular phrase, > such as `luminous' for one current example, may hold such signifcance. I > appreciate it must be particularly confusing when one first joins (or > listens in as a lurker) and would also suggest being somewhat > discriminative as to what you read initially. > > Seems to remind me of > > the theological discussions that used to transpire within the > > Christian organizations I once belonged to. > > I think it would be very valid and respectful (rather than the reverse) to > reply to any message or topic and ask for clarifcation of the practical > relevance. I sometimes play a word game with my students in which anyone > has the right to say `challenge!' whenever they think another is bluffing. > so please feel free to challenge any posts (preferably more politely than > my students sometimes do;-) > > > I mean no disrespect, so please take this question in the spirit of > > humble query in which it is formulated. > > Not at all, we'd all much rather you ask these questions on list to give > us a chance to respond. > > Ray, please elaborate further on "dharma where the rubber meets the road; > practical, no-nonsense,and samuraii-sword sharp". > > Sarah > > p.s Ken H...just seen yr response....always great to hear from you and > congratulations Ray for encouraging him out of `lurk-mode'....hope you ask > him more questions!!! > ====================================================== > > 10855 From: cldwlkrray Date: Fri Jan 18, 2002 9:20am Subject: Re: Help!!!! Greetings again, Ken: I am not put off by any insight you offer. There are different styles of speech and different modes of hearing. I am fully aware of the seemingly conflicting issues of there being a separate identity who engages in practice and the ultimate realization that there is behind the illusion no "one" who practices and no "practice" to engage in. I see this, at my present state of evolution, as a difference in perspective. As long as we are engaged in Dharma-battle, we see things in the former light; once we gain the stream, we see thing in the latter. Hmmm.....have I contributed further to the "fog"? Deep bows; Ray --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "khow14" wrote: > Hello again Ray, > > You wrote: > Thank you for your response. A few lines of clarification are > necessary, perhaps. My request for help came not because of the > discusion per se, but the technical "buzzwords" used that tend to bog > the flow of thought down. > ----------------------------------------- > KH: They do, I agree. Some people are so familiar with the meaning > of those terms that they use them quite naturally in conversation. > Thankfully, they usually observe the convention of putting the plain > English meaning alongside the technical terms. > ---------------------------------- > Ray: The "rubber meets the road" comment i made referred not to any > particular "schools" (i was not aware of any such) . . > ----------------------------------- > KH: Well said, point taken. > --------------------------------- > Ray: . . but to attitude of approach. > ----------------------------- > KH: I think you will find that the attitude of approach that is > *generally* favoured here is profoundly different from that which is > found in modern, popular forms of Buddhism. The group's aim is to > ascertain and adopt the approach contained in the Buddhadhamma as > preserved in the Pali Canon. The original Theravadin approach is > consistent, not only with the Sutta Pitaka and the Vinaya Pitaka, but > also with the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the ancient commantaries and sub- > commentaries. (I must stress that I am out of my depth here and am > just restating what I am learning from others.) > --------------------------- > Ray: Emphasis on doing, on practice, with discussion added to clarify > confusion arising out of practice. Also, after some 25 years of > practice, I do not now consider the middle way as hard to see. Hard > to maintian in practice, yes! > ----------------------------- > > KH: If I could speak for dsg members in general, I would say that > doing and practice are emphasised here too but not in the > conventional sense of those words. In the conventional sense, there > is a being who can do and practice whereas, in the ultimate sense, in > the sense of the Middle Way,there are only mental phenomena (nama) > and physical phenomena (rupa)arising and falling away. If the > presently arising phenomena include those namas known as right > understanding, right thought, right effort, right mindfulness and > right concentration, then we can say there is right practice. > > Such phenomena arise only when the conditions for their arising are > present. Their arising is conditioned only by other namas and rupas, > not by concepts. (I hope I have expressed that correctly.) > > There are several knowledgeable members of dsg who advocate formal > practices for bringing about right mindfulness (as, I gather, do you). > However, they do encounter a lot of awkward questions as to how such > an outcome could be possible, bearing in mind that the practices and > the beings who practice them are concepts. > > Don't be put off by my ham-fisted explanations, Ray -- there are > people here far more qualified to discuss approaches and practices > with you. But as Sarah has said, thanks for luring me out of "lurk > mode," I do tend to leave everything to the experts. > > Kind regards > Ken H 10856 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 18, 2002 10:07am Subject: three rounds and a glimpse of nibbana Dear Num, Jon, Sarah, Jaran and others, It is difficult to understand all 12 factors , and in particular how the round of sacca ~naa.na, knowledge of the truth, and kicca ~naa,na, knowledge of the task relate to nibbana when one has not attained enlightenment. I tried to think these matters over and would appreciate input from others. These are no statements, "just my own thoughts". Sacca ñåna, knowledge of the truth, is not any level of intellectual understanding. It is based on listening again and again and on deep consideration of what one heard. One understands that paramattha dhammas, nama and rupa appearing now have to be known and that these are different from concepts, a ³whole² of a person, of a thing, or of the body. One begins to understand that nothing is left of what one takes for a whole that lasts. When seeing appears there cannot be hearing at the same time, seeing must have fallen away when hearing appears. Thus, seeing arises just for a moment and then it is gone, and it is the same with hearing or thinking. This does not mean that paññå has realized realities as impermanent and dukkha. But one begins to understand that there are only different namas and rupas appearing one at a time, and that they do not last, that they are impermanent and thus dukkha. Understanding the cause of dukkha: this is craving. Craving or clinging in daily life should be understood. We heard in India how deeply the clinging to self has been accumulated and we can consider this more. We cling to satipatthana and this can induce wrong practice, and we should learn at what moment this occurs, the test is always at this moment. When we have firm understanding of what the right Path is, we do not deviate anymore from it. Not deviating from the path is sacca ñåna, firm understanding of the truth. We also understand that t of all detachment from the self. The goal: when we consider that nibbåna is the end of craving and of all defilements, we can have already some understanding of this goal. When the Buddha was the Bodhisatta Sumedha, he saw: ³Even as evil exists, loveliness exists too, so as birth exists, the unborn also is to be desired. Even as a man fallen into filth, though seeing a brimming pool does not seek that pool, that is not a defect in the pool. So, though the pool of the Undying exists for the washing away the stains of the defilements, if one does not seek that pool, the defect is not in the pool of the Undying.² (Chronicle of the Buddhas IIA, Account of Sumedha) Thus, he understood that there must also be an end to rebirth and an end to defilements. We may begin to see more the disadvantage of akusala, and come to understand that nibbana is the end of all defilements, although we do not know this through direct experience. As to the task, kicca ñåna: All one came to understand on the level of intellectual understanding must become clearer through the development of satipatthana. One can really see that the truth of nama and rupa can be verified at this very moment. It means a deeper understanding of dukkha, its cause, its ceasing and the way leading to its ceasing. Sacca naa.na and kicca ~naa.na develop together so that one becomes more firmly established on the right Path. At the first stage of insight the difference between nama and rupa is realized, but not yet their arising and falling away. One sees defilements as elements, one begins to see them as nåma, non-self. One begins to realize the arising and falling away of realities at the third stage of insight kmowledge, and more fully at the first stage of maha-vipassana ~naa.na. Then there will be more understanding of impermanence and dukkha, but this is not yet completed. There is already a beginning of the fruit of the development, a beginning of kata-~naa.na, but the task has not been fully accomplished, only partly. According to the commentary, as mentioned, it is at enlightenment that there is kata ~naa.na, but personally I think that it is acceptable that there first be some degree of accomplishment of the task before the attainment of enlightenment, namely at the stages of insight knowledge, before the task is more fully accomplished. If there is no beginning how can there be full accomplishment? The development of vipassana goes together with detachment, it leads to detachment. In the course of the stages of vipassana~naa.na there is more detachment from conditioned realities and a turning towards the unconditioned reality, nibbåna. There is a growing understanding of what the ceasing of dukkha, nibbana, means. At enlightenment of the stage of the sotapanna the four noble Truths are penetrated, but the task is only fully completed at the attainment of arahatship. Nina. 10860 From: Date: Fri Jan 18, 2002 7:08am Subject: The "Functional Reality" of Conventional Objects Hi, all - This is just a few thoughts related the recent discussions among Kom, Larry, and myself: I have been basically maintaining that it is an overstatement to view concepts as totally lacking in reality. As I see it, conventional objects are instances of grounded concepts, and their unreality lies in the sense of their being "out there"; i.e., their being self-existing mind-independent "things", rather than mentally created compounds of so-called paramattha dhammas and relations among them. However, there are senses in which conventional objects have some "reality". One of these is the "functional reality" of having effects in terms of paramattha dhammas. Just as an example, the falling of a tree on one's leg will result in pain. There is that conditionality. With metta, Howard 10861 From: m. nease Date: Fri Jan 18, 2002 3:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Help!!!! Ray, Excellent--thanks. mike --- khow14 wrote: > Hello again Ray, > > You wrote: > Thank you for your response. A few lines of > clarification are > necessary, perhaps. My request for help came not > because of the > discusion per se, but the technical "buzzwords" used > that tend to bog > the flow of thought down. > ----------------------------------------- > KH: They do, I agree. Some people are so familiar > with the meaning > of those terms that they use them quite naturally in > conversation. > Thankfully, they usually observe the convention of > putting the plain > English meaning alongside the technical terms. > ---------------------------------- > Ray: The "rubber meets the road" comment i made > referred not to any > particular "schools" (i was not aware of any such) . > . > ----------------------------------- > KH: Well said, point taken. > --------------------------------- > Ray: . . but to attitude of approach. > ----------------------------- > KH: I think you will find that the attitude of > approach that is > *generally* favoured here is profoundly different > from that which is > found in modern, popular forms of Buddhism. The > group's aim is to > ascertain and adopt the approach contained in the > Buddhadhamma as > preserved in the Pali Canon. The original > Theravadin approach is > consistent, not only with the Sutta Pitaka and the > Vinaya Pitaka, but > also with the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the ancient > commantaries and sub- > commentaries. (I must stress that I am out of my > depth here and am > just restating what I am learning from others.) > --------------------------- > Ray: Emphasis on doing, on practice, with > discussion added to clarify > confusion arising out of practice. Also, after some > 25 years of > practice, I do not now consider the middle way as > hard to see. Hard > to maintian in practice, yes! > ----------------------------- > > KH: If I could speak for dsg members in general, I > would say that > doing and practice are emphasised here too but not > in the > conventional sense of those words. In the > conventional sense, there > is a being who can do and practice whereas, in the > ultimate sense, in > the sense of the Middle Way,there are only mental > phenomena (nama) > and physical phenomena (rupa)arising and falling > away. If the > presently arising phenomena include those namas > known as right > understanding, right thought, right effort, right > mindfulness and > right concentration, then we can say there is right > practice. > > Such phenomena arise only when the conditions for > their arising are > present. Their arising is conditioned only by other > namas and rupas, > not by concepts. (I hope I have expressed that > correctly.) > > There are several knowledgeable members of dsg who > advocate formal > practices for bringing about right mindfulness (as, > I gather, do you). > However, they do encounter a lot of awkward > questions as to how such > an outcome could be possible, bearing in mind that > the practices and > the beings who practice them are concepts. > > Don't be put off by my ham-fisted explanations, Ray > -- there are > people here far more qualified to discuss approaches > and practices > with you. But as Sarah has said, thanks for luring > me out of "lurk > mode," I do tend to leave everything to the experts. > > Kind regards > Ken H > > > > > > 10862 From: m. nease Date: Fri Jan 18, 2002 3:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Attachment and Expectations Hi Sarah, --- Sarah wrote: > > "For an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person there > > arise gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, > praise, > > pleasure, & pain. For a well-instructed disciple > of > > the noble ones there also arise gain, loss, > status, > > disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. So > what > > difference, what distinction, what distinguishing > > factor is there between the well-instructed > disciple > > of the noble ones and the uninstructed > run-of-the-mill > > person?" > > > Thanks Mike, very appropriate and also good to > reflect on just how > 'run-of-the-mill' we all are;-) I do think it's a good idea to bear in mind the difference between those who have and haven't achieved ariyan states. I would make a further distinction, though, between those who have heard and considered the Dhamma (instructed) and those who haven't. (uninstructed). Worldly concerns look somewhat different, I think, even to someone with only a shallow, conceptual knowledge of the Dhammavinaya (at the level of pariyatti). p.s. Hope my own 'harshness' wasn't the occasion for your original post! mike 10863 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 18, 2002 5:38pm Subject: Re: Big question (Cows) Dear Yulia, and All, Yulia - I've only just seen your post, or I would have replied sooner. Yulia says: "It seems to me we are drown in explanations and "understanding" instead of living the experience of Buddha. May be this sounds rude, sorry if so. Does it really matter for what reason cow killed the guy? And does it matter if cow has it's own Kamma? How this applies to our life?" Good question, Yulia, not rude at all. Sometimes it is hard to understand what has caused a question to be asked, but it is always something within the mind or life of the questioner. Mostly questions are of importance only to the one asking... And sometimes the formulating of the question is more important than any answer they may receive...... As the initiator of 'The Cow Question' that you mention in your post - let me attempt to clarify how it came about, and how things are for me.... Why the Cow Question originated was because of my wondering yet again, 'Why do people who should know better, treat each other so cruelly?''Why do terrible things happen?' 'Who/what decides?' 'How can I and my loved ones be safe and protected?' 'Why do some people/societies seem to get away with monstrous crimes?' 'How can they behave in that way?' 'If that can happen to them, can it happen to me?' 'Where's the fairness?' 'Who's running this system anyway?' 'Who's responsible?' and 'I don't want it to be this way, at least, for me'.... I really have had Anatta, Anicca, Dukkha, Kamma, and Dependent Origination explained to me many times, and always think I am coming to some understanding of it all. But when faced with needlessly cruel actions being done by groups to an individual, or to powerless children, to mentally ill people who cannot think coherently, or animals whose intelligence is less than ours .....the questions rise again. I am able to easily accept the application of laws like kamma to adult humans who are responsible for/choose their own behaviour. But when evil things happen to/or are done by, those beings not of sound mind, or who are children, or who are animals in this birth - it shakes my understanding of fairness...... I have to ask again, phrasing the question as one on a Sutta that has the elements within it of what I am concerned about. So, even if it is not clearly stated in a post, most questions come out of life's experiences and attempts to understand and apply the Buddha's teachings to those experiences. We can only live our own experience, the Buddha cannot give us His. And, so I have come to believe, study and intellectual understanding must go hand in hand with practice and experience. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Yulia Klimov" wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I would like to ask you a question which bothers me for a while now. > My father is Jewish and when we came here he wanted to become a "real" > Jewish. But after we went to synagogue a few times, we instantly disliked > it. Everything was explained. So people were kind of logically living. Rabbi > was able to explain everything. For my Jewish father, who even is a math > professor, it was somehow odd too (even he get used to logic in life :). So, > I rejected the religion for too much logic and some other reasons as well. > Now, today, I am very confused with Buddhism too. I read emails every day > and I am lost in the logic behind it. It seems to me we are drown in > explanations and "understanding" instead of living the experience of Buddha. > May be this sounds rude, sorry if so. Does it really matter for what reason > cow killed the guy? And does it matter if cow has it's own Kamma? How this > applies to our life? I am picking on this topics just because this was > recent. And I went to read the sutra about the Bahiya person, I felt when it > was discussed here, something was missing. > Please, help me out. All of you are so great, very helpful and > knowledgeable, you must know is the logical understanding brings us > anywhere? > > Thank you for your time, > Love, > Yulia 10864 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Fri Jan 18, 2002 6:04pm Subject: Re: Big question (Cows) --Dear Christine, I think you already know the answers to your questions - at least intellectually- so this is just some reinforcement.- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > my wondering yet > again, 'Why do people who should know better, treat each other so > cruelly?''Why do terrible things happen?' 'Who/what decides?' 'How > can I and my loved ones be safe and protected?' 'Why do some > people/societies seem to get away with monstrous crimes?' 'How can > they behave in that way?' 'If that can happen to them, can it happen > to me?' 'Where's the fairness?' 'Who's running this system > anyway?' 'Who's responsible?' and 'I don't want it to be this way, at > least, for me'....I really have had Anatta, Anicca, Dukkha, Kamma, and Dependent > Origination explained to me many times, and always think I am coming > to some understanding of it all. But when faced with needlessly > cruel actions being done by groups to an individual, or to powerless > children, to mentally ill people who cannot think coherently, or > animals whose intelligence is less than ours .....the questions rise > again. I am able to easily accept the application of laws like kamma > to adult humans who are responsible for/choose their own behaviour. > But when evil things happen to/or are done by, those beings not of > sound mind, or who are children, or who are animals in this birth - > it shakes my understanding of fairness...... I have to ask again, > phrasing the question as one on a Sutta ________________ Indeed kamma is the only explanation that can explain these matters. If one falls back on the idea of a God who made such things happen then he is a cold and capricious God who would birth some people in riches while others are deadly poor or deformed from birth. Science thinks it has found answers by Darwinism but that cannot explain why you are human now - why arent you a cow. They will say it was just chance , and that explains nothing. Truly, I think it is wonderful to know that the world is so just. That all moments of javana citta have the potential to bring result. Of course sometimes we forget this, or mistake kusala for akusala, or because of accumulations act badly anyway, but the main effect of seeing this more is that actions and thoughts must become purer. Then we know, for instance, that even when we try to appear good to others, or even ourseleves for that matter, that this is rooted in mana, so we become that little bit more natural in behaviour. When we see someone doing wrong, such as Osama bin laden, we could not hate him because we believe that in the future he will suffer results for his deeds. I think we cannot control the world at all, we can only learn about it. That way when we read the newspaper and hear bad things it becomes a confirmation of the Dhamma- cause and result. It is important to learn more about the 4 jatis -vipaka, (result) kiriya, akusala and kusala as this makes it clearer that result is only those brief moments of tasting, tasting, seeing, hearing, smelling - and then there is kusala or akusala, and these are different jatis. best wishes robert 10865 From: Sarah Date: Fri Jan 18, 2002 8:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Attachment and Expectations Hi Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > > I do think it's a good idea to bear in mind the > difference between those who have and haven't achieved > ariyan states. I would make a further distinction, > though, between those who have heard and considered > the Dhamma (instructed) and those who haven't. > (uninstructed). Worldly concerns look somewhat > different, I think, even to someone with only a > shallow, conceptual knowledge of the Dhammavinaya (at > the level of pariyatti). Good points and I did think of the latter one after referring to how 'run-of-the-mill' we all are. Yes, even just a little wise instruction can make a very big difference in this regard, at least at moments of wise reflection/awareness. > > p.s. Hope my own 'harshness' wasn't the occasion for > your original post! Now what harshness is this Mike? Sounds like a guilty conscience, but I assure you that the question raised was the only 'occasion' I knew of for my original post;-) ============================================= 10866 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 18, 2002 9:21pm Subject: Re: Big question (Cows) Dear Robert, Yes, I have often read the answers to these questions, but if I really 'knew' them and 'understood' them, then surely they wouldn't come back to plague me so regularly..... I agree that Kamma is the way I have been taught it is. Kamma could also be seen to be 'cold and capricious'.....result does not immediately follow action. The Buddhist explanation is that there must be a cause, or many causes, for a particular result, perhaps looping back through aeons, ..... this is not something one can prove any more than Christians can prove the Apostle's Creed. Is a relentless, but unchartable, 'natural law' a 'better' explanation than a 'capricious God'? (and, indeed, Christians seems to operate on a more restricted form of action/result (within one life) - in that the world was 'created' as perfect, but the actions (free-will) of humanity has polluted it and themselves). 'Capricious' seems to acknowledge that no clear cause/result connection can be seen in most events The argument could be put that in buddhism there seems to be an element of 'capriciousness' in the unpredictableness of just what seeds germinate and in which life. One explanation could seem just as valid as the other to the uncommitted. Possibly the term 'accumulations' could also be seen as an excuse for unskilfull behaviour. Rather than the Theist saying 'the devil tempted me do it', substitute the Buddhist saying 'my accumulations inclined me towards it'....... Indeed, there is no point in hating anyone...... the most hurt and harm done in this world isn't by dramatic powerful players on the world stage like Osama bin Laden. but by the very ordinary everyday insensitivity, and indifference of those who regard themselves as 'good', rationalising their actions as having justification (perhaps for the greater good), who act as individuals alone, or in concert with others. I find that most people don't 'hate', they are 'hurt'. 'The trick would be to learn how not to be hurt by others.... Thanks for the mention of the four jatis. I am starting to read 'Buddhism in Daily Life' and will then go onto 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life'. So with a little patience, all will be made clear. :-) and I see that ADL has a chapter on The function of Javana. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > --Dear Christine, > I think you already know the answers to your questions - at least > intellectually- so this is just some reinforcement.- In > dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > my wondering yet > > again, 'Why do people who should know better, treat each other so > > cruelly?''Why do terrible things happen?' 'Who/what decides?' 'How > > can I and my loved ones be safe and protected?' 'Why do some > > people/societies seem to get away with monstrous crimes?' 'How can > > they behave in that way?' 'If that can happen to them, can it > happen > > to me?' 'Where's the fairness?' 'Who's running this system > > anyway?' 'Who's responsible?' and 'I don't want it to be this way, > at > > least, for me'....I really have had Anatta, Anicca, Dukkha, Kamma, > and Dependent > > Origination explained to me many times, and always think I am > coming > > to some understanding of it all. But when faced with needlessly > > cruel actions being done by groups to an individual, or to > powerless > > children, to mentally ill people who cannot think coherently, or > > animals whose intelligence is less than ours .....the questions > rise > > again. I am able to easily accept the application of laws like > kamma > > to adult humans who are responsible for/choose their own behaviour. > > But when evil things happen to/or are done by, those beings not of > > sound mind, or who are children, or who are animals in this birth - > > it shakes my understanding of fairness...... I have to ask again, > > phrasing the question as one on a Sutta > ________________ > Indeed kamma is the only explanation that can explain these matters. > If one falls back on the idea of a God who made such things happen > then he is a cold and capricious God who would birth some people in > riches while others are deadly poor or deformed from birth. > Science thinks it has found answers by Darwinism but that cannot > explain why you are human now - why arent you a cow. They will say it > was just chance , and that explains nothing. > Truly, I think it is wonderful to know that the world is so just. > That all moments of javana citta have the potential to bring result. > Of course sometimes we forget this, or mistake kusala for akusala, or > because of accumulations act badly anyway, but the main effect of > seeing this more is that actions and thoughts must become purer. Then > we know, for instance, that even when we try to appear good to > others, or even ourseleves for that matter, that this is rooted in > mana, so we become that little bit more natural in behaviour. When we > see someone doing wrong, such as Osama bin laden, we could not hate > him because we believe that in the future he will suffer results for > his deeds. > I think we cannot control the world at all, we can only learn about > it. That way when we read the newspaper and hear bad things it > becomes a confirmation of the Dhamma- cause and result. > It is important to learn more about the 4 jatis -vipaka, (result) > kiriya, akusala and kusala as this makes it clearer that result is > only those brief moments of tasting, tasting, seeing, hearing, > smelling - and then there is kusala or akusala, and these are > different jatis. > best wishes > robert 10867 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sat Jan 19, 2002 0:15am Subject: Re: Big question (Cows) ---Dear Christine,comments interspersed: In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > Yes, I have often read the answers to these questions, but if I > really 'knew' them and 'understood' them, then surely they wouldn't > come back to plague me so regularly..... ___ True. ____ > I agree that Kamma is the way I have been taught it is. Kamma could > also be seen to be 'cold and capricious'.....result does not > immediately follow action. The Buddhist explanation is that there > must be a cause, or many causes, for a particular result, perhaps > looping back through aeons, ..... this is not something one can > prove any more than Christians can prove the Apostle's Creed. _______ I think we are not trying to prove something or anything but rather we are trying to understand what is and what is not. There is a difference. According to the texts one can go beyond any doubt about kamma and its results -see the Visuddhimagga, for instance, where at the third stage of vipassana insight wisdom sees clearly that conditions bring results and is sure that it was this way in the past and was this way in the future. How is that possible? Well they say the more that it becomes clear that the different jatis are different -that vipaka is different from akusala or kusala - then this helps to see more. And too what is it that insight sees when it sees the characteristics of dhammas? It sees also their functions and so there must be more understanding of say lobha and how it has so much power. It is very different from the moments of seeing or hearing that are vipaka- they appear as barren of that sort of power. _____ Is a > relentless, but unchartable, 'natural law' a 'better' explanation > than a 'capricious God'? (and, indeed, Christians seems to operate on > a more restricted form of action/result (within one life) - in that > the world was 'created' as perfect, but the actions (free-will) of > humanity has polluted it and themselves). 'Capricious' seems to > acknowledge that no clear cause/result connection can be seen in most > events The argument could be put that in buddhism there seems to be > an element of 'capriciousness' in the unpredictableness of just what > seeds germinate and in which life. One explanation could seem just > as valid as the other to the uncommitted. > Possibly the term 'accumulations' could also be seen as an excuse > for unskilfull behaviour. Rather than the Theist saying 'the devil > tempted me do it', substitute the Buddhist saying 'my accumulations > inclined me towards it'....... ______ That is true, and the same could be said of saying that all things are anatta. But that is just saying it, not understanding it. And too what is unskillful behaviour? Even sadness or doubt is unskillful but these things still arise if there are conditions. It seems reasonable to me. ----- > > Indeed, there is no point in hating anyone...... the most hurt and > harm done in this world isn't by dramatic powerful players on the > world stage like Osama bin Laden. but by the very ordinary everyday > insensitivity, and indifference of those who regard themselves > as 'good', rationalising their actions as having justification > (perhaps for the greater good), who act as individuals alone, or in > concert with others. I find that most people don't 'hate', they > are 'hurt'. 'The trick would be to learn how not to be hurt by > others.... _______ And this :trick: comes from knowing about kamma, I believe. Anytime we hear an insult it is only -really - sound through the earbase, hearing, thus it is vipaka, the result of kamma done in the past. It has gone already. But if we think :"he said that to me" etc: and so there is some aversion then we make new unwholesome kamma that may bring result in the future. I think it is very practical to consider in this way. Then again if we become very passive this is misunderstanding. My son suggested that since his kamma is his own I should not scold him when he did bad anymore - I would just vex myself. But we can respond in an appropriate way, which may be very strict sometimes, even while developing undersanding that it was just sound or pain etc. I think it is all so interesting, and it is all gone so quickly. When we make an error -because of accumulations or lack of wisdom - then it should be seen that it is already long in the past. Do what we can to rectify it but understand that the kamma has already been made and it is time to make new and better kamma now, no point or profit in obsessing about what has gone away. And then we will have the same feeling to others who do bad or make mistakes - very hard to hold resentments with this understanding. best wishes robert > > Thanks for the mention of the four jatis. I am starting to > read 'Buddhism in Daily Life' and will then go onto 'Abhidhamma in > Daily Life'. So with a little patience, all will be made clear. :- ) > and I see that ADL has a chapter on The function of Javana. > > metta, > Christine > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" > wrote: > > --Dear Christine, > > I think you already know the answers to your questions - at least > > intellectually- so this is just some reinforcement.- In > > dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > > my wondering yet > > > again, 'Why do people who should know better, treat each other so > > > cruelly?''Why do terrible things happen?' 'Who/what > decides?' 'How > > > can I and my loved ones be safe and protected?' 'Why do some > > > people/societies seem to get away with monstrous crimes?' 'How > can > > > they behave in that way?' 'If that can happen to them, can it > > happen > > > to me?' 'Where's the fairness?' 'Who's running this system > > > anyway?' 'Who's responsible?' and 'I don't want it to be this > way, > > at > > > least, for me'....I really have had Anatta, Anicca, Dukkha, > Kamma, > > and Dependent > > > Origination explained to me many times, and always think I am > > coming > > > to some understanding of it all. But when faced with needlessly > > > cruel actions being done by groups to an individual, or to > > powerless > > > children, to mentally ill people who cannot think coherently, or > > > animals whose intelligence is less than ours .....the questions > > rise > > > again. I am able to easily accept the application of laws like > > kamma > > > to adult humans who are responsible for/choose their own > behaviour. > > > But when evil things happen to/or are done by, those beings not > of > > > sound mind, or who are children, or who are animals in this > birth - > > > it shakes my understanding of fairness...... I have to ask again, > > > phrasing the question as one on a Sutta > > ________________ > > Indeed kamma is the only explanation that can explain these > matters. > > If one falls back on the idea of a God who made such things happen > > then he is a cold and capricious God who would birth some people in > > riches while others are deadly poor or deformed from birth. > > Science thinks it has found answers by Darwinism but that cannot > > explain why you are human now - why arent you a cow. They will say > it > > was just chance , and that explains nothing. > > Truly, I think it is wonderful to know that the world is so just. > > That all moments of javana citta have the potential to bring > result. > > Of course sometimes we forget this, or mistake kusala for akusala, > or > > because of accumulations act badly anyway, but the main effect of > > seeing this more is that actions and thoughts must become purer. > Then > > we know, for instance, that even when we try to appear good to > > others, or even ourseleves for that matter, that this is rooted in > > mana, so we become that little bit more natural in behaviour. When > we > > see someone doing wrong, such as Osama bin laden, we could not hate > > him because we believe that in the future he will suffer results > for > > his deeds. > > I think we cannot control the world at all, we can only learn about > > it. That way when we read the newspaper and hear bad things it > > becomes a confirmation of the Dhamma- cause and result. > > It is important to learn more about the 4 jatis -vipaka, (result) > > kiriya, akusala and kusala as this makes it clearer that result is > > only those brief moments of tasting, tasting, seeing, hearing, > > smelling - and then there is kusala or akusala, and these are > > different jatis. > > best wishes > > robert 10868 From: Sarah Date: Sat Jan 19, 2002 1:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Help!!!! Hi Ray, --- cldwlkrray wrote: > Sarah... > > Hi! In response to your considerate contribution to my continued > clarity: Dharma meets the road means practical dharma instruction > culled from experience (empirical dharma, so to speak), free of the > technical pali/sanskrit/whatever terms. Would you kindly give some examples. >Just the Dharma, only the > Dharma with complete clarity of focus. Many times one word or phrase > cuts through the fog of illusion to reveal the Crystal Lake of Mind- > Clarity. Most of us are pretty slow here and need to hear a lot more than single words or phrases to cut through the ‘fog of illusion’. I’ll be happy to be proved wrong;-) >I know that, in the past, I have fallen into the stream-of- > words trap, using what in Christian circles is called theological > symantics to explain even the most direct qustion. I have worked > with conviction to clear away that underbrush to find the Gem hidden > beneath. To cut through the fog of illusion requires a "samuraii- > sharp" sword of illumination. > Can we say it is wisdom (pa~n~na) which is the “samuraii sharp” sword of illumination? Therefore can we also say it is this same wisdom which works ‘with conviction to clear away that underbush’, rather than ‘I’? Do you think it is necessary to question and challenge what exactly is ‘the fog of illusion’ or is it so apparent? Doesn’t ‘illusion’ have the characteristic of not realising it is ‘illusion’? Good to hear your comments, Ray, and your critical comments on dsg posts and posters are obviously just the trick to encourage Ken H as discussed, so please keep them up;-) Sarah Christine, you're also doing a great job encouraging one or two people out of lurk-mode;-)) ===================================================== 10869 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 19, 2002 2:30am Subject: Re: Big question (Cows) Dear Robert, Thank you for this reasonable and calming post. Your point is well made - RK: "we are not trying to prove something or anything but rather we are trying to understand what is and what is not. There is a difference." _______________________________________________ RK: "And too what is unskillful behaviour? Even sadness or doubt is unskillful but these things still arise if there are conditions." I find this is really a very interesting comment you have made Robert.......I realised only just now that I am used to thinking that the 'cruelty' or 'rudeness' of others are 'deliberate, intentional and under a control of sorts' - but that I 'know' my 'sadness' and 'hurt' are not, they just happen, are caused by the others, arise.........why do I think one lot of feelings are conditioned and without control and not the other?.... maybe not consistent or logical thinking.....something to ponder... _______________________________________________ CJF:: . 'The trick would be to learn how not to be hurt by > others.... RK: And this :trick: comes from knowing about kamma, I believe. Anytime we hear an insult it is only -really - sound through the earbase, hearing, thus it is vipaka, the result of kamma done in the past. It has gone already. But if we think :"he said that to me" etc: and so there is some aversion then we make new unwholesome kamma that may bring result in the future. I think it is very practical to consider in this way. CJF: Mostly I can begin to do this with strangers, patients, acquaintances........not managing it yet with anyone I have regard or affection for......... I have also been closely reading and appreciating Sarah and Mike's discussions about Attachment and Expectations. Both have posted links to or quotes from very apposite suttas which I have printed and will read again, and Sarahs' comment below really hit home - 'defilements' and 'no control' again.......[difficult to blame anyone else in Buddhism :-)] "we take the people and the stories for being real and forget that the only problems that can truly be known in life relate to our own kilesa (defilements). We have ideas of how society could treat the poor, the dogs or the underprivileged better. We have ideas about how wise people or those who have studied Buddhism shoud behave with compassion, but we forget about the danger of our own attachments and expectations, our hopes and wishes, our ideas that personalities and tendencies are under control." Is there anymore to read on 'no control' ? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > ---Dear Christine,comments interspersed: > In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > > Yes, I have often read the answers to these questions, but if I > > really 'knew' them and 'understood' them, then surely they wouldn't > > come back to plague me so regularly..... > ___ > True. > ____ > > I agree that Kamma is the way I have been taught it is. Kamma > could > > also be seen to be 'cold and capricious'.....result does not > > immediately follow action. The Buddhist explanation is that > there > > must be a cause, or many causes, for a particular result, perhaps > > looping back through aeons, ..... this is not something one can > > prove any more than Christians can prove the Apostle's Creed. > > _______ > I think we are not trying to prove something or anything but rather > we are trying to understand what is and what is not. There is a > difference. > According to the texts one can go beyond any doubt about kamma and > its results -see the Visuddhimagga, for instance, where at the third > stage of vipassana insight wisdom sees clearly that conditions bring > results and is sure that it was this way in the past and was this way > in the future. How is that possible? Well they say the more that it > becomes clear that the different jatis are different -that vipaka is > different from akusala or kusala - then this helps to see more. And > too what is it that insight sees when it sees the characteristics of > dhammas? It sees also their functions and so there must be more > understanding of say lobha and how it has so much power. It is very > different from the moments of seeing or hearing that are vipaka- they > appear as barren of that sort of power. > _____ > Is a > > relentless, but unchartable, 'natural law' a 'better' explanation > > than a 'capricious God'? (and, indeed, Christians seems to operate > on > > a more restricted form of action/result (within one life) - in that > > the world was 'created' as perfect, but the actions (free-will) of > > humanity has polluted it and themselves). 'Capricious' seems to > > acknowledge that no clear cause/result connection can be seen in > most > > events The argument could be put that in buddhism there seems to > be > > an element of 'capriciousness' in the unpredictableness of just > what > > seeds germinate and in which life. One explanation could seem > just > > as valid as the other to the uncommitted. > > Possibly the term 'accumulations' could also be seen as an excuse > > for unskilfull behaviour. Rather than the Theist saying 'the devil > > tempted me do it', substitute the Buddhist saying 'my accumulations > > inclined me towards it'....... > ______ > That is true, and the same could be said of saying that all things > are anatta. But that is just saying it, not understanding it. And too > what is unskillful behaviour? Even sadness or doubt is unskillful but > these things still arise if there are conditions. It seems reasonable > to me. > ----- > > > > Indeed, there is no point in hating anyone...... the most hurt and > > harm done in this world isn't by dramatic powerful players on the > > world stage like Osama bin Laden. but by the very ordinary > everyday > > insensitivity, and indifference of those who regard themselves > > as 'good', rationalising their actions as having justification > > (perhaps for the greater good), who act as individuals alone, or in > > concert with others. I find that most people don't 'hate', they > > are 'hurt'. 'The trick would be to learn how not to be hurt by > > others.... > _______ > And this :trick: comes from knowing about kamma, I believe. Anytime > we hear an insult it is only -really - sound through the earbase, > hearing, thus it is vipaka, the result of kamma done in the past. It > has gone already. But if we think :"he said that to me" etc: and so > there is some aversion then we make new unwholesome kamma that may > bring result in the future. I think it is very practical to consider > in this way. > Then again if we become very passive this is misunderstanding. My son > suggested that since his kamma is his own I should not scold him when > he did bad anymore - I would just vex myself. But we can respond in > an appropriate way, which may be very strict sometimes, even while > developing undersanding that it was just sound or pain etc. I think > it is all so interesting, and it is all gone so quickly. When we make > an error -because of accumulations or lack of wisdom - then it should > be seen that it is already long in the past. Do what we can to > rectify it but understand that the kamma has already been made and it > is time to make new and better kamma now, no point or profit in > obsessing about what has gone away. And then we will have the same > feeling to others who do bad or make mistakes - very hard to hold > resentments with this understanding. > best wishes > robert > > > > > > Thanks for the mention of the four jatis. I am starting to > > read 'Buddhism in Daily Life' and will then go onto 'Abhidhamma in > > Daily Life'. So with a little patience, all will be made clear. :- > ) > > and I see that ADL has a chapter on The function of Javana. > > > > metta, > > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" 10870 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sat Jan 19, 2002 6:11am Subject: Re: Big question (Cows) dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: Robert K: "And too > what is unskillful behaviour? Even sadness or doubt is unskillful but these things still arise if there are conditions." +++ >I find this is really a very interesting comment you have made > Robert.......I realised only just now that I am used to thinking that the 'cruelty' or 'rudeness' of others are 'deliberate, intentional and under a control of sorts' - but that I 'know' my 'sadness' and 'hurt' are not, they just happen, are caused by the others, arise.........why do I think one lot of feelings are conditioned and without control and not the other?.... maybe not consistent or > logical thinking.....something to ponder...\ ++++++++++++++ -- Dear Christine, Thanks so much for getting my point. It's encouraging when someone can see a difficult matter from just a brief phrase. Actually there are differences between kilesa at the level of mild sadness or doubt and kilesa at the level that it shows itself by bad behaviour. When we feel a little out of sorts it is called pariyutthana (rising up) and when it becomes stronger and goes beyond the stage of pariyutthana it is called vitikkama and then unwholesome deeds are performed (classified as ten types). But whether at the level of pariyutthana or vitikkama - or for that matter anusaya(still latent) - all these are dhammas, not self and uncontrollable in the deepest sense. It is very helpful to know more about these details so that they can be noticed - to whatever degree is appropriate for our level of understanding- in life. Then they help to deepen insight into anattaness. When we do something bad, such as I speak with a harsh voice because my chidren are fighting, we can see how conditions work at these times. Let me digress: Every citta, every different moment has an object arammana paccaya (object condition). In the case of my children the object is the concept of them fighting. Because of attachment (anusaya-latent)the citta takes this object again and again. If it were someone else's children, and happened say in a shopping center, the citta would take the object only for a few moments and then take a new object because there is not the same degree of accumulated clinging to this object(as to 'my' children) . Or if it happened only once and there was no memory (composed of sanna and thinking about concept)then the supporting conditions (such as upanissaya paccaya) would not be strong. But when it happens many times, and it is taken as arammana repeatedly, if there isn't awareness or other kusala, it very quickly conditions aversion (pariyutthana) that can break out to the degree of vitikkama (harsh speech in this case). If there is reflection and some insight into this though, the aversion so quickly drops away - sometimes before it reaches the stage of vitikkama , sometimes it won't arise at all. Does it happen all the time. No. And i think it is not the aim to be so calm all the time. I used to try that, and while it did, in some ways, improve my obvious behaviour it also made it hard to understand my real nature. Still the more there is investigation into these matters the more that this becomes a habit and then there is a little more 'self-control'. Hopefully one doesn't take this to be a 'self' though, or have conceit about it, because that ruins everything. best wishes robert 10871 From: Date: Sat Jan 19, 2002 4:30am Subject: The "Functional Reality" of Conventional Objects Hi, all - A couple thouhts related to the recent discussions of concepts: As I see it, conventional objects are instances of (grouded) concepts, and grounded concepts are mental compoundings of direct experiences (of paramattha dhammas)among which observable relations hold. The unreality of conventional objects lies in their being projected "outward", so that we *seem* to be observing real, external, mind-independent, and self-existent "things". (Of course, there *are* no conventional objects which are instances of ungrounded concepts such as unicorns and selves, these being pure imagination.) For the conventional objects, there is a limited kind of reality which might be called, I think, "functional reality". By this I mean that the arising of a conventional object or event can have effects in terms of "ultimate realities". An example of this is that a tree falling on one's leg will produce pain! Thoughts anyone? With metta, Howard 10872 From: Date: Sat Jan 19, 2002 4:34am Subject: About Mail I Just Sent Hi, all - Yesterday I had sent off a post entitled something like "The 'Functional Reality' of Conventional Objects", but it seems to have been lost in cyber-space. At least I haven't seen it since. So I just sent off another post by that same title recapitulating my ideas as well as possible. My apologies if this is a repetition. With metta, Howard 10873 From: Date: Sat Jan 19, 2002 1:06pm Subject: Re: The "Functional Reality" of Conventional Objects Hi Howard, I've, been thinking about this and decided that figuring out what is real and what isn't is too difficult a question and probably doesn't matter. As I see it, the main task at hand is to see what is going on with attachment to oneself. Observing attachment, it seems like the seed or heart or main reference point is attachment to oneself and this is the reason behind all suffering. At this point, I don't think formations, "concept", is really to blame for attachment. For purposes of this discussion, I'd like to call formation, "synthesis". Synthesis is not only a mental function; it is found in nature as well. (We could explore the implications of this in another discussion). The way synthesis works in the mind is that the mind puts two things together and makes something else, something other than just the two things together. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. 1+1=3 the two parts plus the whole. Everything is a synthesis of parts and synthesizing goes on almost constantly. Looking at my own experience of attachment, there seems to be a very specific feeling involved every time. This "self" feeling can be generated at will and studied, but in isolation it doesn't have the impact of full blown attachment. Through the mechanism of synthesis the self feeling can be "folded into" anything else and that whatever else becomes part of "who I am". So synthesis is the means of spreading the disease, so to speak. But the actual bug is just a feeling. Also on-going throughout experience are various syntheses (sp?) of "who I am" which may or may not contain this bug. I don't know how well this will hold up to further study, but generally I think it's worth pursuing. Comments? Larry 10874 From: Date: Sat Jan 19, 2002 2:28pm Subject: Re: relative truth Hi Taylor, I think I see what you mean by self-empty and other-empty, but not quite. This is how the middle of the middle way is established, right? The middle being between existence and nonexistence. So there must be a counter to "not finding". What's that? The way I've been understanding self-empty and other-empty is that self-empty is that a "self" can't be found in the skandhas and other-empty is that the skandhas can't be found in themselves. The main mechanism in both cases is "not finding". This is what I find problematic. I think there has to be a way to distinguish between conventional reality and conventional unreality, but "not finding" won't work in that case. (Maybe I'm missing something here. I'll have to give it another think.) I'm afraid it's going to be a while before I get to the end of Pettit's book. I'm sloooowly working my way through the introduction. yours in conventional bewilderment, Larry 10875 From: Lucy Date: Sat Jan 19, 2002 2:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical? Hello Mike (am back after a few days of concentrating on worldly work - not watching TV!) > > If I understand this correctly, by the way, if kamma > is not concerned with sila, daana or bhaavanaa, it is > akusala (corrections welcomed). The way I usually > think of the pervasiveness of akusala in everyday life > is just the extent to which my own thoughts, speech > and actions are motivated by liking or disliking--that > is, almost all of them. > Thinking a little further on this. This 'pervasiveness of akusala' in everyday life is quite scary. Presumably worth considering because it may be one way into renunciation. Even if the liking or disliking aren't always clear, this underlying sense of 'I' in most citta (other than those which are specifically kusala - over-ruling the 'I') would be virtually constant avijjaa. Ouch! > Of course the understanding of akusala (or the > difference between kusala and akusala) must be > particularly kusala, I think. Interesting to note > that kukkucca, remorse--the closest I find in the > tipitaka to the conventional sense of guilt--is a > nivarana, particularly bad akusala--even though it is > concerned specifically with regret for akusala > committed and kusala omitted. > Mmmmmh. Looks like a good idea to take up kukkucca for the next week! Lucy 10876 From: Lucy Date: Sat Jan 19, 2002 2:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical? Dear Sarah I really enjoyed your 'myths on T&M', they kept me thinking and some made me scratch my head for quite a while! It's all been saved and printed I'm finding this exercise of looking at each cetasika individually and investigating it over a number of days quite useful and revealing. It helps me sharpen mindfulness. Also good for me to try to stick to the Pali Tipitaka definitions and explanations - as a way to discipline this mind a little : ) I'm about to move from T&M into regret . As you can see there's little method here. If anyone has a method to suggest, welcome ! In between, I'm reading Abhidhamma in Daily Life. Thank you Nina, if you're reading this. It's a very clear and helpful introduction. Lucy 10877 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 1:39am Subject: RE: [dsg] deceiving dhammas Kom I pretty much agree with what you say in the post below. Just one or two further (random) thoughts. There's no question about it, a proper understanding of the abhidhamma is indispensable to the development of understanding. And a proper understanding of the abhidhamma can only be acquired by the proper study of the abhidhamma. However, there seem to be different perceptions around as to what the proper study of abhidhamma can be. To my mind, there is a difference between *having an interest in abhidhamma because one sees how it helps one to have a better understanding of the teachings as a whole*, and *studying abhidhamma with the idea that the more detail one knows the better one's understanding of realities will likely be*. To me, the latter suggests a degree of hoping for (= clinging to) results. Also, while I can see the value of reflecting on how the present moment is, in abhidhamma terms, simply different realities of momentary duration, and what those realities might be (although merely a level of thinking), I cannot see the value in being able to recite numbers and lists from the abhidhamma, and nor do I see how the latter can help the former. I remember an occasion when this whole subject came up at the end of an interesting morning's discussion. KS spoke about the importance of knowing one's limits, in the sense of knowing what details were of practical application given one's present level of understanding. I understood her to be saying that the less understanding one has developed, the less the detail in the abhidhamma will be of direct application and so the more that detail will be of academic interest only. [This stands to reason, when you think about it. It does not of course mean one should not study more abhidhamma -- only that one needs to be realistic about the extent to which one is capable of benefiting 'real time' from that study.] The point is that abhidhamma, the suttas and the development of right understanding are all mutually supportive, but at the same time mutually dependent on each other. Anyway, I then commented that there were different ways of studying the abhidhamma, and that the morning's discussion we had just had was itself a good instance of abhidhamma study. To my surprise, this comment was questioned by some of those present. Afterwards, I jotted down in my notebook some of the topics we had touched on, and came up with the following (I'm sure a review of the tape would show even more than these): visesa lakkhana/samanna lakkhana 4 noble truths paccaya (conditions) rupas, course and subtle bhavanga citta sati and the sense-door process stages of vipassana-nana akusala kamma-pattha sila and vinaya I wonder how such a discussion could not be regarded as a good morning's abhidhamma study! To see abhidhamma study as the acquiring of detailed knowledge from an abhidhamma book is surely to miss the point somewhat. Just my 2 cents worth, anyway. Jon PS I liked the bit about your maths professor. Sounds like his classes were memorable. And another good mantra for any collector of worthwhile reminders (Rob Ep?). --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Jonothan, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jonothan Abbott [mailto:jonoabb@y...] > > Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 12:10 AM > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: RE: [dsg] deceiving dhammas > > > > > > Kom > > > > --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > > > Dear Nina, > > > > > I personally did not hear position A expressed in > > India. I did of course > > hear position B expressed (with the added detail > > that the more abhidhamma > > one knew, the better the conditions for awareness > > and understanding to > > arise). > > > > I noticed that if someone suggested position B > > was not correct, those who > > supported position B tended to 'hear' position A > > being asserted (which of > > course was not the case at all). > > > > It's ironic. On this list I am probably seen as > > a 'position B' person, > > while in India the position B camp saw me as a > > position A person!! > > > > Jon > > > > I think given the quotes and references from the different > texts that you contribute for others, it wouldn't be > accurate to say that you fall in to camp A by any mean. I > think as Nina reminds me recently, that benefiting from > reading the different levels of details depends on the > person's accumulations. Since we all have our own > accumulations, it is certainly expected things would turn > out differently for each person. > > I think I understand a bit more anatta intellectually after > understanding the complexities of the conditions that cause > things to happen. Without (and even with) that > understanding, it would be very hard for me to buy the > concept of anatta, even though it is explained in so many > ways in the sutta. I think for some people, such details > wouldn't be necessary: it is already plain to them. > Although remembering (not a whole lot) the details of > conditionalities hasn't directly helped knowing the nama and > rupa better, understanding the complexities remove some > doubts about anattaness of the dhamma and I am fully > appreciative for the chance of hearing it. > > As K. Jaran reminds us recently, it is necessary to be "phu > trong", to be sincere and know with wisdom the dhamma that > actually appears. If remembering the intricate details > about some parts of the dhamma doesn't help with > understanding realities, why do I try to remember it? On > the other hands, the Buddha explained different dhammas to > different people with different accumulations: all he > explained benefits somebody. Do we have the (perfect) > wisdom to say that only listening to this part will benefit > me, and listening to this other part won't? Only one knows > one self (if one is so lucky; otherwise, it is just a > guesstimate). > > My favorite (favorite, because I still remember it) by my > math professor (whose name is Mazmanian, a cause for much > amusement especially how he went about teaching Calculus) is > "Nothing is further from the truth." (try this with an > Armenian accent....). > > kom 10878 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 1:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) Erik Good to hear from you again. But whew, so much meat in a single post! I hope you don’t mind if I respond on just a small part of it at this stage. > … the Buddha > taught in the Suttas in so many places, deconstructing form, > feeling, perception, fabrication, and consciousness as not-self, You refer here to the 5 khandhas. Very important, I agree, and frequently mentioned in the suttas. As I think you know, Erik, the khandhas are one of several ways used by the Buddha to classify and explain the dhammas (realities) that make up the present moment. At every moment of this existence there is at least 1 reality from each of the 5 khandhas arising in our lives. The essence of the teaching on the khandhas, to my understanding, is that they are *to be known for what they truly are*. Direct knowledge of realities is the function of panna alone, and only highly developed panna can know realities to the extent that the characteristics such as impermanence and not-self are perceived. I don't wish to quibble with your choice of words when you characterise the Buddha's teaching as 'deconstructing [the khandhas] as not-self' (what matters of course is the understanding). But it is important to distinguish the kind of direct knowledge that I have just mentioned from what I would understand by deconstructing, namely, a practice of *consciously observing the mind/body with a view to noticing how they are beyond control and void of anything that can be identified as a self*. No doubt someone who follows such a practice would experience perceptible results -- after all, it is something quite outside one's normal experience in life -- and those results may appear to be an appreciation of impermanence and not-self, similar to that mentioned the texts. This however does not mean the 2 are the same. To my understanding, any perception of impermanence or not-self arising from such a practice cannot be the direct knowledge of those qualities *as a characteristic of realities/dhammas/the khandhas *. The other comment I would make is that, by definition, dhammas/realities/the khandhas are incapable of any 'deconstructing', in any sense that I would understand that word. In fact, it is by reason of their very irreducibility that they are called 'absolute' (paramattha). As I see it, our 'problem' is not that the realities that make up this life need to be broken down or unravelled (deconstructed), but that we do not see them as realities and that we do not see the realities for what they are. Our problem is the mud in our eyes. Finally, I would suggest that the awareness or understanding taught by the Buddha must be something that arises quite independently of any conscious effort on our part. This would mean that its arising cannot be in any way determined by any intention/volition/effort as to: - time and place (i.e. carrying out a chosen practice) - the reality/dhamma/khandha that is to be the object of awareness etc (i.e. choosing an object to 'be aware of/understand') - what is to be known about the reality reality/dhamma/khandha (e.g. the characteristic of impermanence or not-self). If it were otherwise, then awareness/understanding would not truly be not-self! The conditions for the arising of such panna (at whatever level has been developed to date) are both extremely subtle and extremely complex. But they are there in the suttas to be read, pondered and realised. > All my best to you and Sarah, Thanks, Erik, and best to you and Eath. > and look forward to further discussions! :) Likewise! Jon --- rikpa21 wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Rob Ep, and also Erik > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > The effort to correct wrong concepts is like yelling at the > > > wind. > > This form of "yelling at the wind" happens to be one of the > ten "meritorious deeds" (specifically #10)" > > 1. Giving (dana) > 2. Morality (sila) > 3. Mental culture (bhavana) > 4. Reverence or respect (apacayana) > 5. Service in helping others (veyyavacca) > 6. Sharing merits with others (pattidana) > 7. Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana) > 8. Preaching and teaching the Dhamma (dhamma desana) > 9. Listening to the Dhamma (dhamma savanna) > 10. Straightening one's views (ditthijju-kamma) > > #9 and #10 work together especuially well. And we can't > forget "dhamma vicaya" (investigation into dhammas) as a factor > enlightenment in this game, either. I find the following discussion > on dhamma vicaya to be very illustrative: > http://www.dharma.org/insight/2000b/santikaro.htm > > >> It is > > > the direct discernment or lack thereof of what is actual upon > which > > > 'useful' or > > > 'frivolous' concepts can be formed. > > > Yes. > > I disagree (but what else would you expect, counsel? :) > > > The futility of pursuing concepts, and the absolute necessity of > > coming to understand more about realties, is one of those things > that > > seems obvious once you've got it, but somehow is so difficult > to `get' in > > the first place. > > And how does one come to rightly understand realities? There are > many ways (there sixteeen variations on this in the Sammadhitthi > Sutta alone!). > > And when we do get it, we are likely to realise that our > > entire practice to date has been one form or another of trying to > correct > > wrong concepts. > > I'm not sure what you mean here, Jon. Furthermore, what you say > above seems to directly contradict many things I've heard you say > before--regarding pariyatti and the need to straighten views at the > conceptual level, as a requisite condition for Right Understanding > such that we know the appropriate objects of discernment (which is > something I agree with, by the way). How do you regard, for example, > Buddhagosa's enture chapter devoted to "Purification by Overcoming > Doubt" Vis.XIX)? This ibncludes learning to rightly discern > (conceoptually) cause and condition, that nothing arises > causelessly, that all things aruise in dependence on conditions, > that there is kamma and its result, that there is no ultimate "doer" > apart from kamma and its result? > > But we're not finished yet! Now we have to deal with "Purification > by Knowledge and Vision of What Is and Is Not the Path"! > > To save me from typing, please refer to Vis, XX in its entirety, > which lists many, many CONCEPTUAL modes of MUNDANE comprehension to > be developed. > > Furthermore, how do reconcile what you've said above with the Buddha > taught in the Suttas in so many places, deconstructing form, > feeling, perception, fabrication, and conscisousness as not-self, > through bvarious questions and answers and similes? > > > Erik, if I may bring in a recent thead of yours here, I would put > the > > `deconstructing' of self-view in the category of trying to > correct > wrong > > concepts. > > Exactly, such as the concept that "I have a self," or that kamma > yields no fruit, or that there is an "I" behind things. If this were > not the case, then why did the Buddha, in so many suttas, perform > exactly these deconstructions (e.g. the "Khandha Sutta"): > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-048.html > > > From your description, this deconstructing involves > `observing' > > or `analysing' thoughts or events with a view to seeing > their > impermanence > > or not-self. > > Let me pose a question: is it possible to rightly discern formations > unless we know what we're looking for? Or are you suggesting that > simply observing, without any instructions on what constitute > appropriate objects of investigation in terms of training, is a > conducive to release? > > > This is something altogether different from directly > > experiencing realities in order to understand them as they are > ('direct > > knowledge'). > > If you can find any post where I have suggested anything other than > supramundane Right View is established in a way OTHER than > direct knowledge freed from all fabrications and elaboration, please > point it out to me. > > Other than that, I think it is important to make a very clear > distinction here--one you've yourself made often, if my recollection > serves: that we have to study at the conceptual (lokiya) level > FIRST, as a means to accumulating sufficient understanding to > directly discern (via lokuttara panna) that all formations are, > indeed, void, impermanent, and painful, via the faculty of the > direct insight into realties as they are. > > Only once the coarsest levels of wrong view (not to mention the > karmic obstructions arising from accumulated unwholesome tendencies > have been lessened sufficiently) is there the condition for > sufficient panna that when one enters into deep meditation, one > comes to see directly how all things lack self, are impermanent, and > painful. > > All my best to you and Sarah, and look forward to futher > discussions! :) 10879 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 2:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] samma samadhi Victor Thanks very much for the references you provide below. However, I'm not sure that they help us to understand the meaning of your original post. 'Concentration' is one of those terms that has different meanings in different contexts, and so one cannot simply take a reference from one place and apply it in another (unfortunately). Here is my understanding of the 3 references we now have to concentration. 1. Concentration as a condition for knowledge and vision, in your original post (which, by the way, I believe was from Samyutta Nikaya XII, 23, not XXXV, 99 as stated in your post) According to the commentary in the Bhikkhu Bodhi translation of SN XII, 23, 'concentration' here means 'the jhana used as a basis for insight', and the 'knowledge and vision' is 'weak insight'. So the meaning is that jhana conditions mundane insight. As we know, jhana *may* be a basis for insight, but according to my understanding, it is not a *necessary* condition for mundane insight. When jhana is a basis for insight as described here, the jhana moment *precedes* the moment of insight; there is no (mundane) jhana of this kind at the actual moment of insight. 2. Right Concentration (samma samadhi) of the Noble Eightfold Path, in the first example given in your post below. According to my understanding, this is the concentration that arises *together with* the moment of insight consciousness. At the supramundane level (but not at mundane insight level) the concentration is of an intensity equivalent to that of jhana citta and is regarded as a jhana citta, hence the reference to jhana in the description of this path factor. 3. Concentration leading to the 'attainment of knowledge and vision', (your quote from the Samadhi Sutta of the Anguttara Nikaya), in the second example below. Again relying on Bh. Bodhi's translation of the commentary to that sutta, 'knowledge and vision' here refers to certain supernormal powers [i.e., not any level of insight]. To summarise, the situations described in these 3 passages are-- 1. Mundane jhana as a basis for (subsequent) mundane moments of insight. 2. The mental factor of concentration that accompanies a (co-arising) moment of insight; reckoned as jhana citta when accompanying a moment of supramundane insight (path citta). 3. Concentration of the level of samatha that leads to the attainment of supernormal powers Jon --- Victor Yu wrote: > Hello Jon, > > > I would be interested to know - > > 1. What is meant by concentration in this context (ie., what kind of > > concentration conditions the understading of things as they really > are)? > > Right concentration (samma samadhi). > > "And what, monks, is right concentration? (i) There is the case where a > monk -- quite withdrawn from sensual pleasures, withdrawn from > unskillful > (mental) qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & > pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & > evaluation. > (ii) With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & > remains > in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, > one-pointedness of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- > internal assurance. (iii) With the fading of rapture, he remains in > equanimity, mindful & fully aware, and physically sensitive of pleasure. > He > enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, > 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' (iv) With the > abandoning of pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of > elation & distress -- he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of > equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This, monks, is > called > right concentration." > > Samyutta Nikaya XLV.8 > Magga-vibhanga Sutta > An Analysis of the Path > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn45-008.html > > > > 2. In what way is concentration is a condition for understanding > things > > as they actually are? Could you perhaps give an example, please. > > "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & > pursued, leads to the attainment of knowledge & vision? There is the > case > where a monk attends to the perception of light and is resolved on the > perception of daytime [at any hour of the day]. Day [for him] is the > same as > night, night is the same as day. By means of an awareness open & > unhampered, > he develops a brightened mind. This is the development of concentration > that, when developed & pursued, leads to the attainment of knowledge & > vision. > > Anguttara Nikaya IV.41 > Samadhi Sutta > Concentration > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-041.html > > Thank you for these questions as they've motivated me to look into what > the > Buddha taught on concentration (samadhi) as recorded in the discourse. > I > hope I have provided pertinent references to your questions. > > Regards, > Victor 10880 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 2:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] One Further Thought on One-Pointedness Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > BTW, thanks also for your previous > informative reply to my post (that you copy below). My main point was to > get at the essence of what concentration actually *is*. It was item (c) > of yours that seems to be closest to what I had in mind. Then you were thinking of the concentration that is associated with samatha bhavana and in particular the jhanas. My item (c) does not characterise the concentration that is associated with insight (mundane or supramundane). Just to follow up on that a little, a moment of enlightenment is a single moment at which the citta takes nibbana as its object for that moment. It is not one of a series of moments where citta takes the same meditation subject as its object and all sense-door experiences are temporarily subdued (as in samatha at level of jhana). Likewise, moments of mundane insight are similarly not part of, nor are they preceded by, a series of moments during which citta takes a single meditation subject as its object. At least, that's how I understand it. Jon > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and anyone else interested) - > > > > > > One more thought: Perhaps one-pointedness is actually the > > > tendency or > > > disposition or sankhara for an object to continue in consciousness - > > > kind of > > > a "mental momentum" cetasika. If that is so, then there *could* be > > > degrees of > > > one-pointedness. The greater the degree of one-pointedness, the less > > > arammana > > > changing there would be, the greater the "mental stability". The > less > > > the > > > degree of one-pointedness, the less stable would "concentration" be > and > > > the > > > greater the instability and "distraction". Moreover, it would make > sense > > > for > > > vitakka and vicara to foster ekagatta. This is a notion which makes > > > sense to > > > me. Does it have any basis in the Abhidhamma Pitaka? > > > > > > With metta, > > > Howard 10881 From: khow14 Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 3:36am Subject: Re: Help!!!! Ray, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "cldwlkrray" wrote: > > Hmmm.....have I contributed further to the "fog"? > No, your message to Sarah has cleared the air a little. I can't entirely agree with you though; the Dhamma requires an enormous amount of study, consideration and discussion. Highly technical explanations are perfectly in order provided the listener can comprehend them. Kind regards Ken H 10882 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 6:31am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom Dear Howard, Thank you for your note. It is a worthwhile note not to be lost! > -----Original Message----- > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > > Hi, Kom - > > This post of yours gives me an opportunity to > jot down a few notions that have been "going > through my head". I had been thinking about > the fact that besides our having concepts of such > things as 'a tree', we also have concepts of such > things as 'hardness'. Now, what is the > difference? I see it as follows: These are > equally concepts, with each the result of a > mental compounding of direct experiences. Agreed. > The > thing is, the concept of 'hardness' is the > concept of an *experience*, a compounding of > various experiences all of the very same tactile > sort, with no projection of an "external thing". > The concept of 'a tree', however, is mentally > compounded from experiences of widely differing > types, including a wide variety of differing > visual experiences plus possible tactile, > olfactory, and even auditory experiences, and, > most importantly, including the projection of an > "external thing", something which goes beyond the > merely seen, heard, touched, etc as in the Bahiya > Sutta. It is in this projecting "external > things", beyond and independent of experience, I > think, that unreality lies. (One disclaimer > though: We do "see tree > s" - so long as we understand that to be a mental > construct giving some insight into relations > among elementary dhammas, and avoid pojection, > there is no harm. Also, in our observing of > people, for example, we make the inference that > there truly are namarupic streams associated with > those apparently external "beings". This > inference certainly seems to be warranted.) > I agree that there are differences between the concept of a tree and the concept of a hardness. Also, both kinds of concepts are neccesary for us to communicate. I think it is important to know the difference between what is concept and what is reality, even if the concept has no flaw of external projection. This is because wisdom development to the level of supramundane path necessarily involves direct experiences of realities, including the ti-lakkhana (the 3 common characteristics of all conditioned realities: anicca, dukkha, anatta), and not concept (we still need the concept in order to learn and to consider). If we only need to know the concepts (of realities) to be englightened, then both of us would have been Ariyans by now! kom 10883 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 6:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] help, help. op 18-01-2002 00:44 schreef srnsk@a... op srnsk@a...: > Hi Yulia, Ray and everyone; > > <<<<<<<< > Now, today, I am very confused with Buddhism too. I read emails every day > and I am lost in the logic behind it. It seems to me we are drown in > explanations and "understanding" instead of living the experience of Buddha. > May be this sounds rude, sorry if so. Does it really matter for what reason > cow killed the guy? And does it matter if cow has it's own Kamma? How this > applies to our life? I am picking on this topics just because this was > recent. And I went to read the sutra about the Bahiya person, I felt when it > was discussed here, something was missing. >>>>>>>>>> > How to apply this to our lives? I have no clear answer, > but things, events and realities depend on a lot of factors and conditions. > Stories in suttanta and Jataka have a lot of teaching hidden in it. I am too, > got carried away by time, place, person and name in the suttanta but if we > can really see a reality, here and now, we will be able to understand the > story in suttanta better, I think. Nina and Jaran mentioned about how much > one should study. Let me cut and paste it here again; I think it's a very > good reminder. > > __________________________ > Jaran: > As A. Sujin always says, study what you can understand [its > characteristics]. This does not mean one should be selective of what to > study, but it reminds all of us to look back and ask ourselves "can I > understand this? Do I really, truely understand this? Does it help me > study realities appearing right now? Do the realities appearing right > now agree with what I just learned?". And when one succeeds in > answering these questions honestly (being a phu-trong), one will gain > real benefit from studying dhamma. She often ends the conversation > regarding this topic by saying 'and one should be a phu-trong when it > comes to the purpose of studying dhamma'. > > My point is...study what you can understand. The more you learn, the > more confused and worried you are, then you are probably doing something > wrong (hopefully not from the begining!). Dear Newcomers, I join here Num's remarks about study. I sympathize so much when you feel lost in terms, logic, etc. I wonder whether I can offer some suggestions about reading: you could read the Dhammapada to begin with. Sarah can help where to find this on line. You will enjoy all the good advices for everyday life. On the following website you can read Nina's Letters to Friends or Letters from Nina, these may be easier to read. You can also find here (and on other websites) Meritorious Deeds by Sujin Boriharnwanaket. Little by little you get used to strange words, don't hurry. You do not have to read all on this list. Note Sarah's post on praise and blame, is this not practice in daily life? I also find simple questions very interesting and useful. We can ask ourselves, did we consider all these seemingly easy matters enough? No, we did not. Any question is a good reminder for everybody. Best wishes, from Nina. Best wishes from Nina. 10884 From: Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 3:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The "Functional Reality" of Conventional Objects Hi, Larry - In a message dated Sat, 19 Jan 2002 4:09:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I've, been thinking about this and decided that figuring out what is > real and what isn't is too difficult a question and probably doesn't > matter. ---------------------------------- Howard: I agree that it is very difficult to distinguish real from unreal (or to distinguish degrees of reality). However, I disagree that it doesn't matter. I think it is critical. (Of course, the distinguishing needs to be direct and certain, and not just theorizing.) I think that without realizing the unreality, the purely imagined status, of a self/core among, including, identical with, or outside of the khandhas, one will continiue with craving, aversion, and clinging. -------------------------------- As I see it, the main task at hand is to see what is going on > with attachment to oneself. Observing attachment, it seems like the seed > or heart or main reference point is attachment to oneself and this is > the reason behind all suffering. > > At this point, I don't think formations, "concept", is really to blame > for attachment. For purposes of this discussion, I'd like to call > formation, "synthesis". Synthesis is not only a mental function; it is > found in nature as well. (We could explore the implications of this in > another discussion). The way synthesis works in the mind is that the > mind puts two things together and makes something else, something other > than just the two things together. The whole is greater than the sum of > the parts. 1+1=3 the two parts plus the whole. > > Everything is a synthesis of parts and synthesizing goes on almost > constantly. Looking at my own experience of attachment, there seems to > be a very specific feeling involved every time. This "self" feeling can > be generated at will and studied, but in isolation it doesn't have the > impact of full blown attachment. Through the mechanism of synthesis the > self feeling can be "folded into" anything else and that whatever else > becomes part of "who I am". So synthesis is the means of spreading the > disease, so to speak. But the actual bug is just a feeling. Also > on-going throughout experience are various syntheses (sp?) of "who I am" > which may or may not contain this bug. > > I don't know how well this will hold up to further study, but generally > I think it's worth pursuing. Comments? ----------------------------- Howard: Sometimes the mind puts things together based on observed relations among those things, in which case the concepts created are grounded and useful. But other times the synthesis is done out of "whole cloth", often based on mere desire. In any case, we always seem to project outwards to alleged "external objects" and we project inwards to an alleged "internal agent", causing us to "live" in a world of our own creation. It is like a mind-created magic show, and we are an overly gullible audience. --------------------------------- > > Larry > > > > ================================ With metta, Howard 10885 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 8:25am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concepts/Kom Dear Larry, I am sorry if this post turns out to be too long. It probably won't answer your questions about the difference between nama and rupa, but I hope it helps. > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > Hi Kom, I'm still not really getting this but > what you said about > satipatthana and the four noble truths did change > my mind about > mindfulness of mind objects. I would be interested to hear what you think are mind objects... > > My question has to do with this. You wrote: > >Panna develops by directly seeing that all conditioned > realities are impermanent, dukkha, and non-self. These are > all characteristics of realities. Concepts has no such > characteristics. You cannot develop the (direct) wisdom of > impermanence by thinking about impermanence! > > I agree. But can you take vitakka, concept, as an > object of > satipatthana? Vitakka is a mental factor (a reality) that arises with many conciousness. Vitakka is not concept: it is more like thinking - a reality (nama) with its own characteristics including impermanence, dukkha, and anatta. Whenever the consciousness has a concept as its object (when we are thinking), vitakka co-arises with that conciousness. As all other realities, vitaka can be an object of Satipatthana. This is lifted from Nina's Cetasikas, Chapter 8, page 75 (which, by the way, is now available on-line in PDF format. I am very thrilled): http://www.zolag.co.uk/cetfinal.pdf The Visuddhimagga ( IV, 88) defines vitakka as follows: … Herein, applied thinking (vitakkama) is applied thought (vitakka); hitting upon, is what is meant. It has the characteristic of directing the mind onto an object (mounting the mind on its object). Its function is to strike at and thresh— for the meditator is said, in virtue of it, to have the object touched and struck at by applied thought. It is manifested as the leading of the mind onto an object… The Atthasåliní (Book I, Part IV, Chapter I, 114) gives a similar definition. This commentary uses a simile of someone who wants to “ascend” the king’s palace and depends on a relative or friend dear to the king to achieve this. In the same way the citta which is accompanied by vitakka depends on the latter in order to “ascend” to the object, to be directed to the object. Vitakka leads the citta to the object so that citta can cognize it. >Many concepts don't lend themselves > to meditation but > simply noting "breathing in", for example, or > noting anything, is a > concept. When you breath, either in or out, do you feel the hardness/softness of the winding hitting different parts of your windpipes? How about temperature or the wind elements? These rupas can be objects of satipatthana. When you think that you are breathing in or breathing out, the consciousness (A) is having the concept (B) of "breathing in" or "breathing out" as the object. Although the concept (B) cannot be an object of satipathanna, the consciousness (A) itself can be. > Also it is possible to observe and > recognize discursive > thought, vicara, and see that it is not self. Vicara is also another mental factor, a reality with its own charactersitcs, that almost-always co-arises with vitakka in our daily life. From the same book: We read in the Visuddhimagga ( IV, 89): … Applied thought (vitakka) is the first compact of the mind in the sense that it is both gross and inceptive, like the striking of a bell. Sustained thought (vicåra) is the act of keeping the mind anchored, in the sense that it is subtle with the individual essence of continued pressure, like the ringing of the bell… > In > other words, the > distinction I am making is between being > caught-up in a thought, and, on > the other hand, observing it from outside, so to speak. The concept, the object of the thinking consciousness cannot be the object of satipatthana, but the thinking consciousness and its mental factors, including vitakka and vicara, can be. Furthermore, it is also helpful to realize that just by observing the thinking doesn't necessarily mean that the observing is satipatthana. Unless there is sati and panna arising with the observation, then it is not satipathana. I have observed thinking since before knowing anything at all in Buddhism. Having learned about the Buddha's teaching, I can additionally think that the thinking is not self. Both of these observations are not satipatthana. The latter observation is likely to be more skillful than the former (no guarantee), but it is still thinking about reallities at the conceptual level. It is not until we clearly and directly see nama as nama, and rupa as rupa (first vipassana nana level) that we starts to truly see the non-self characteristics of realities. > I think my confusion is that I still don't > understand the nama rupa > distinction. In looking at an object without any > conceptual overlay it > would be similar to looking at unidentified > shapes and colors and maybe > depth, What you describes above probably is very close to what the definition of visible object (visible rupa) is. The closest probably is "whatever appears to the eyes". > but the looking aspect would not be > included in the bare rupa > object eventhough shape and color are visual > sensations. Now you are describing the nama. In order for seeing to occur, there must be: 1) Visible object (visible rupa, as you described first) 2) Seeing (the looking aspect, the sensation). Seeing is nama because it cognizes the visible object. The indifferent feeling arises with all seeing, and this is what you may (???) be referring to as sensation. 3) Eye base (another type of rupa): this we haven't discussed explicitly, but may be part of confusion... > Somehow we are > making a distinction between shape and color of > the object and shape and > color of the visual sensations. I'm calling > visual sensations eye > consciousness. Is this right??? I don't understand what you mean by shape and color of the visual sensations, so I am not sure what to make of this... > > Also, would you answer a question related to a > side matter? Why is > dukkha included with anicca and anatta? Things > aren't inherently dukkha > are they? Seems like dukkha is a reaction, a > disappointment in > attempting to grasp what doesn't exist, > permanence and self. > Dukkha in Pali has at least 3 different meanings. The most commonly used are probably: 1) Dukha dukha, unpleasant bodily and mental feelings. This is probably what you understand as dukha. 2) Dukha as a characteristic of reality: non-endurance. It is dukkha because it cannot endures. What arises because of conditions must fall away immediately. It cannot be taken for refuge (as it has fallen away, or it is falling away.) When you read in the suttanta-pitaka about dukkha ariya sacca, all three meanings of dukha are meant. Happiness and pleasant feeling are not dukha dukha, but is a non-endurance dukkha. Happiness that arises now must fall away. You cannot rely on pleasant feelings to keep you happy / at peace: it has alrady fallen away. You cannot take a refuge in it. We, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill persons, take refuge in pleasant feelings from unpleasant feelings, and even from indifferent feelings, because of the delusion that it brings peace and happiness. If we see non-endurance characteristic of the pleasant feeling, then we will start seeing the drawbacks of such conditioned phenomena, and would truly start to become more detached from such a phenomenon. kom 10886 From: Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 3:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) Hi, Jon - In a message dated Sun, 20 Jan 2002 4:51:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > Erik > > Good to hear from you again. But whew, so much meat in a single post! I > hope you don’t mind if I respond on just a small part of it at this stage. > > > … the Buddha > > taught in the Suttas in so many places, deconstructing form, > > feeling, perception, fabrication, and consciousness as not-self, > > You refer here to the 5 khandhas. Very important, I agree, and frequently > mentioned in the suttas. > > As I think you know, Erik, the khandhas are one of several ways used by > the Buddha to classify and explain the dhammas (realities) that make up > the present moment. At every moment of this existence there is at least > 1 reality from each of the 5 khandhas arising in our lives. > > The essence of the teaching on the khandhas, to my understanding, is that > they are *to be known for what they truly are*. Direct knowledge of > realities is the function of panna alone, and only highly developed panna > can know realities to the extent that the characteristics such as > impermanence and not-self are perceived. > > I don't wish to quibble with your choice of words when you characterise > the Buddha's teaching as 'deconstructing [the khandhas] as not-self' (what > matters of course is the understanding). But it is important to > distinguish the kind of direct knowledge that I have just mentioned from > what I would understand by deconstructing, namely, a practice of > *consciously observing the mind/body with a view to noticing how they are > beyond control and void of anything that can be identified as a self*. No > doubt someone who follows such a practice would experience perceptible > results -- after all, it is something quite outside one's normal > experience in life -- and those results may appear to be an appreciation > of impermanence and not-self, similar to that mentioned the texts. This > however does not mean the 2 are the same. To my understanding, any > perception of impermanence or not-self arising from such a practice cannot > be the direct knowledge of those qualities *as a characteristic of > realities/dhammas/the khandhas *. --------------------------------------- Howard: Is your point here, jon, that this would be a metter of intellectual projection rather than direct discovery of the way things are? That we should not approach our observing *looking* for the tilakhana? If so, then what role does knowledge of the Dhamma play in your view? (I happen to think that whatever there is to be "seen" will be seen if one has suppressed the defilements by adequate concentration, and that coming in with expectations is not the way to go. Is that your position?) ------------------------------- > > The other comment I would make is that, by definition, > dhammas/realities/the khandhas are incapable of any 'deconstructing', in > any sense that I would understand that word. In fact, it is by reason of > their very irreducibility that they are called 'absolute' (paramattha). > As I see it, our 'problem' is not that the realities that make up this > life need to be broken down or unravelled (deconstructed), but that we do > not see them as realities and that we do not see the realities for what > they are. Our problem is the mud in our eyes. > > Finally, I would suggest that the awareness or understanding taught by the > Buddha must be something that arises quite independently of any conscious > effort on our part. This would mean that its arising cannot be in any way > determined by any intention/volition/effort as to: > - time and place (i.e. carrying out a chosen practice) > - the reality/dhamma/khandha that is to be the object of awareness etc > (i.e. choosing an object to 'be aware of/understand') > - what is to be known about the reality reality/dhamma/khandha (e.g. the > characteristic of impermanence or not-self). -------------------------------- Howard: What role then does right effort play in one's practice. We are, after all, talking about a cultivation. If cultivating occurs when the conditions for it are in place, but no attempt to do anything will create those conditions, then a non-practitioner is as much of a practitioner as an .. um, practitioner! ;-)) ---------------------------------- > > If it were otherwise, then awareness/understanding would not truly be > not-self! > > The conditions for the arising of such panna (at whatever level has been > developed to date) are both extremely subtle and extremely complex. But > they are there in the suttas to be read, pondered and realised. ----------------------------- Howard: What are they? And what brings them forward? Luck? Accumulations? We all have accumulations. Calling oneself a Buddhist doesn't create the conditions, does it? It seems to me that one has to "walk the walk". ------------------------------ > > > All my best to you and Sarah, > > Thanks, Erik, and best to you and Eath. > > > and look forward to further discussions! :) > > Likewise! > > Jon ============================ With metta, Howard > > --- rikpa21 wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., > Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > Rob Ep, and also Erik > > > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > > > The effort to correct wrong concepts is like yelling at the > > > > wind. > > > > This form of "yelling at the wind" happens to be one of the > > ten "meritorious deeds" (specifically #10)" > > > > 1. Giving (dana) > > 2. Morality (sila) > > 3. Mental culture (bhavana) > > 4. Reverence or respect (apacayana) > > 5. Service in helping others (veyyavacca) > > 6. Sharing merits with others (pattidana) > > 7. Rejoicing in the merits of others (pattanumodana) > > 8. Preaching and teaching the Dhamma (dhamma desana) > > 9. Listening to the Dhamma (dhamma savanna) > > 10. Straightening one's views (ditthijju-kamma) > > > > #9 and #10 work together especuially well. And we can't > > forget "dhamma vicaya" (investigation into dhammas) as a factor > > enlightenment in this game, either. I find the following discussion > > on dhamma vicaya to be very illustrative: > > http://www.dharma.org/insight/2000b/santikaro.htm > > > > >> It is > > > > the direct discernment or lack thereof of what is actual upon > > which > > > > 'useful' or > > > > 'frivolous' concepts can be formed. > > > > > Yes. > > > > I disagree (but what else would you expect, counsel? :) > > > > > The futility of pursuing concepts, and the absolute necessity of > > > coming to understand more about realties, is one of those things > > that > > > seems obvious once you've got it, but somehow is so difficult > > to `get' in > > > the first place. > > > > And how does one come to rightly understand realities? There are > > many ways (there sixteeen variations on this in the Sammadhitthi > > Sutta alone!). > > > > And when we do get it, we are likely to realise that our > > > entire practice to date has been one form or another of trying to > > correct > > > wrong concepts. > > > > I'm not sure what you mean here, Jon. Furthermore, what you say > > above seems to directly contradict many things I've heard you say > > before--regarding pariyatti and the need to straighten views at the > > conceptual level, as a requisite condition for Right Understanding > > such that we know the appropriate objects of discernment (which is > > something I agree with, by the way). How do you regard, for example, > > Buddhagosa's enture chapter devoted to "Purification by Overcoming > > Doubt" Vis.XIX)? This ibncludes learning to rightly discern > > (conceoptually) cause and condition, that nothing arises > > causelessly, that all things aruise in dependence on conditions, > > that there is kamma and its result, that there is no ultimate "doer" > > apart from kamma and its result? > > > > But we're not finished yet! Now we have to deal with "Purification > > by Knowledge and Vision of What Is and Is Not the Path"! > > > > To save me from typing, please refer to Vis, XX in its entirety, > > which lists many, many CONCEPTUAL modes of MUNDANE comprehension to > > be developed. > > > > Furthermore, how do reconcile what you've said above with the Buddha > > taught in the Suttas in so many places, deconstructing form, > > feeling, perception, fabrication, and conscisousness as not-self, > > through bvarious questions and answers and similes? > > > > > Erik, if I may bring in a recent thead of yours here, I would put > > the > > > `deconstructing' of self-view in the category of trying to > > correct > > wrong > > > concepts. > > > > Exactly, such as the concept that "I have a self," or that kamma > > yields no fruit, or that there is an "I" behind things. If this were > > not the case, then why did the Buddha, in so many suttas, perform > > exactly these deconstructions (e.g. the "Khandha Sutta"): > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-048.html > > > > > From your description, this deconstructing involves > > `observing' > > > or `analysing' thoughts or events with a view to seeing > > their > > impermanence > > > or not-self. > > > > Let me pose a question: is it possible to rightly discern formations > > unless we know what we're looking for? Or are you suggesting that > > simply observing, without any instructions on what constitute > > appropriate objects of investigation in terms of training, is a > > conducive to release? > > > > > This is something altogether different from directly > > > experiencing realities in order to understand them as they are > > ('direct > > > knowledge'). > > > > If you can find any post where I have suggested anything other than > > supramundane Right View is established in a way OTHER than > > direct knowledge freed from all fabrications and elaboration, please > > point it out to me. > > > > Other than that, I think it is important to make a very clear > > distinction here--one you've yourself made often, if my recollection > > serves: that we have to study at the conceptual (lokiya) level > > FIRST, as a means to accumulating sufficient understanding to > > directly discern (via lokuttara panna) that all formations are, > > indeed, void, impermanent, and painful, via the faculty of the > > direct insight into realties as they are. > > > > Only once the coarsest levels of wrong view (not to mention the > > karmic obstructions arising from accumulated unwholesome tendencies > > have been lessened sufficiently) is there the condition for > > sufficient panna that when one enters into deep meditation, one > > comes to see directly how all things lack self, are impermanent, and > > painful. > > > > All my best to you and Sarah, and look forward to futher > > discussions! :) 10887 From: Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 6:23am Subject: Incommunicado Again Hi, all - We'll be leaving by train in a couple hours, and will arrive back home 2 days later (in the evening of the 22nd). If any posts are sent to me in the next 48 hours, I'll reply to them after the 22nd. Be well all. With metta, Howard 10888 From: egberdina Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 3:40pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts/Kom Dear Kom, I, amongst others, remain as confused as ever, about the differentiation between rupa and nama. I cannot for the life of me get a grasp of how a rupa is not a nama. Is corporeality, materiality not a mental inference? When is visible object a rupa, and when is it a nama? I would really appreciate some examples (easy ones would be great :-)) > arising with the observation, then it is not satipathana. > Larry> > > I think my confusion is that I still don't > > understand the nama rupa > > distinction. In looking at an object without any > > conceptual overlay it > > would be similar to looking at unidentified > > shapes and colors and maybe > > depth, Kom> > What you describes above probably is very close to what the > definition of visible object (visible rupa) is. The closest > probably is "whatever appears to the eyes". > I cannot but help think that this is a conceptual definition. How is "whatever appears to the eyes" known, but by the mind. Rupas are known as namas, not as rupas. I accept the physical world to be there, independent of me knowing anything at all about it, but the only contact I have with it is a mentally reconstructed one, which certainly cannot earn the description "absolute". > > Now you are describing the nama. In order for seeing to > occur, there must be: > 1) Visible object (visible rupa, as you described first) > 2) Seeing (the looking aspect, the sensation). Seeing is > nama because it cognizes the visible object. The > indifferent feeling arises with all seeing, and this is what > you may (???) be referring to as sensation. > 3) Eye base (another type of rupa): this we haven't > discussed explicitly, but may be part of confusion... > To add to my confusion, visible object to me is always awareness of visible object, adding further weight to my belief that visible object is mental in nature, not physical. Hope some of this makes sense, and that you can help somewhat Herman 10889 From: Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 5:34pm Subject: Re: relative truth Sorry about the relative truth email. Wrong group. Larry 10890 From: Victor Yu Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 6:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] samma samadhi Hello Jon, Thank you for your comment. If I am not mistaken, I think the original post of mine that you mentioned is in message #10609. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/10609 Hope the link is helpful for anyone else who is interested in this thread. Regards, Victor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonothan Abbott" To: Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 5:09 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] samma samadhi > Victor > > Thanks very much for the references you provide below. However, I'm not > sure that they help us to understand the meaning of your original post. > > 'Concentration' is one of those terms that has different meanings in > different contexts, and so one cannot simply take a reference from one > place and apply it in another (unfortunately). > > Here is my understanding of the 3 references we now have to concentration. > > 1. Concentration as a condition for knowledge and vision, in your > original post (which, by the way, I believe was from Samyutta Nikaya XII, > 23, not XXXV, 99 as stated in your post) > > According to the commentary in the Bhikkhu Bodhi translation of SN XII, > 23, 'concentration' here means 'the jhana used as a basis for insight', > and the 'knowledge and vision' is 'weak insight'. So the meaning is that > jhana conditions mundane insight. > > As we know, jhana *may* be a basis for insight, but according to my > understanding, it is not a *necessary* condition for mundane insight. > > When jhana is a basis for insight as described here, the jhana moment > *precedes* the moment of insight; there is no (mundane) jhana of this > kind at the actual moment of insight. > > 2. Right Concentration (samma samadhi) of the Noble Eightfold Path, in > the first example given in your post below. > > According to my understanding, this is the concentration that arises > *together with* the moment of insight consciousness. At the supramundane > level (but not at mundane insight level) the concentration is of an > intensity equivalent to that of jhana citta and is regarded as a jhana > citta, hence the reference to jhana in the description of this path > factor. > > 3. Concentration leading to the 'attainment of knowledge and vision', > (your quote from the Samadhi Sutta of the Anguttara Nikaya), in the second > example below. > > Again relying on Bh. Bodhi's translation of the commentary to that sutta, > 'knowledge and vision' here refers to certain supernormal powers [i.e., > not any level of insight]. > > To summarise, the situations described in these 3 passages are-- > 1. Mundane jhana as a basis for (subsequent) mundane moments of insight. > 2. The mental factor of concentration that accompanies a (co-arising) > moment of insight; reckoned as jhana citta when accompanying a moment of > supramundane insight (path citta). > 3. Concentration of the level of samatha that leads to the attainment of > supernormal powers > > Jon > > --- Victor Yu wrote: > Hello Jon, > > > > > I would be interested to know - > > > 1. What is meant by concentration in this context (ie., what kind of > > > concentration conditions the understading of things as they really > > are)? > > > > Right concentration (samma samadhi). > > > > "And what, monks, is right concentration? (i) There is the case where a > > monk -- quite withdrawn from sensual pleasures, withdrawn from > > unskillful > > (mental) qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & > > pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & > > evaluation. > > (ii) With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & > > remains > > in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, > > one-pointedness of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- > > internal assurance. (iii) With the fading of rapture, he remains in > > equanimity, mindful & fully aware, and physically sensitive of pleasure. > > He > > enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, > > 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' (iv) With the > > abandoning of pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of > > elation & distress -- he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of > > equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This, monks, is > > called > > right concentration." > > > > Samyutta Nikaya XLV.8 > > Magga-vibhanga Sutta > > An Analysis of the Path > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn45-008.html > > > > > > > 2. In what way is concentration is a condition for understanding > > things > > > as they actually are? Could you perhaps give an example, please. > > > > "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & > > pursued, leads to the attainment of knowledge & vision? There is the > > case > > where a monk attends to the perception of light and is resolved on the > > perception of daytime [at any hour of the day]. Day [for him] is the > > same as > > night, night is the same as day. By means of an awareness open & > > unhampered, > > he develops a brightened mind. This is the development of concentration > > that, when developed & pursued, leads to the attainment of knowledge & > > vision. > > > > Anguttara Nikaya IV.41 > > Samadhi Sutta > > Concentration > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-041.html > > > > Thank you for these questions as they've motivated me to look into what > > the > > Buddha taught on concentration (samadhi) as recorded in the discourse. > > I > > hope I have provided pertinent references to your questions. > > > > Regards, > > Victor 10891 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 6:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) Hi Jon, I'm late on posts these days, but just wanted to acknowledge your resopnse. Thanks for continuing the clarification. Robert Ep === --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep, and also Erik > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > The effort to correct wrong concepts is like yelling at the > > wind. It is > > the direct discernment or lack thereof of what is actual upon which > > 'useful' or > > 'frivolous' concepts can be formed. > > Yes. The futility of pursuing concepts, and the absolute necessity of > coming to understand more about realties, is one of those things that > seems obvious once you’ve got it, but somehow is so difficult to ‘get’ in > the first place. And when we do get it, we are likely to realise that our > entire practice to date has been one form or another of trying to correct > wrong concepts. > > Erik, if I may bring in a recent thead of yours here, I would put the > ‘deconstructing’ of self-view in the category of trying to correct wrong > concepts. From your description, this deconstructing involves ‘observing’ > or ‘analysing’ thoughts or events with a view to seeing their impermanence > or not-self. This is something altogether different from directly > experiencing realities in order to understand them as they are ('direct > knowledge'). > > > If we know that a concept is a > > concept but > > that it is referring to a reality, that may be a useful way of > > organizing our > > activity. But if the concept is floating around in the conceptual > > world, with no > > reference to what is real or unreal, then we are really lost. > > The main thing to know about concepts how they differ from realties. > > > Thanks for the good point, which is another pointer in the right > > direction: > > towards direct knowledge of rupas and namas. > > Yes, the namas and rupas that appear at the present moment (since they of > coursed are the only ones that can be directly known). It always comes > back to this, much as it may seem an unlikely starting point. The namas > and rupas thing seems so simplistic when we first hear it, but so elusive > once we start to realise how important it is. > > Jon > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > Rob Ep > > > Wrong conceptual understanding is based on wrong understanding of > > > realities (dhammas); it is the latter that is the cause of the former > > and > > > not the other way around. > > > > > > To give an example from our discussion, our conceptual idea of > > 'hardness' > > > is bound to be inaccurate as long as direct understanding of the > > reality > > > that is hardness has not been fully developed. No amount of > > 'correcting' > > > our conceptual misunderstanding can bring any meaningful progress > > along > > > the path. > > > > > > Another example. An idea of 'self' arises because realities have not > > been > > > directly seen with panna as having the characteristic of 'not-self'. > > Even > > > though we may have accepted as correct at an intellectual level the > > > teaching on no self, the concept of self is still there and will > > arise, > > > because of the lack of understanding of realities. > > > > > > I hope this is clearer. > > > > > > Jon 10892 From: Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 8:32pm Subject: Re: concepts/Kom Greetings Kom, Four points: 1. Would you agree with this even though it isn't up to abhidhamma precision: The nama rupa distinction is between what is conscious, nama, and what is not conscious, rupa. All knowledge is consciousness. 2. As regards concepts, it sounds like you are saying one can't practice satipatthana if caught up in thinking. If so, I agree. If you are saying one can't take an erroneous concept as an object, I disagree. 2a. Did the Buddha have some words to describe "being absorbed in thought"? 3. The question about dukkha had to do with my apprehension of regarding everything as bad. I have known several people who were very depressed about themselves and life in general. This isn't something I would like to emulate. What is your view? 4. As for my admittedly shallow understanding of mindfulness of mind objects, I thought it was pretty much what we do here: dhamma study. warm regards, Larry 10893 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 9:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Photos of Rob Ep now posted, for better or worse... Hope you will post a photo, Rob. If only to help distinguish the 'Roberts' in the group! Although my time is limited right now, I can process a few photos here and there, if help is needed. Feel free to ask me if you have a problem. Best, Robert Ep. ========= --- "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > --- > Thanks for the photos Rob. I might even post one of myself, with > Sarah's permission. > robert > In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear dsg Friends, > > A little while ago I coarsely demanded the photos of the dsg > meeting in Thailand. > > Sukin was kind enough to send them to me, and ever since I have > owed dsg members a > > look at myself, to be fair. > > > > With Sarah's permission, I have now inaugurated the dsg photo album > on the > > yahoogroups site with three photos, two of me and one of my > daughter, whom I can't > > resist showing off. > > > > I don't know why I was chosen for this honor, but I must have done > something > > meritorious in a past life. > > > > If anyone would like to say 'hello' to me, you can take a look at > the photo files. > > I should say that it was a great pleasure to see the photos of > several of you. > > What a nice group! > > > > Sarah told me that she hopes that others will join in and post > photos of > > themselves as well. > > > > Regards, > > Robert Ep. 10894 From: egberdina Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 10:04pm Subject: Re: samma samadhi Dear John, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > > To summarise, the situations described in these 3 passages are-- > 1. Mundane jhana as a basis for (subsequent) mundane moments of insight. > 2. The mental factor of concentration that accompanies a (co- arising) > moment of insight; reckoned as jhana citta when accompanying a moment of > supramundane insight (path citta). > 3. Concentration of the level of samatha that leads to the attainment of > supernormal powers > You have described and summarised some references to concentration that you have read about. Does any of your own experience confirm what you have read about and shared with us? Herman 10895 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 10:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Attachment and Expectations --- Sarah wrote: > Usually we don’t wish to face up to the truth, but are we brave enough to > see that it’s not the others that hurt us, but our own kilesa(defilements) > that cause all the trouble in the world? This is excellent, Sarah, and the kind of post that can be applied in life and be very helpful. It has personal meaning to me, so I thank you for it. It is very true that while the other person may be 'responsible' for their own behavior and will create their own effects through their own behavior, we are responsible for how we take it and how we respond. To see our reactions as our own creation can be very helpful, in fact calming. We're always on our own path, not someone else's. [Disclaimer: All the we's and our's here shouldn't be taken to imply that there is an entity actually causing these effects.] Thanks again for the helpful post.....You're not falling victim to undue 'compassion' by any chance? Best, Robert Ep. 10896 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 10:31pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom Dear Howard, I’d just like to add to all Kom’s excellent responses on this one point only, which can be quite confusing, I think: --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Kom (and Larry) - ...................... If one > can say that letters are not rupa, then one can al > so say that kaya is not rupa, for the same reason. >But if memory serves > me, kaya/body is considered as rupa (but, of course, not elementary rupa > such as earth, air, fire, and water). Actually kaaya can refer to nama-kaya or rupa-kaya (see Nyantiloka dictionary extract below). When I wrote to Erik before about kaya lahuta (lightness of mental factors), kaya muduta (‘elasticity’ of mental factors) and so on, they were referring to kinds of nama-kaya. If we’re referring to kayanupassana (mindfulness of ‘body’), the first of the 4 foundations of mindfulness, then it is referring to rupas. In both cases, however, the namas and rupas are realities and not concepts like letters. In the second case, kayanupassana refers to rupas as objects of sati, not to a ‘body’ or ‘whole’, but to hardness, heat, motion, visible object and so on. From the Satipatthana Sutta Commentary we read: “There can be nothing apart from the qualities of primary and dervied materiality, in a body.” I look forward to hearing more of your useful discussions with Kom, Larry and others. (Herman, very glad to see your excellent questions to Kom and sincerely hope you were not too badly affected by the fires). Sarah káya (lit: accumulation): 'group', 'body', may either refer to the physical body (rúpa-káya) or to the mental body (náma-káya). In the latter case it is either a collective name for the mental groups (feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness; s. khandha), or merely for feeling, perception and a few of the mental formations (s. náma), e.g. in káya-lahutá, etc. (cf. Tab. II). Káya has this same meaning in the standard description of the 3rd absorption (jhána, q.v.) "and he feels joy in his mind or his mental constitution (káya)", and (e.g. Pug. 1-8) of the attainment of the 8 deliverances (vimokkha, q.v.); "having attained the 8 deliverances in his mind, or his person (káya)." - Káya is also the 5th sense-organ, the body-organ; s. áyatana, dhátu, indriya. ====================================================== 10897 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 10:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical? Dear lucy, --- Lucy wrote: > Dear Sarah > > I really enjoyed your 'myths on T&M', they kept me thinking and some > made > me scratch my head for quite a while! It's all been saved and printed Glad to hear this...I had some fund writing it;-) I'd be very glad if you questioned or challenged any of the points anytime too. (no sell-by dates here;-) After all your other study, hopefully the points will have made more sense. > I'm finding this exercise of looking at each cetasika individually and > investigating it over a number of days quite useful and revealing. It > helps > me sharpen mindfulness. Also good for me to try to stick to the Pali > Tipitaka definitions and explanations - as a way to discipline this mind > a > little : ) Well the meanings conveyed by the terms are so different from those we understand, that it does help to explore deeper, I think. For example, if we just write 'mental and physical phenomena' after each use of 'nama and rupa', it really doesn't help much at all. > I'm about to move from T&M into regret . As you can see there's little > method here. If anyone has a method to suggest, welcome ! I rather like your 'go with the flow and whatever develops method' ;-) Look forward to hearing your reflections on regret. > In between, I'm reading Abhidhamma in Daily Life. Thank you Nina, if > you're > reading this. It's a very clear and helpful introduction. Impressed, Sarah Btw, for any newbies, there is a simply pali glossary on the dsg homepage at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Pali_Glossary Also some saved posts under "New to the list and......", exploring ways to handle technical terms at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts ===================================================== 10898 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 10:58pm Subject: Group photos posted! Dear Friends, I am happy to announce that 4 of the group photos from Thailand have just been posted. Please have a look, in the photo files! Best, Robert Ep. 10899 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 11:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Subcommentary On The White Radiant Mind Dear Rob Ep & Ken O, From Suan’s very helpful translation of the sub-commentary on the ‘luminous’ sutta, we read: --- abhidhammika wrote: > >”>>> In reality, there is no such a case of the life-cause consciousness > being tarnished by blots because of unmixableness. However, through > inclusion in the same mental chain, there may be an indirect method > of saying about the life-cause consciousness being tarnished. > Therefore, the commentator said that "the Buddha said the scenario of > being tarnished." I think this quote answers one or two of the doubts you raised before. It clealy refers to the ‘indirect’ tarnishing and not that arising at the same moments of bhavanga cittas.(life-continuum consciousness). There are many, many other examples in the texts of indirect conditions and effects and I’ve often been puzzled by some of these and needed explanation. For example, we may read about certain mental states being the result of kamma, but on closer study, what is meant is that these mental states arise on account of particular vipaka (result of kamma), caused directly by kamma. Without some knowledge of Abhidhamma, I think it’s really hard to understand some Suttas. Looking forward to your comments and to further ones by Suan too. Many thanks again, Suan for your considerable contribution. Sarah =================================================== 10900 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jan 21, 2002 0:15am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concepts/Kom Dear Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > Greetings Kom, > > Four points: > 1. Would you agree with this even though it isn't > up to abhidhamma > precision: The nama rupa distinction is between > what is conscious, nama, > and what is not conscious, rupa. I think this is agreeable to the "abhidhammic" precision. Your presentation describes the distinctinction completely. > 2. As regards concepts, it sounds like you are > saying one can't practice > satipatthana if caught up in thinking. If so, I > agree. If you are saying > one can't take an erroneous concept as an object, > I disagree. Yes, as far as I know, only realities can be objects of satipatthana. Concepts, erroroneous or not, can never be. However, if you define concepts = nama, then we can yet come to an agreement, as for me concepts != nama. Knowing the concept (having the concept as the object) is nama, where as the concept is neither rupa nor nama nor any reality. > 2a. Did the Buddha have some words to describe > "being absorbed in > thought"? Not sure about this. Vitakka and vicara are prominent when it comes to being absorbed in thoughts. On the other hand, vitakka and vicara don't arise only when thinking, but in other occasions where there is no thinking (when there is direct experience of realities) as well. > > 3. The question about dukkha had to do with my > apprehension of regarding > everything as bad. I have known several people > who were very depressed > about themselves and life in general. This isn't > something I would like > to emulate. What is your view? If we can understand, accept (or come to see, even intellectually) that all things come to an end, and this is simply how it works, then there is no condition to be sad or depressed about things. However, if we think, oh no, all things are suffering and because this is the truth, I must believe so, then there is more probability of being sad and depressed. While we understand, there is no sadness. While we are sad, it is likely because we are losing things that we are attached to, in some way (like, I wish this lasts, even though it doesn't). Thinking that nothing that we experience in daily life is permanent is indeed different and can be a scary thought. I think how one reacts to it totally depends on one's accumulations (which can be said of anything!). > > 4. As for my admittedly shallow understanding of > mindfulness of mind > objects, I thought it was pretty much what we do > here: dhamma study. > Like Howard has mentioned, asking questions are a sign of being a person who understands, or eventually will understand. Everybody learns in this way, from not knowing anything, to knowing something, and to knowing something more. Just the facts that I might be spilling out the right words to you don't mean I understand anything at all. I am here to learn, like many other people. Thanks for asking the questions and being persistent. kom 10901 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 21, 2002 0:49am Subject: RE: [dsg] deceiving dhammas Kom (and all) Just a clarification on my post to you below, to avoid any possible misunderstanding. My comments are, as i say in the post, random thoughts and they in no way relate to anything mentioned in your earlier message. I was drawing on experiences from other occasions (and involving other people). I was just trying to bring out some of the different ideas one hears on this topic. Jon --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Kom > > I pretty much agree with what you say in the post below. Just one or > two > further (random) thoughts. > > There's no question about it, a proper understanding of the abhidhamma > is > indispensable to the development of understanding. And a proper > understanding of the abhidhamma can only be acquired by the proper study > of the abhidhamma. However, there seem to be different perceptions > around > as to what the proper study of abhidhamma can be. > > To my mind, there is a difference between *having an interest in > abhidhamma because one sees how it helps one to have a better > understanding of the teachings as a whole*, and *studying abhidhamma > with > the idea that the more detail one knows the better one's understanding > of > realities will likely be*. To me, the latter suggests a degree of > hoping > for (= clinging to) results. > > Also, while I can see the value of reflecting on how the present moment > is, in abhidhamma terms, simply different realities of momentary > duration, > and what those realities might be (although merely a level of thinking), > I > cannot see the value in being able to recite numbers and lists from the > abhidhamma, and nor do I see how the latter can help the former. > > I remember an occasion when this whole subject came up at the end of an > interesting morning's discussion. KS spoke about the importance of > knowing one's limits, in the sense of knowing what details were of > practical application given one's present level of understanding. I > understood her to be saying that the less understanding one has > developed, > the less the detail in the abhidhamma will be of direct application and > so > the more that detail will be of academic interest only. [This stands to > reason, when you think about it. It does not of course mean one should > not study more abhidhamma -- only that one needs to be realistic about > the > extent to which one is capable of benefiting 'real time' from that > study.] > The point is that abhidhamma, the suttas and the development of right > understanding are all mutually supportive, but at the same time mutually > dependent on each other. > > Anyway, I then commented that there were different ways of studying the > abhidhamma, and that the morning's discussion we had just had was itself > a > good instance of abhidhamma study. To my surprise, this comment was > questioned by some of those present. Afterwards, I jotted down in my > notebook some of the topics we had touched on, and came up with the > following (I'm sure a review of the tape would show even more than > these): > > visesa lakkhana/samanna lakkhana > 4 noble truths > paccaya (conditions) > rupas, course and subtle > bhavanga citta > sati and the sense-door process > stages of vipassana-nana > akusala kamma-pattha > sila and vinaya > > I wonder how such a discussion could not be regarded as a good morning's > abhidhamma study! To see abhidhamma study as the acquiring of detailed > knowledge from an abhidhamma book is surely to miss the point somewhat. > > Just my 2 cents worth, anyway. > > Jon > > PS I liked the bit about your maths professor. Sounds like his classes > were memorable. And another good mantra for any collector of worthwhile > reminders (Rob Ep?). > > > --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Jonothan, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jonothan Abbott [mailto:jonoabb@y...] > > > Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 12:10 AM > > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: RE: [dsg] deceiving dhammas > > > > > > > > > Kom > > > > > > --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > > > > Dear Nina, > > > > > > > I personally did not hear position A expressed in > > > India. I did of course > > > hear position B expressed (with the added detail > > > that the more abhidhamma > > > one knew, the better the conditions for awareness > > > and understanding to > > > arise). > > > > > > I noticed that if someone suggested position B > > > was not correct, those who > > > supported position B tended to 'hear' position A > > > being asserted (which of > > > course was not the case at all). > > > > > > It's ironic. On this list I am probably seen as > > > a 'position B' person, > > > while in India the position B camp saw me as a > > > position A person!! > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > I think given the quotes and references from the different > > texts that you contribute for others, it wouldn't be > > accurate to say that you fall in to camp A by any mean. I > > think as Nina reminds me recently, that benefiting from > > reading the different levels of details depends on the > > person's accumulations. Since we all have our own > > accumulations, it is certainly expected things would turn > > out differently for each person. > > > > I think I understand a bit more anatta intellectually after > > understanding the complexities of the conditions that cause > > things to happen. Without (and even with) that > > understanding, it would be very hard for me to buy the > > concept of anatta, even though it is explained in so many > > ways in the sutta. I think for some people, such details > > wouldn't be necessary: it is already plain to them. > > Although remembering (not a whole lot) the details of > > conditionalities hasn't directly helped knowing the nama and > > rupa better, understanding the complexities remove some > > doubts about anattaness of the dhamma and I am fully > > appreciative for the chance of hearing it. > > > > As K. Jaran reminds us recently, it is necessary to be "phu > > trong", to be sincere and know with wisdom the dhamma that > > actually appears. If remembering the intricate details > > about some parts of the dhamma doesn't help with > > understanding realities, why do I try to remember it? On > > the other hands, the Buddha explained different dhammas to > > different people with different accumulations: all he > > explained benefits somebody. Do we have the (perfect) > > wisdom to say that only listening to this part will benefit > > me, and listening to this other part won't? Only one knows > > one self (if one is so lucky; otherwise, it is just a > > guesstimate). > > > > My favorite (favorite, because I still remember it) by my > > math professor (whose name is Mazmanian, a cause for much > > amusement especially how he went about teaching Calculus) is > > "Nothing is further from the truth." (try this with an > > Armenian accent....). > > > > kom 10902 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jan 21, 2002 9:22am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concepts/Kom Hi Herman, Haven't talked to you for a long time. Let me give you another definition, from Nina's Abhidhamma in Daily Life (available from Zolag): There are two kinds of reality: mental phenomena or nåma and physical phenomena or rúpa . Nåma experiences something; rúpa does not experience anything. What we take for “self” are only nåma and rúpa which arise and fall away. The Visuddhimagga (Path of Purification chapter XVIII, 25) explains: For this has been said: “As with the assembly of parts The word ‘chariot’ is countenanced, So, when the khandhas are present, ‘A being’ is said in common usage”. (Kindred Sayings I, 135) > -----Original Message----- > From: egberdina [mailto:hhofman@d...] > Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 3:41 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts/Kom > > > Dear Kom, > > Is corporeality, materiality not a mental inference? It is true that in order for a rupa to appear, there must be nama to cognize that rupa. However, the characteristic of nama and rupa are distinctly different. One knows (cognizes) its object, and the other one doesn't. Seeing consciousness (nama) experiences the characteristics of the visible object (rupa), whereas the visible object doesn't experience anything. > When is visible object a rupa, and when is it a nama? Visible object is a rupa but is never a nama. The concept of visible object is neither nama nor rupa: it has no characteristics, it doesn't exist. > To add to my confusion, visible object to me is > always awareness of > visible object, adding further weight to my > belief that visible > object is mental in nature, not physical. The thing is, the seeing nama cannot arise unless there is a visible object. Seeing nama is conditioned by the visible object to arise, but they are distinctly different, even though one is conditioned by the other. The other samples maybe: 1) Hardness is rupa: it doesn't cognize anything 2) Vedana arising because of the hardness is nama: it has the hardness as its object. 3) Loud noise is rupa: it doesn't cognize anything 4) Hearing is nama: it cognizes the loud noise. 5) Anger is nama: it doesn't like that loud noise. The other categorization that may help include the 5 kandhas. Out of the 5 kandhas (form, feeling, memory, formation, and consciousness), only form is rupa: the other 4 kandhas are nama. The other categorization that may also help is the ayatana (sorry, don't know the translation) which are 12: 1) Eye-base 2) Visible object 3) Ear-base 4) Sound 5) Nose-base 6) Smell 7) Tongue-base 8) Taste (not tasting!) 9) Body-base 10) Hardness/Softness, heat, tactile 11) Mind (consciounes) 12) Dhammayatna (include rupas, conditioned namas, and unconditioned nama). Out of this, only 11 is truly nama. 1-10 are strictly rupas. 12) includes other rupas, but includes also other conditioned namas (cetasikas) and unconditioned namas (nibbana). kom 10903 From: Date: Mon Jan 21, 2002 2:10pm Subject: Re: concepts/Kom Kom, Thanks for your answers, very good and satisfying ;-) One minor point of clarification. As regards concepts and satipatthana, I believe you are saying: a. one can take the belief in a self, for example, as an object of satipatthana but not self itself because there isn't one. b. In the case of meditating on the Brahma Vihara (loving kindness, compassion, altruistic joy, and equanimity) or some other kind of meditation such as deity meditation, this isn't satipatthana. c. In the case of unknowingly identifying with something, breath for example, as self, this isn't a problem because even though there is a conceptual error (unrecognized), there is a real object, breath. d. If one knowingly identifies with the breath, thinking this I am, then this isn't satipatthana. But if one notes "believing this I am", this is satipatthana. Correct? Larry 10904 From: Date: Mon Jan 21, 2002 2:28pm Subject: dependence Does anyone know if there is any discussion of different kinds of dependence in the abhidhamma or commentaries? I can think of two kinds of irreversible dependence. One is automatic as in "when there is a high there is a low". The other is over time as in "when there is birth there is death". These don't apply to "when there is feeling there is craving". I'm interested in the nature of this kind of dependence and whether it is the same for all links in the dependent arising chain. thanks, Larry 10905 From: tikmok Date: Mon Jan 21, 2002 3:17pm Subject: Re: concepts/Kom Dear Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 2:11 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts/Kom > > > a. one can take the belief in a self, for example, as an object of > satipatthana but not self itself because there isn't one. Right. The belief in a self, micha-ditthi, can be an object of satipatthana, as it is a cetasika, a reality with its own characteristics. In reality, there is no self, so self can only be a concept, and cannot be an object of satipatthana. Let me caution you that micha-ditthi is translated as "wrong-view", which some people interpret as "actively thinking" about wrong views. Just a brief moment of belief (without actually having to think out the words like "this is permanent") is already a wrong view: this may be so brief (highly likely) that we may not even realize it. > > b. In the case of meditating on the Brahma Vihara (loving kindness, > compassion, altruistic joy, and equanimity) or some other kind of > meditation such as deity meditation, this isn't satipatthana. Most tranquil meditations, including the 4 you mention (brahma vihara) don't have a reality as its object. Although the object of the tranquil meditation cannot be the object of satipatthana, the meditation mental factors (realities), such as vitakka, vicara, altruistic joy, and equanimity can be the objects of satipathana. People who develop meditation mental factors also need to know the non-self characteristics of the mental factors as well. I believe Sariputta had either consciousness or the mental factors of meditation (jhana) as the object of satipatthana when he became an anagami and an arahat successively. > > c. In the case of unknowingly identifying with something, breath for > example, as self, this isn't a problem because even though there is a > conceptual error (unrecognized), there is a real object, breath. Having micha-ditthi itself doesn't prevent satipatthana from recognizing it (and other realities) as it truly is: a reality that is highly deluded. However, all kinds of akusala tends to build on itself: the more akusala you have, the less opportunity for sati to arise. I am not saying that you can make yourself to have less akusala or less micha-dithi, as all dhammas are anatta --- uncontrollable, arisen only because there are conditions for them to arise. > > d. If one knowingly identifies with the breath, thinking this I am, then > this isn't satipatthana. But if one notes "believing this I am", this is > satipatthana. > If panna notes (not me who notes) the characteristic of the beliving (micha-dithi), then this is Satipatthana. Note that: 1) It is very difficult to differentiate realities from concepts (not only conceptually, but in practice as well) 2) As dhamma is anatta, you cannot make anything to arise or not arise. It all depends on conditions. Lobha (attachment) can also have the characteristic of believing (micha-ditthi) as its object, even though lobha doesn't see the micha-ditthi as it really is. Attachment to results are prevelant, and it naturally leads us to the wrong belief that we are having satipatthana, and even the wrong belief of having attained. We need to be extremely thorough in the investigation of realities as attachments can be extremely subtle. kom 10906 From: egberdina Date: Mon Jan 21, 2002 10:05pm Subject: Re: concepts/Kom Dear Kom, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Hi Herman, > > Haven't talked to you for a long time. It is good to be talking to you! Thank you for your very clear post. > > Let me give you another definition, from Nina's Abhidhamma > in Daily Life (available from Zolag): > > There are two kinds of reality: mental phenomena or nåma and > physical phenomena or rúpa . Nåma experiences something; > rúpa > does not experience anything. What we take for "self" are > only > nåma and rúpa which arise and fall away. The Visuddhimagga > (Path of Purification chapter XVIII, 25) explains: > For this has been said: > "As with the assembly of parts > The word `chariot' is countenanced, > So, when the khandhas are present, > `A being' is said in common usage". > (Kindred Sayings I, 135) > I am probably misunderstanding, but all that I know about other human beings is their rupa, yet I attribute nama to them. So I see others as rupas that experience something. We all believe that other people experience something, don't we? > > > > > > Dear Kom, > > > > Is corporeality, materiality not a mental inference? > > It is true that in order for a rupa to appear, there must be > nama to cognize that rupa. However, the characteristic of > nama and rupa are distinctly different. One knows > (cognizes) its object, and the other one doesn't. Seeing > consciousness (nama) experiences the characteristics of the > visible object (rupa), whereas the visible object doesn't > experience anything. > > > When is visible object a rupa, and when is it a nama? > > Visible object is a rupa but is never a nama. The concept > of visible object is neither nama nor rupa: it has no > characteristics, it doesn't exist. > > > To add to my confusion, visible object to me is > > always awareness of > > visible object, adding further weight to my > > belief that visible > > object is mental in nature, not physical. > > The thing is, the seeing nama cannot arise unless there is a > visible object. Seeing nama is conditioned by the visible > object to arise, but they are distinctly different, even > though one is conditioned by the other. > I take from this that a rupa is only a rupa while it is being experienced. Do Buddhists believe that the material world continues when it is not being experienced? Is there a word/concept for the world as it is when it is not being perceived ie deep sleep ? > The other samples maybe: > 1) Hardness is rupa: it doesn't cognize anything > 2) Vedana arising because of the hardness is nama: it has > the hardness as its object. > 3) Loud noise is rupa: it doesn't cognize anything > 4) Hearing is nama: it cognizes the loud noise. > 5) Anger is nama: it doesn't like that loud noise. > > The other categorization that may help include the 5 > kandhas. Out of the 5 kandhas (form, feeling, memory, > formation, and consciousness), only form is rupa: the other > 4 kandhas are nama. > > The other categorization that may also help is the ayatana > (sorry, don't know the translation) which are 12: > 1) Eye-base 2) Visible object > 3) Ear-base 4) Sound > 5) Nose-base 6) Smell > 7) Tongue-base 8) Taste (not tasting!) > 9) Body-base 10) Hardness/Softness, heat, tactile > 11) Mind (consciounes) 12) Dhammayatna (include rupas, > conditioned namas, and unconditioned nama). > > Out of this, only 11 is truly nama. 1-10 are strictly rupas. > 12) includes other rupas, but includes also other > conditioned namas (cetasikas) and unconditioned namas > (nibbana). > > kom Thanks for all these examples, Kom. Herman 10907 From: egberdina Date: Mon Jan 21, 2002 10:10pm Subject: Re: Group photos posted! Dear Robert, I think the photos are great. No-one looks scary at all !!!! It is very nice to be able to put a face to the names, and to associate the outlooks which people have with their faces. I'll see if I can dig something flattering up. Thank you for the effort. Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Friends, > I am happy to announce that 4 of the group photos from Thailand have just been > posted. Please have a look, in the photo files! > > Best, > Robert Ep. > 10908 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jan 21, 2002 10:30pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concepts/Kom Dear Herman, > -----Original Message----- > From: egberdina [mailto:hhofman@d...] > > I am probably misunderstanding, but all that I > know about other human > beings is their rupa, yet I attribute nama to > them. So I see others > as rupas that experience something. We all > believe that other people > experience something, don't we? Yes, all we understand about other human beings are the assembly of the actual experiences we have (seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, and tasting), and other "external projections" that we conjure up. Except for specific circumstances, we don't directly experience the nama kandhas that rise and fall away in others. However, by inference that since I have this, other may have it too, we come to be convinced that the same basic process goes on in others. > > > > Visible object is a rupa but is never a nama. > The concept > > of visible object is neither nama nor rupa: it has no > > characteristics, it doesn't exist. > > > > The thing is, the seeing nama cannot arise > unless there is a > > visible object. Seeing nama is conditioned by > the visible > > object to arise, but they are distinctly different, even > > though one is conditioned by the other. > > > > I take from this that a rupa is only a rupa while > it is being > experienced. Do Buddhists believe that the > material world continues > when it is not being experienced? Is there a > word/concept for the > world as it is when it is not being perceived ie > deep sleep ? Again, by inference there must be. However, only one reality is experienced at any point of time. By the abhidhamma's model, other realities exist even if we don't experience those realities, and they don't affect us in anyway. A. Sujin said even though they exist, they might as well not exist, for they have already arisen and fallen away (without being experienced.) kom 10909 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Jan 21, 2002 10:50pm Subject: Re: Group photos posted! Flattering????? Hey Herman! the rest of us had no choice....we were ambushed by Sukin! (only joking Sukin - you did a great job). :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "egberdina" wrote: > Dear Robert, > > I think the photos are great. No-one looks scary at all !!!! It is > very nice to be able to put a face to the names, and to associate the > outlooks which people have with their faces. > > I'll see if I can dig something flattering up. > > Thank you for the effort. > > > Herman > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > I am happy to announce that 4 of the group photos from Thailand > have just been > > posted. Please have a look, in the photo files! > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > 10910 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Jan 21, 2002 11:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Group photos posted! Hi Herman! --- egberdina wrote: > Dear Robert, > > I think the photos are great. No-one looks scary at all !!!! Ha ha. That is a great comment. You're right, everyone looks great, and very nice. It is > very nice to be able to put a face to the names, and to associate the > outlooks which people have with their faces. > > I'll see if I can dig something flattering up. Anything that looks like you will do fine! > Thank you for the effort. I'm really just trying to accumulate merit, but my ego keeps getting in the way! Robert Ep. ============ > > Herman > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > I am happy to announce that 4 of the group photos from Thailand > have just been > > posted. Please have a look, in the photo files! > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. 10911 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 21, 2002 11:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Group photos posted! Hi Chris and Herman, Christine's comment below was the one I was going to make too;-) We weren't given any choice of pics, so I think everyone should add their least flattering one;-) Herman, I'd really like to see one of you with the whole gang;-) Num has a great one at San Diego zoo (of him) which hopefully he'll add soon..... Kom, maybe a friend can scan in the one of you (& Jon) on the bus. Nina - an excellent picture of you and Lodevick.... Thanks again, Gayan. Look f/w to more. Rob Ep- you're doing a good job - I'll leave you to chase after those half-promised ones. Emmy (yr daughter) wins the prize for the most photogenic member of dsg to date;-) Sarah --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Flattering????? Hey Herman! the rest of us had no choice....we were > ambushed by Sukin! > (only joking Sukin - you did a great job). :-) > > metta, > Christine > 10912 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Jan 21, 2002 11:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Subcommentary On The White Radiant Mind --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob Ep & Ken O, > > From Suan’s very helpful translation of the sub-commentary on the > ‘luminous’ sutta, we read: > > --- abhidhammika wrote: > > > >”>>> In reality, there is no such a case of the life-cause consciousness > > being tarnished by blots because of unmixableness. However, through > > inclusion in the same mental chain, there may be an indirect method > > of saying about the life-cause consciousness being tarnished. > > Therefore, the commentator said that "the Buddha said the scenario of > > being tarnished." > > I think this quote answers one or two of the doubts you raised before. It > clealy refers to the ‘indirect’ tarnishing and not that arising at the > same moments of bhavanga cittas.(life-continuum consciousness). Dear Sarah, I was going to wait for Suan's sub-sub-commentary, but I can't wait anymore. I hope you will forgive me for giving my views here in reply to your post. I hope you won't be blamed for this result by others. What I don't understand is the purpose in saying that luminous mind is defiled by blots, and that the luminous mind is freed from defiling blots, if what the Buddha really means is that luminous mind is really *not* defiled by blots, but only appears to be defiled by blots because of occuring in the proximity of the defilements. It still seems to me that the commentary is making the opposite point that is made by the Buddha's direct words in the Sutta. If someone could explain to me why the Bhavanga Citta interpretation sheds light on the actual words, rather than contradicting them, I would certainly be open to that. But it seems like the Buddha, perhaps indeed in a form of conventional language, is saying that mind is inherently luminous except for the temporary appearance of defilements, and that mind can be freed from those defilements revealing the true purity and luminosity of consciousness. Now if one takes that statement on its face, it really is of great value, because what it does is give hope to the seeker that his mind has the potential for purity and luminosity, in other words wisdom, and that if he stays on the path he will be able to get past the defilements to this state of pure awareness. This does not posit an entity or a 'mind' that is some sort of final entity at the end of the rainbow. It just says that there is a better state for consciousness to attain, and that this state is particularly attainable, since the basic condition of consciousness is already equipped to attain this state. It is both a very basic structural description of the nature of consciousness when it is freed from defilements, and a paticularly encouraging message for one engaged in that process who is no doubt encountering more and more defilements as he progresses and becomes more aware of them. To separate the 'pure' and the 'impure' aspects of this statement into two separate types of consciousness, the ordinary defiled cittas and the bhavanga cittas, to me defeats this purpose. It changes the statement to say that the cittas that are pure have always been that way and will remain that way no matter what, and the cittas that are impure will remain the way they are also. So basically, there is no progressive note in that message, it's just a comparison of the way the pure and impure cittas sort of line up together without really touching each other in any way. It is a closed system. Of course, the cittas themselves will continue to accumulate the results of all the sati and panna that take place and be passed on to further cittas. So eventually the purity and radiance of wisdom and discernment will indeed be found in the arising cittas later on the path, so this can be encouraging in its own right. But what the interpretation of the commentary does here, is it removes the Buddha's statement from this process, and instead of being *about* this progress in the accumulation of kusala attributes as they go along, it becomes reduced to a static comparison between the bhavanga cittas and the ordinary cittas. In my view, which is of course open to broad correction, bringing the bhavanga cittas into the equation seems to defeat the plain meaning of the original text of the Sutta. The only reason I can think of as to why this would seem necessary would be to avoid an interpretation of the sutta that might imply that the 'mind' was an object that was covered by defilements and that later became cleaned. This type of 'entity-ness' we would all want to avoid in the interpretation. But this sense of 'entity' can be completely avoided by simply looking at 'mind' as the potential state of arising consciousness. Even though cittas come and go, they all share a basic nature or essence, and have a certain set of potentials and capabilities. So we can talk about the nature of consciousness without reifying it into a potential object or entity, just as we can talk about electricity and its properties without assuming that by doing so we are somehow assuming that electricty doesn't 'flow' and somehow stands still for us to look at it, which of course it never does. Consciousness, like electricity, only exists in flux. As a kandha, it has no 'resting position'. When it is not reaching out to touch rupa or nama it is non-arising, so there is no possibility of turning it into an 'object' or 'entity', except in the moment of its occurrence. With this in mind, the split in the commentary between bhavanga cittas and waking, defiled cittas, seems to be unnecessary. I would be very interested to hear why folks may think that it is helpful or necessary to interpret the sutta in the way of the commentary, that the purity of mind refers only to bhavanga cittas, and not to supramundane cittas that have entered the realm of purity and luminosity of the Arahants or Buddhas. To see the luminous mind as referring to supramundane consciousness would make a lot of sense to me and the sutta would be saying that the current state of the cittas is to be arising with defilements, but when they are purified by sati and panna, then the resulting cittas will reveal the luminosity of their true nature, which is to arise as clear and undefiled partakers of realities. This would seem to be the basic structural message of the sutta on the luminous mind in abhidhammic terms as far as my limited way of expressing it can devise, and I can't see why this isn't reflected in the commentary. I also greatly look forward to Suan's sub-sub-commentary. Perhaps he'll enjoy responding to my diatribe above. Best Regards, Robert Ep. ======================= > There are many, many other examples in the texts of indirect conditions > and effects and I’ve often been puzzled by some of these and needed > explanation. For example, we may read about certain mental states being > the result of kamma, but on closer study, what is meant is that these > mental states arise on account of particular vipaka (result of kamma), > caused directly by kamma. Without some knowledge of Abhidhamma, I think > it’s really hard to understand some Suttas. > > Looking forward to your comments and to further ones by Suan too. Many > thanks again, Suan for your considerable contribution. > > Sarah > =================================================== 10913 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Jan 21, 2002 11:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Group photos posted! --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Chris and Herman, > > Christine's comment below was the one I was going to make too;-) We > weren't given any choice of pics, so I think everyone should add their > least flattering one;-) > > Herman, I'd really like to see one of you with the whole gang;-) > > Num has a great one at San Diego zoo (of him) which hopefully he'll add > soon..... Kom, maybe a friend can scan in the one of you (& Jon) on the > bus. > > Nina - an excellent picture of you and Lodevick.... > Thanks again, Gayan. > > Look f/w to more. Rob Ep- you're doing a good job - I'll leave you to > chase after those half-promised ones. Emmy (yr daughter) wins the prize > for the most photogenic member of dsg to date;-) > Sarah Thanks Sarah! You're very kind. You're making me regret my recent comments on the Radiant Mind already!! Regards, Robert Ep. 10914 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Jan 22, 2002 6:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samma samadhi Herman --- egberdina wrote: > Dear John, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Victor > > > > > > To summarise, the situations described in these 3 passages are-- > > 1. Mundane jhana as a basis for (subsequent) mundane moments of > insight. > > 2. The mental factor of concentration that accompanies a (co- > arising) > > moment of insight; reckoned as jhana citta when accompanying a > moment of > > supramundane insight (path citta). > > 3. Concentration of the level of samatha that leads to the > attainment of > > supernormal powers > > > > You have described and summarised some references to concentration > that you have read about. Does any of your own experience confirm > what you have read about and shared with us? Good heavens, no! In commenting on Victor's sutta references, I am drawing as directly as possible from the texts and commentaries, as best I understand them. The point of the exercise is to understand something about the Buddha's stated position on the subject (in this instance, concentration and understanding). This I believe can only be achieved by referring to the texts and commentaries -- I know of no other authoritative source on the subject. Personally, I find any kind of speculation pretty useless and also rather uninteresting. That's why I try to stick to the texts. It is a kind of intellectual study. But I believe intellectual study to be a necessary part of the development of the understanding taught by the Buddha. I also think it can be directly useful, particularly where it relates to aspects of practice (in this case, did the Buddha teach the development of samatha as a necessary part of the development of vipassana? -- worth spending some time and effort on, I think). Of course, what we make of any information gained from intellectual study is another thing. This is where it helps to know our limits. Hope I've answered your question! Jon ===== 10915 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: chat on vipassana, to Kom, Jaran. op 21-01-2002 18:22 schreef Kom Tukovinit op tikmok@y...: >> Herman: Is corporeality, materiality not a mental inference? > > Kom: It is true that in order for a rupa to appear, there must be > nama to cognize that rupa. However, the characteristic of > nama and rupa are distinctly different. One knows > (cognizes) its object, and the other one doesn't. Seeing > consciousness (nama) experiences the characteristics of the > visible object (rupa), whereas the visible object doesn't > experience anything. > H: When is visible object a rupa, and when is it a nama? > K: Visible object is a rupa but is never a nama. The concept > of visible object is neither nama nor rupa: it has no > characteristics, it doesn't exist. > >> To add to my confusion, visible object to me is >> always awareness of >> visible object, adding further weight to my >> belief that visible >> object is mental in nature, not physical. > > The thing is, the seeing nama cannot arise unless there is a > visible object. Seeing nama is conditioned by the visible > object to arise, but they are distinctly different, even > though one is conditioned by the other. > > The other samples maybe: > 1) Hardness is rupa: it doesn't cognize anything > 2) Vedana arising because of the hardness is nama: it has > the hardness as its object. > 3) Loud noise is rupa: it doesn't cognize anything > 4) Hearing is nama: it cognizes the loud noise. > 5) Anger is nama: it doesn't like that loud noise. > > The other categorization that may help include the 5 > kandhas. Out of the 5 kandhas (form, feeling, memory, > formation, and consciousness), only form is rupa: the other > 4 kandhas are nama. > > The other categorization that may also help is the ayatana > (sorry, don't know the translation) which are 12: > 1) Eye-base 2) Visible object > 3) Ear-base 4) Sound > 5) Nose-base 6) Smell > 7) Tongue-base 8) Taste (not tasting!) > 9) Body-base 10) Hardness/Softness, heat, tactile > 11) Mind (consciounes) 12) Dhammayatna (include rupas, > conditioned namas, and unconditioned nama). > > Out of this, only 11 is truly nama. 1-10 are strictly rupas. > 12) includes other rupas, but includes also other > conditioned namas (cetasikas) and unconditioned namas > (nibbana). > > kom Dear Kom, when I read your explanation of nama and rupa I found it a very good reminder that in the development of insight first of all the difference between nama and rupa has to be realized. I enjoyed it how you brought in all the different categories of realities as the objects of understanding. I need lots of reminders from my friends! Rob K recently gave us good reminders from A. Sujin: we cannot do anything as to the arising of right awareness. The development of insight should lead to detachment. We should learn to be aware of realities such as dosa and lobha as simply namas. Thus, we can think a great deal of the "deceiving dhammas" and find out when they occur, but that is still thinking, and what is more, there is a certain holding on to our thoughts with lobha. When there is awareness of the next reality presenting itself, we do not hold on to our thinking, and in this way realities can be realized as only nama and rupa, and gradually the difference between nama and rupa can be realized. Thus, for a moment there is detachment, but this is very short. When Jaran, together with two friends, visited me in Holland, we discussed detachment.I said that A. Sujin stresses that the development of the Path leads to detachment. I asked him what he thought of this. He said that we cannot expect there to be detachment yet. This is true, and we should be sincere. There is some detachment in as far as we learn that there is no self who can do anything. There can be detachment from the idea of my practice. I showed Jaran the Thai commentary on the Kindred Sayings, Mahavagga, the setting in motion of the wheel of Dhamma, about the four noble Truths and the three rounds of realizing these: knowing the truth that should be understood, the task, namely satipatthana, and the fruit, the truth that has been relaized. He read aloud the text and it was very impressive. The repetitions of: one should understand, one should detach are very effective. Jaran gave me many tapes and we discussed the importance of listening, besides reading or writing. I neglect the listening part, it is difficult to find the time, but these tapes are an incentive to find extra time for listening. Jaran said that in the train from the Hague to Amsterdam he talked all the time on Dhamma with his friends. Nina. 10916 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Jan 22, 2002 9:11pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: chat on vipassana, to Kom, Jaran. Dear Nina, Thank you for this reminder! kom > -----Original Message----- > From: Nina van Gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...] > 10917 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Jan 22, 2002 9:17pm Subject: RE: [dsg] deceiving dhammas Dear Jonothan, > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonothan Abbott [mailto:jonoabb@y...] > To my mind, there is a difference between *having > an interest in > abhidhamma because one sees how it helps one to > have a better > understanding of the teachings as a whole*, and > *studying abhidhamma with > the idea that the more detail one knows the > better one's understanding of > realities will likely be*. To me, the latter > suggests a degree of hoping > for (= clinging to) results. A fine line that needs to be distinguished indeed. > I > cannot see the value in being able to recite > numbers and lists from the > abhidhamma, and nor do I see how the latter can > help the former. Not even for entertainment value? :-> > PS I liked the bit about your maths professor. > Sounds like his classes > were memorable. And another good mantra for any > collector of worthwhile > reminders (Rob Ep?). The saying was most memorable. I appreciated it then. I appreciate it even more now... Thanks for your inputs and kind reminders. kom 10918 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:40pm Subject: From (relevant) compassion to (irrelevant???) visual-consciousness Dear Rob Ep, Chris & friends, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > This is excellent, Sarah, and the kind of post that can be applied in > life and be > very helpful. It has personal meaning to me, so I thank you for it. It > is very > true that while the other person may be 'responsible' for their own > behavior and > will create their own effects through their own behavior, we are > responsible for > how we take it and how we respond. To see our reactions as our own > creation can > be very helpful, in fact calming. We're always on our own path, not > someone > else's. [Disclaimer: All the we's and our's here shouldn't be taken to > imply that > there is an entity actually causing these effects.] > > Thanks again for the helpful post.....You're not falling victim to undue > 'compassion' by any chance? .......... I appreciate your comments too. Let me try to add a little more and I hope to show the connection with other posts on topics about realities like seeing and visible object which may not immediately seem so relevant or applicable in life. Chris also asked for further references on the ‘non-control’ aspect of anatta in relation to this theme of social responsibility, kamma and reactions of sadness, so I’ll try to add one or two at the end. Chris, you also raised these excellent questions: “Why do people who should know better, treat each other so cruelly?''Why do terrible things happen?' 'Who/what decides?' 'How can I and my loved ones be safe and protected?' 'Why do some people/societies seem to get away with monstrous crimes?' 'How can they behave in that way?' 'If that can happen to them, can it happen to me?' 'Where's the fairness?' 'Who's running this system anyway?' 'Who's responsible?' and 'I don't want it to be this way, at least, for me'....” .......... Firstly, when I started to understand that anytime there was any unpleansant feeling, idea of unfairness, outrage, sorrow or grief, that there certainly wasn’t any compasion at these times, I started to see that 99% of what I had taken to be compasion was mere dosa (aversion). This same dosa accumulates every time we mind about the others’ behaviour (whether that of an individual or society at large) or are distressed in anyway, however justifiable it may seem. We mind about the sorrow or grief we feel simply because it is not pleasant, but seldom do we mind about the attachment to the pleasant words and actions of the same individuals or society. We just enjoy them. We have expectations they will continue. So often when they don’t, we ascribe motives and build stories when really we have little idea about the others. We don’t even know our own accumulations at this moment. How can we know the others’? People may think that seeing the uselessness of outrage, sorrow and not caring about the evils of the world sounds like inaction and a ‘cop-out’. When we talk about the inherent dukkha in all realities and facing up to one’s kilesa, it can sound depressing and discouraging. On the contrary, I think this is the truly liberating path that the Buddha taught. Understanding precisely the difference between skilful and unskilful states and realizing the anattaness and the lack of control or controllability of these same states is what will free us from bondage eventually and help us develop more ‘responsibility’, not less. Understanding that most of what we have taken to be compassion is really aversion, or most of what we have taken for metta is attachment , will be a condition for more true compassion and metta in the future, not less. Without the understanding of the difference, on the other hand, it will be the sorrow and attachment and ignorance that are accumulated instead. Rob K already wrote some really helpful comments on kamma and ‘fairness’ and accumulations. You mention that these seem ‘capricious’ so I’ll try add another ‘relevant’ example. Now, we may be overwhelmed with sadness. Immediately some results may be apparent. The effects are obvious in our facial features, unpleasant results are experienced in the body and in addition we can see how the sadness triggers off more unpleasant feeling and useless thinking. No one wishes for it to result in the unpleasant bodily experiences or to aggravate more unpleasantness. It is just the nature of these realities that they have effect and accumulate. It may seem as though kamma is very ‘capricious’, but it can be tested and proved even now, even though we can never understand all the intricate conditions and causes. This is the way, however, we will have more confidence in these complexities that cannot possibly be directly tested. By understanding more about the different skilful and unskilful states, we begin to see that they are just mental states, not self and not controllable. Kom just quoted this definition of nama and rupas from ‘Abhidhamma in Daily Life”: .......... “There are two kinds of reality: mental phenomena or nåma and physical phenomena or rúpa . Nåma experiences something; rúpa does not experience anything. What we take for “self” are only nåma and rúpa which arise and fall away. The Visuddhimagga (Path of Purification chapter XVIII, 25) explains: For this has been said: “As with the assembly of parts The word ‘chariot’ is countenanced, So, when the khandhas are present, ‘A being’ is said in common usage”. (Kindred Sayings I, 135)” .......... We may not find other namas, such as seeing and hearing and bhavanga cittas, in particular, as beng so relevant to our concerns. Furthermore, rupas such as visible objects and hardness may not seem to be an issue in the world of suffering. However, it is really only by knowing many, many, many different realities more and more precisely, without selection of those we’d like to know better, that the understanding of anatta and it’s nature of ‘no-control’ will be developed. Without this developed understanding, we will continue to live in a world of stories and fantasies, feeling dismayed by some and jubilant about others, not realizing they are the conjurer’s tricks as Howard described so aptly when he said “It is like a mind-created magic show, and we are an overly gullible audience.” We will think there really are ‘monstrous crimes’, ‘societies’, ‘people running systems’ and ‘terrible things’, not realizing that kamma is just a moment of intention (cetana) and that its result is this very moment of seeing or unpleasnat bodily feeling. While some concepts may seem more worthwhile and accurate than others (and on one level this is true), ultimately the task is to understand the realities that can be directly known and to develop skilful states, rather than to ‘develop’ concepts. So, Rob Ep, I think we begin to learn that understanding precisely the difference between concepts and realities, between seeing and visible object, between kamma and its result and even between bhavanga cittas and sense door processes is as relevant to daily life as understanding the difference between the dosa and compassion we experience when we hear harsh words or see someone ‘suffering’. The following is a quote from an earlier post of mine (to Christine) on the topic of realities, anatta and control: .......... >Sarah: I think it’s a matter of interpretation and understanding when we read (the same) suttas. When I read about realities or about not-self, I understand them to be about ‘No control’. For example, I've just been reading from The Life of the Buddha by B.Nanamoli: ‘The discourse on the Not-Self characteristic’ ‘Bhikkhus, material form is not self. If material form were self, this material form would not lead to affliction, and it could be had of material form: Let my material form be thus; let my material form be not thus. And it is because material form is not self that it leads to affliction, and that it cannot be had of material form: Let my material form be thus: let my material form be not thus... ‘Feeling is not self... ‘Perception is not self... ‘Formations are not self... Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction and it could be had of consciousness: let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness be not thus. And it is because consciousness is not self that it therefore leads to affliction, and that it cannot be had of consciousness: Let my consciousnes be thus; let my consciousness be not thus...........’ (Vin, Mv. Kh; cf S.X11,59) .......... In this post I’ve tried to cover a few areas which have had tremendous impact on me personally and which have been raised by you both as well, I think. The following Sutta quote also summarises all the points I’ve been trying to make and I hope that the relevance in life of posts on visual consciousness will now also be apparent;-)): .......... '”...Visual consciousness, your reverences, arises because of eye and visual object: the meeting of the three is sensory impingement (phassa); feelings are because of sensory impingement; what one feels one perceives; what one perceives one reasons about; what one reasons about obsesses one; what obsesses one is the origin of the number of perceptions and obsessions which assail a man in regard to visual object cognisable by tye eye, past, future, present.... MN(1,no18, Disc of the Honey Ball) .......... As Rob Ep said at the outset: > We're always on our own path, not > someone > else's”. “while the other person may be 'responsible' for their own > behavior and > will create their own effects through their own behavior, we are > responsible for > how we take it and how we respond .......... Finally (at the risk of over-quoting), understanding realities and conditions and learning to live with ‘our’ own results of kamma without being overwhelmed by them is what we read about in the Migajala Sutta; ‘There are, Migajala, sounds cognizable by the ear..odours cognizable by the nose..tastes cognizable by the tongue..tactile objects cognizable by the body..mental phenomena cognizable by the mind that are desirable, lovely, agreeable, pleasing, sensually enticing, tantalizing. If a bhikkhu does not seek delight in them..he is called alone dweller. ‘Migajala, even though a bhikkhu who dwells thus lives in the vicinity of a village, associating with bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, with male and felmale lay follower, with kings and royal ministers, with sectarian teachers and their disciples, he is still called a lone dweller. For what reason? Because craving is his partner and he has abandoned it; therefore his is called a lone dweller.” (SN, Bk of 6 Sense Bases.63, B.Bodhi trans) .......... Best wishes, Sarah ====================================================== 10919 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Group photos posted! Dear Rob Ep, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Thanks Sarah! You're very kind. > You're making me regret my recent comments on the Radiant Mind already!! > > Now, Lucy is going to lead the discussion on regret soon.....;-)) I've only had time to take a quick look at your Radiant Mind comments, but it seems like you've really been considering carefully and you've raised some very useful points to discuss further. Be very sure that any comments and considerations you raise will be shared by many others too and I'm sure many of us will be delighted to hear them. My post just sent to you and Chris has used up my quota of computer time, so I'll have to leave anything else for now. Like you, I look forward to Suan's (and anyone else's) further comments. Sarah ==================================================== 10920 From: egberdina Date: Tue Jan 22, 2002 11:09pm Subject: Photo Hi all, Just to let you all know I managed to find a half-decent photo, and posted it to the photos section. Please note the curtains in the shot :-) All the best Herman 10921 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Jan 22, 2002 11:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] From (relevant) compassion to (irrelevant???) visual-consciousness Dear Sarah, Thanks for going to the trouble of tying all these ideas together. A lot of worthwhile points. Best, Robert Ep. ========== --- Sarah wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep, Chris & friends, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > This is excellent, Sarah, and the kind of post that can be applied in > > life and be > > very helpful. It has personal meaning to me, so I thank you for it. It > > is very > > true that while the other person may be 'responsible' for their own > > behavior and > > will create their own effects through their own behavior, we are > > responsible for > > how we take it and how we respond. To see our reactions as our own > > creation can > > be very helpful, in fact calming. We're always on our own path, not > > someone > > else's. [Disclaimer: All the we's and our's here shouldn't be taken to > > imply that > > there is an entity actually causing these effects.] > > > > Thanks again for the helpful post.....You're not falling victim to undue > > 'compassion' by any chance? > .......... > I appreciate your comments too. Let me try to add a little more and I hope > to show the connection with other posts on topics about realities like > seeing and visible object which may not immediately seem so relevant or > applicable in life. Chris also asked for further references on the > ‘non-control’ aspect of anatta in relation to this theme of social > responsibility, kamma and reactions of sadness, so I’ll try to add one or > two at the end. > > Chris, you also raised these excellent questions: “Why do people who > should know better, treat each other so > cruelly?''Why do terrible things happen?' 'Who/what decides?' 'How > can I and my loved ones be safe and protected?' 'Why do some > people/societies seem to get away with monstrous crimes?' 'How can > they behave in that way?' 'If that can happen to them, can it happen > to me?' 'Where's the fairness?' 'Who's running this system > anyway?' 'Who's responsible?' and 'I don't want it to be this way, at > least, for me'....” > .......... > Firstly, when I started to understand that anytime there was any > unpleansant feeling, idea of unfairness, outrage, sorrow or grief, that > there certainly wasn’t any compasion at these times, I started to see that > 99% of what I had taken to be compasion was mere dosa (aversion). This > same dosa accumulates every time we mind about the others’ behaviour > (whether that of an individual or society at large) or are distressed in > anyway, however justifiable it may seem. > > We mind about the sorrow or grief we feel simply because it is not > pleasant, but seldom do we mind about the attachment to the pleasant words > and actions of the same individuals or society. We just enjoy them. We > have expectations they will continue. So often when they don’t, we ascribe > motives and build stories when really we have little idea about the > others. We don’t even know our own accumulations at this moment. How can > we know the others’? > > People may think that seeing the uselessness of outrage, sorrow and not > caring about the evils of the world sounds like inaction and a ‘cop-out’. > When we talk about the inherent dukkha in all realities and facing up to > one’s kilesa, it can sound depressing and discouraging. > > On the contrary, I think this is the truly liberating path that the Buddha > taught. Understanding precisely the difference between skilful and > unskilful states and realizing the anattaness and the lack of control or > controllability of these same states is what will free us from bondage > eventually and help us develop more ‘responsibility’, not less. > Understanding that most of what we have taken to be compassion is really > aversion, or most of what we have taken for metta is attachment , will be > a condition for more true compassion and metta in the future, not less. > Without the understanding of the difference, on the other hand, it will > be the sorrow and attachment and ignorance that are accumulated instead. > > Rob K already wrote some really helpful comments on kamma and ‘fairness’ > and accumulations. You mention that these seem ‘capricious’ so I’ll try > add another ‘relevant’ example. > > Now, we may be overwhelmed with sadness. Immediately some results may be > apparent. The effects are obvious in our facial features, unpleasant > results are experienced in the body and in addition we can see how the > sadness triggers off more unpleasant feeling and useless thinking. No one > wishes for it to result in the unpleasant bodily experiences or to > aggravate more unpleasantness. It is just the nature of these realities > that they have effect and accumulate. It may seem as though kamma is very > ‘capricious’, but it can be tested and proved even now, even though we can > never understand all the intricate conditions and causes. This is the way, > however, we will have more confidence in these complexities that cannot > possibly be directly tested. By understanding more about the different > skilful and unskilful states, we begin to see that they are just mental > states, not self and not controllable. > > Kom just quoted this definition of nama and rupas from ‘Abhidhamma in > Daily Life”: > .......... > “There are two kinds of reality: mental phenomena or nåma and > physical phenomena or rúpa . Nåma experiences something; > rúpa > does not experience anything. What we take for “self” are > only > nåma and rúpa which arise and fall away. The Visuddhimagga > (Path of Purification chapter XVIII, 25) explains: > For this has been said: > “As with the assembly of parts > The word ‘chariot’ is countenanced, > So, when the khandhas are present, > ‘A being’ is said in common usage”. > (Kindred Sayings I, 135)” > .......... > We may not find other namas, such as seeing and hearing and bhavanga > cittas, in particular, as beng so relevant to our concerns. Furthermore, > rupas such as visible objects and hardness may not seem to be an issue in > the world of suffering. However, it is really only by knowing many, many, > many different realities more and more precisely, without selection of > those we’d like to know better, that the understanding of anatta and it’s > nature of ‘no-control’ will be developed. > > Without this developed understanding, we will continue to live in a world > of stories and fantasies, feeling dismayed by some and jubilant about > others, not realizing they are the conjurer’s tricks as Howard described > so aptly when he said “It is like a mind-created magic show, and we are > an overly gullible audience.” > > We will think there really are ‘monstrous crimes’, ‘societies’, ‘people > running systems’ and ‘terrible things’, not realizing that kamma is just a > moment of intention (cetana) and that its result is this very moment of > seeing or unpleasnat bodily feeling. While some concepts may seem more > worthwhile and accurate than others (and on one level this is true), > ultimately the task is to understand the realities that can be directly > known and to develop skilful states, rather than to ‘develop’ concepts. > > So, Rob Ep, I think we begin to learn that understanding precisely the > difference between concepts and realities, between seeing and visible > object, between kamma and its result and even between bhavanga cittas and > sense door processes is as relevant to daily life as understanding the > difference between the dosa and compassion we experience when we hear > harsh words or see someone ‘suffering’. > > The following is a quote from an earlier post of mine (to Christine) on > the topic of realities, anatta and control: > .......... > >Sarah: I think it’s a matter of interpretation and understanding when we > read > (the same) suttas. When I read about realities or about not-self, I > understand > them to be about ‘No control’. > > For example, I've just been reading from The Life of the Buddha by > B.Nanamoli: > > ‘The discourse on the Not-Self characteristic’ > > ‘Bhikkhus, material form is not self. If material form were self, this > material form would not lead to affliction, and it could be had of > material > form: Let my material form be thus; let my material form be not thus. And > it > is because material form is not self that it leads to affliction, and that > it > cannot be had of material form: Let my material form be thus: let my > material > form be not thus... > ‘Feeling is not self... > ‘Perception is not self... > ‘Formations are not self... > Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were self, this consciousness > would not lead to affliction and it could be had of consciousness: let my > consciousness be thus; let my consciousness be not thus. And it is because > consciousness is not self that it therefore leads to affliction, and that > it > cannot be had of consciousness: Let my consciousnes be thus; let my > consciousness be not thus...........’ (Vin, Mv. Kh; cf S.X11,59) quote> > > .......... > In this post I’ve tried to cover a few areas which have had tremendous > impact on me personally and which have been raised by you both as well, I > think. > > The following Sutta quote also summarises all the points I’ve been trying > to make and I hope that the relevance in life of posts on visual > consciousness will now also be apparent;-)): > .......... > '”...Visual consciousness, your reverences, arises because of eye and > visual > object: the meeting of the three is sensory impingement (phassa); feelings > > are because of sensory impingement; what one feels one perceives; what one > > perceives one reasons about; what one reasons about obsesses one; what > obsesses one is the origin of the number of perceptions and obsessions > which > assail a man in regard to visual object cognisable by tye eye, past, > future, present.... > MN(1,no18, Disc of the Honey Ball) > .......... > As Rob Ep said at the outset: > > We're always on our own path, not > > someone > > else's”. > “while the other person may be 'responsible' for their own > > behavior and > > will create their own effects through their own behavior, we are > > responsible for > > how we take it and how we respond > .......... > Finally (at the risk of over-quoting), understanding realities and > conditions and learning to live with ‘our’ own results of kamma without > being overwhelmed by them is what we read about in the Migajala Sutta; > > ‘There are, Migajala, sounds cognizable by the ear..odours cognizable by > the > nose..tastes cognizable by the tongue..tactile objects cognizable by the > body..mental phenomena cognizable by the mind that are desirable, lovely, > agreeable, pleasing, sensually enticing, tantalizing. If a bhikkhu does > not > seek delight in them..he is called alone dweller. > > ‘Migajala, even though a bhikkhu who dwells thus lives in the vicinity of > a > village, associating with bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, with male and felmale > lay > follower, with kings and royal ministers, with sectarian teachers and > their > disciples, he is still called a lone dweller. For what reason? Because > craving is his partner and he has abandoned it; therefore his is called a > lone > dweller.” (SN, Bk of 6 Sense Bases.63, B.Bodhi trans) > .......... > Best wishes, > > Sarah > ====================================================== 10922 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Jan 22, 2002 11:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Photo Hey Herman! Good to see you, and your nice family! Robert Ep. ================ --- egberdina wrote: > Hi all, > > Just to let you all know I managed to find a half-decent photo, and > posted it to the photos section. Please note the curtains in the > shot :-) > > All the best > > > Herman 10923 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Jan 22, 2002 11:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Group photos posted! Thanks, Sarah. i always appreciate your tolerance and welcoming attitude, even to potentially 'opposing' views. It's my own feeling of sometimes being a 'fly in the ointment' that makes me a little uncomfortable. It certainly never comes from you. Thanks again, Robert Ep. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob Ep, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Thanks Sarah! You're very kind. > > You're making me regret my recent comments on the Radiant Mind already!! > > > > > > Now, Lucy is going to lead the discussion on regret soon.....;-)) > > I've only had time to take a quick look at your Radiant Mind comments, > but it seems like you've really been considering carefully and you've > raised some very useful points to discuss further. Be very sure that any > comments and considerations you raise will be shared by many others too > and I'm sure many of us will be delighted to hear them. My post just sent > to you and Chris has used up my quota of computer time, so I'll have to > leave anything else for now. Like you, I look forward to Suan's (and > anyone else's) further comments. > > Sarah > ==================================================== > > 10924 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Jan 22, 2002 11:35pm Subject: Re: Photo Herman, What a great looking bunch! .........perhaps Vicki could email me with the secret of how she manages to look so serene with six men to deal with? Curtains duly noted....... is there a story we should know? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "egberdina" wrote: > Hi all, > > Just to let you all know I managed to find a half-decent photo, and > posted it to the photos section. Please note the curtains in the > shot :-) > > All the best > > > Herman 10925 From: egberdina Date: Wed Jan 23, 2002 4:18am Subject: [dsg] Re: samma samadhi Dear Jon, Thank you, yes, you have answered my question. I guess we have different approaches. With respect Herman PS After some rather severe editing, this is what is left of an hour's writing. I'd never get to Opus 1 if I was a composer :-) >I also > think it can be directly useful, particularly where it relates to aspects > of practice (in this case, did the Buddha teach the development of samatha > as a necessary part of the development of vipassana? -- worth spending > some time and effort on, I think). > > Of course, what we make of any information gained from intellectual study > is another thing. This is where it helps to know our limits. > > Hope I've answered your question! > > Jon > 10926 From: egberdina Date: Wed Jan 23, 2002 4:32am Subject: Re: Photo Dear Christine, I thought I'd throw the curtains in as a kasina :-) I have two brothers living in Cairns. They were here at the wedding. Now it's my turn to go up there. Perhaps we could form the Australian chapter of dsg? What are you like at taking minutes? All joking aside, Christine, you're a champ! Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > Herman, What a great looking bunch! .........perhaps Vicki could > email me with the secret of how she manages to look so serene with > six men to deal with? > Curtains duly noted....... is there a story we should know? > > metta, > Christine 10927 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Jan 23, 2002 7:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samma samadhi Herman --- egberdina wrote: > Dear Jon, > > Thank you, yes, you have answered my question. I guess we have > different approaches. Well I for one would be interested to hear about your own approach. I do hope you won't feel constrained by our differences, Herman. Jon > PS After some rather severe editing, this is what is left of an > hour's writing. I'd never get to Opus 1 if I was a composer :-) Yes, I know exactly what you mean. Sounds rather like my own style of writing -- the longer I spend on a post, the shorter it gets. In fact I also part-wrote another answer to your post, based on a rather different understanding of your question, but in the end decided to junk it! > > >I also > > think it can be directly useful, particularly where it relates to > aspects > > of practice (in this case, did the Buddha teach the development of > samatha > > as a necessary part of the development of vipassana? -- worth > spending > > some time and effort on, I think). > > > > Of course, what we make of any information gained from intellectual > study > > is another thing. This is where it helps to know our limits. > > > > Hope I've answered your question! > > > > Jon 10928 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Jan 23, 2002 8:21am Subject: For Nina: 20 Jan 02's Bay Area Study Topics Dear Nina, I am assigned to post some (not sure how much) information about what the Bay Area's dhamma study group discussed this week. On the 20th, we generally discussed 2 topics: vipallasa (perversions), and citta-vithi (panca-dvara only, haven't got to mano-dvara yet.) As for Vipallasa, there are 3 categories: 1) Sanna-vipallasa (perversion of memory) (S) 2) Citta-vipallasa (perversion of mind) (C) 3) Dithi-vipallasa (perversion of view). (D) Except for the dithi vipallasa---which occurs only with the 4 lobha-mula cittas (cittas rooted in attachment) with micha-ditthi (wrong views)---sanna vipallasa, and citta vipallasa occur with all akusala cittas (with some ariyans exempted). Vipallassa are not said to occur in sobhana (beautiful) cittas and ahetuka (without the 6 hetu cetasikkas) cittas. The objects of the vipalassa are four: 1) Seeing impermanence as permenance 2) Seeing dukha as sukha 3) Seeing anatta as atta 4) Seeing asubha as subha The vipallasa is not completely eradicated until one becomes an ariyan. The different levels of eradication are as followed: Impermanence Dukha Anatta Asubha Arahat X X X X X X X X X X X X Anagami X X X S C X X X X X X X Sagatakami X X X S C X X X X S C X Sotapanna X X X S C X X X X S C X Putujana S C D S C D S C D S C D Satipathana eliminates the vipallasa gradually. Different kinds of satipatthana eliminate different kind of vipallasa as followed: Kaya-nupassana eliminates asubha vipallasa Citta-nupassana eliminates impermanence vipallasa Vedana-nupassana eliminates dukha vipallasa Dhamma-nupassana eliminates anatta vipallasa K. Jack mentioned that a type of satipatthana, even though it eliminates a type of vipallasa as its main function, it also eliminates other vipallasa, but not as its main function. The rest of the session we spent discussing vithi-cittas. Nina, we also taped the entire session (for the first time!). I am not sure of the sound quality of the tapes, but it you like to have them, I can send them to you. kom 10929 From: Date: Wed Jan 23, 2002 4:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts/Kom Hi, Herman (and Kom) - In a message dated 1/20/02 6:41:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@d... writes: > Dear Kom, > > I, amongst others, remain as confused as ever, about the > differentiation between rupa and nama. > > I cannot for the life of me get a grasp of how a rupa is not a nama. > Is corporeality, materiality not a mental inference? > When is visible object a rupa, and when is it a nama? > > I would really appreciate some examples (easy ones would be great :-)) > ============================= I agree that the only rupa we ever encounter is *experienced* rupa and that any alleged "underlying rupa", lurking in the shadows below the experienced rupa, is, in principal, unknowable. However, there is still a difference between nama and rupa. Pains, thoughts, feelings, emotions, intention, and discernment (consciousness) itself are no less experienced than sensory objects such as sights, sounds, hardness, etc, but the former carry an "internal flavor" to them which is missing from physical sense objects. It seems to me that the primary means for worldings to observe physical sense objects is via a subject-object mode of observation, whereas the primary mode of experiencing so-called nama is closer to a nondual awareness. By this I mean that, for the most part, pain, thoughts, feelings, intentions, and discernment are self-experiencing, though they can also, secondarily, be taken as objects (presumably via "fresh memory"). 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) 10930 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 23, 2002 10:08am Subject: ayatanas Dear Rob K, you said that A. Sujin spoke about the ayatanas (the bases on which the processes of cittas depend), and what did she say? When we were sitting near the Bodhi tree she said that we should know when and where there are ayatanas. They are an association of different realities such as eyebase, visible object and seeing. We should not just learn the term ayatana but know that there are ayatanas now. What do you think of the bhavanga citta (life continuum)? Since this does not know an object that impinges on one of the six doors, I am inclined to think that there are at the moment of bhavangacitta no ayatanas. Best wishes, Nina. 10931 From: Date: Wed Jan 23, 2002 5:28am Subject: My Picture Hi, all - I just posted a picture of mine to the photo section of the web site. The picture was taken at a college graduation party for my younger son's girlfriend. It occurred around Christmas time, and the girlfriend's father was a one-time Catholic brother - hence the nativity scene behind me. (No, I'm not a crypto-Christian! ;-) There was another great picture that included my wife as well, but she decided against my posting it. (Oh, well! ;-) 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) 10932 From: Date: Wed Jan 23, 2002 5:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom Hi, Sarah - It seems to me that derived materiality may be at the conventional level. I'm thinking of such things as deportment of the body, for example. So that one knows when one is lying down, etc. With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/21/02 1:32:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Dear Howard, > > I’d just like to add to all Kom’s excellent responses on this one point > only, which can be quite confusing, I think: > > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Kom (and Larry) - > ...................... If one > > can say that letters are not rupa, then one can al > > so say that kaya is not rupa, for the same reason. > >But if memory serves > > me, kaya/body is considered as rupa (but, of course, not elementary rupa > > such as earth, air, fire, and water). > > Actually kaaya can refer to nama-kaya or rupa-kaya (see Nyantiloka > dictionary extract below). > > When I wrote to Erik before about kaya lahuta (lightness of mental > factors), kaya muduta (‘elasticity’ of mental factors) and so on, they > were referring to kinds of nama-kaya. > > If we’re referring to kayanupassana (mindfulness of ‘body’), the first of > the 4 foundations of mindfulness, then it is referring to rupas. > > In both cases, however, the namas and rupas are realities and not concepts > like letters. > > In the second case, kayanupassana refers to rupas as objects of sati, not > to a ‘body’ or ‘whole’, but to hardness, heat, motion, visible object and > so on. From the Satipatthana Sutta Commentary we read: “There can be > nothing apart from the qualities of primary and dervied materiality, in a > body.â€? > > I look forward to hearing more of your useful discussions with Kom, Larry > and others. (Herman, very glad to see your excellent questions to Kom and > sincerely hope you were not too badly affected by the fires). > > Sarah > > káya (lit: accumulation): 'group', 'body', may either refer to the > physical body (rúpa-káya) or to the mental body (náma-káya). In the latter > case it is either a collective name for the mental groups (feeling, > perception, mental formations, consciousness; s. khandha), or merely for > feeling, perception and a few of the mental formations (s. náma), e.g. in > káya-lahutá, etc. (cf. Tab. II). Káya has this same meaning in the > standard description of the 3rd absorption (jhána, q.v.) "and he feels joy > in his mind or his mental constitution (káya)", and (e.g. Pug. 1-8) of the > attainment of the 8 deliverances (vimokkha, q.v.); "having attained the 8 > deliverances in his mind, or his person (káya)." - Káya is also the 5th > sense-organ, the body-organ; s. áyatana, dhátu, indriya. > > /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) 10933 From: Date: Wed Jan 23, 2002 7:37am Subject: The Rupa of Air Hi, all - The rupa of "air" is generally understood as motion. But there cannot be any motion within a single citta, can there? Motion or movement or change is a matter of being in differing positions or states at differing times. Thus I find the abhidhammic notion of "air" to be a bit odd. Comments anyone? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 10934 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Jan 23, 2002 3:22pm Subject: Re: My Picture Dear Howard, You look exactly as I thought you would - actually everyone pretty much has - except for one thing.....I always visualised you with a briar smoking pipe. If we ever meet I'll do my best to cope with a pipe-less Howard.:-) Or maybe you could humour me by carrying a prop. Might be worth considering....it's another form of communication, the thoughtful puff while deeply considering a friend's statement, the gesturing with the pipe in the air while emphasising a point, the sharp knocking of the pipe contents into an ashtray as a sign of aversion or disagreement.....possibilities go on and on. Your lady-wife has my admiration for not wanting her photo on the list - after all, why should she wish to be seen by a list of 187 people most of whom she has never heard of let alone met, and the majority of whom are convinced they were each others mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, children, or dogs in billions of previous existences....makes sense to me. :-) Cheers, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > I just posted a picture of mine to the photo section of the web site. > The picture was taken at a college graduation party for my younger son's > girlfriend. It occurred around Christmas time, and the girlfriend's father > was a one-time Catholic brother - hence the nativity scene behind me. (No, > I'm not a crypto-Christian! ;-) > There was another great picture that included my wife as well, but she > decided against my posting it. (Oh, well! ;-) > > 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) > > > > > 10935 From: egberdina Date: Wed Jan 23, 2002 5:20pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts/Kom Dear Howard, Thanks for the post. And I agree with you. The difficulty I had was with discriminating between, say, visible object as a rupa, but seeing as a nama, or sound as a rupa, but hearing as a nama. For me both sight and seeing, sound and hearing are mental in nature, all be some of the causes non-mental in nature. You introduced the subject - object mode of observation. You are very courageous in view of anatta :-). But again, I agree. I believe that the language we use to describe cognitive processes, parallel the processes quite well. So there is subject - verb - object. In the case of seeing, this is a doing word reflecting the mind directing awareness to visible object. In the case of hearing, the mind is directing awareness to sound. So there is a knowable difference between sound and hearing. Sound is an object, hearing is an act. This is reflected in the language we use to describe it. Do you think Christine is possessed of an undocumented abhinna (higher power), being able to know what people look like before having seen them? :-) Good to see Amtrak? has delivered you safe and well. All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Herman (and Kom) - > > In a message dated 1/20/02 6:41:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, > hhofman@d... writes: > > > > Dear Kom, > > > > I, amongst others, remain as confused as ever, about the > > differentiation between rupa and nama. > > > > I cannot for the life of me get a grasp of how a rupa is not a nama. > > Is corporeality, materiality not a mental inference? > > When is visible object a rupa, and when is it a nama? > > > > I would really appreciate some examples (easy ones would be great :-)) > > > ============================= > I agree that the only rupa we ever encounter is *experienced* rupa and > that any alleged "underlying rupa", lurking in the shadows below the > experienced rupa, is, in principal, unknowable. However, there is still a > difference between nama and rupa. Pains, thoughts, feelings, emotions, > intention, and discernment (consciousness) itself are no less experienced > than sensory objects such as sights, sounds, hardness, etc, but the former > carry an "internal flavor" to them which is missing from physical sense > objects. > It seems to me that the primary means for worldings to observe > physical sense objects is via a subject-object mode of observation, whereas > the primary mode of experiencing so-called nama is closer to a nondual > awareness. By this I mean that, for the most part, pain, thoughts, feelings, > intentions, and discernment are self-experiencing, though they can also, > secondarily, be taken as objects (presumably via "fresh memory"). > > 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) > 10936 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Wed Jan 23, 2002 6:17pm Subject: Re: ayatanas --- Dear Nina, It was a rather difficult discussion for me to understand. The ayatanas are still an aspect of the teachings that are not clear to me. In fact, I rely on you to clarify. In the Salayatanavagga - 23(1) it says that 'the all' comprises the ayatanas and I had always assumed that ayatanas is another way of classifying all namas and rupas - (like the khandas and dhatus).. The commentary (SPK) to this says that by 'all' is meant ayatanasabha and bodhi's note p1399 says that this means all phenomena of the four planes. Bodhi p1400 says that "The six types of consciousness are included in the mind base (manayatana). Mind(mano), as a separate factor, the supporting condition for mind-consciousness, then becomes narrower in scope than the mind base;according to the commentary sysetm it denotes the bhavangacitta..Mind consciousness itself according to SPK comprises the mind-door adverting consciousness (maodvaravajjanacitta) and the javanas." It would be nice if we could have the complete translation of this section of the commentary. with respect robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob K, you said that A. Sujin spoke about the ayatanas (the bases on > which the processes of cittas depend), and what did she say? When we were > sitting near the Bodhi tree she said that we should know when and where > there are ayatanas. > They are an association of different realities such as eyebase, visible > object and seeing. We should not just learn the term ayatana but know that > there are ayatanas now. What do you think of the bhavanga citta (life > continuum)? Since this does not know an object that impinges on one of the > six doors, I am inclined to think that there are at the moment of > bhavangacitta no ayatanas. > Best wishes, Nina. 10937 From: Date: Wed Jan 23, 2002 1:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts/Kom Hi, Herman - In a message dated 1/23/02 8:22:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@d... writes: > Dear Howard, > > Thanks for the post. And I agree with you. The difficulty I had was > with discriminating between, say, visible object as a rupa, but > seeing as a nama, or sound as a rupa, but hearing as a nama. For me > both sight and seeing, sound and hearing are mental in nature, all be > some of the causes non-mental in nature. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: We seem to agree. I view sound and the hearing of the sound as two interrelated, mutually dependent aspects of a single "mental" event. The hearing is the subjective pole, and the sound is the objective pole, but there is only one event. I think it is important to recognize the two aspects as well as to recognize their complete interdependence and their corresponding (individual) emptiness. It's an instance of the mutual dependence of v~n~nana and namarupa in the 12-link scheme of paticcasamuppada, where these two links are likened to two sheaves of straw, lying against and supporting each other, so that should either fall, so will the other. What we tend to do is to project outwardly to a self-existent, mind-independent "thing" called a sound and inwardly to a self-existent "thing" called a hearer, thereby going beyond what is directly given. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > You introduced the subject - object mode of observation. You are very > courageous in view of anatta :-). > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: ;-)) Actually, it is, in part, the mutual dependence that makes both subject and object empty, without core, and not self. One disclaimer - I did, once, at a meditation retreat, experience for a couple hours a total loss of sense of self. While that was in effect, though all sights, sounds, etc continued, their experience was nondual - that is, there being no subject, there also was no object. (This is related, I think, to the falling of the two supporting sheaves I mentioned before.) Seeing a color was like feeling - no object, just the awareness-activity. Strange, disconcerting, and to be quite frank, most frightening. Too bad I ran away from it. ---------------------------------------------------------- But again, I agree. I believe that > > the language we use to describe cognitive processes, parallel the > processes quite well. So there is subject - verb - object. > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I think that's absolutely true. We just have to be careful in not making too much of either subject or object. ------------------------------------------------------------- In the > > case of seeing, this is a doing word reflecting the mind directing > awareness to visible object. In the case of hearing, the mind is > directing awareness to sound. So there is a knowable difference > between sound and hearing. Sound is an object, hearing is an act. > This is reflected in the language we use to describe it. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. And if I'm not mistaken, the clear seeing of this distinction is the first of the enlightenment factors to be developed. Correction or confirmation, anyone? ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Do you think Christine is possessed of an undocumented abhinna > (higher power), being able to know what people look like before > having seen them? :-) > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Can there be a doubt?! ;-)) Her post hasn't arrived in my in-box yet, but I stole a glance at it on the web site. [Thanks, Christine, (I guess! ;-)) for picturing "me" as I am. Would the pipe accouterment complete the image of academic pomposity? ;-))] ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Good to see Amtrak? has delivered you safe and well. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Thanks, Herman! ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > All the best > > > Herman ================================== With metta, Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Herman (and Kom) - > > > > In a message dated 1/20/02 6:41:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, > > hhofman@d... writes: > > > > > > > Dear Kom, > > > > > > I, amongst others, remain as confused as ever, about the > > > differentiation between rupa and nama. > > > > > > I cannot for the life of me get a grasp of how a rupa is not a > nama. > > > Is corporeality, materiality not a mental inference? > > > When is visible object a rupa, and when is it a nama? > > > > > > I would really appreciate some examples (easy ones would be > great :-)) > > > > > ============================= > > I agree that the only rupa we ever encounter is > *experienced* rupa and > > that any alleged "underlying rupa", lurking in the shadows below > the > > experienced rupa, is, in principal, unknowable. However, there is > still a > > difference between nama and rupa. Pains, thoughts, feelings, > emotions, > > intention, and discernment (consciousness) itself are no less > experienced > > than sensory objects such as sights, sounds, hardness, etc, but the > former > > carry an "internal flavor" to them which is missing from physical > sense > > objects. > > It seems to me that the primary means for worldings to > observe > > physical sense objects is via a subject-object mode of observation, > whereas > > the primary mode of experiencing so-called nama is closer to a > nondual > > awareness. By this I mean that, for the most part, pain, thoughts, > feelings, > > intentions, and discernment are self-experiencing, though they can > also, > > secondarily, be taken as objects (presumably via "fresh memory"). > > > > 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) > > > > /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) 10938 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Jan 23, 2002 9:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] My Picture Hi, Howard. Nice to see you, and nice to see Num too. Robert Ep. ------ --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > I just posted a picture of mine to the photo section of the web site. > The picture was taken at a college graduation party for my younger son's > girlfriend. It occurred around Christmas time, and the girlfriend's father > was a one-time Catholic brother - hence the nativity scene behind me. (No, > I'm not a crypto-Christian! ;-) > There was another great picture that included my wife as well, but she > decided against my posting it. (Oh, well! ;-) > > 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) > 10939 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Jan 23, 2002 9:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts/Kom Dear Herman, Yes we separate subject and object in our language, and I believe this reflects our own belief that we as 'subject' are synonymous with the processes located within the body. So we have the body here, and the eyes here, and the object of seeing over there. And we coordinate back and forth to constantly assess where our body is and where the object is. And this is a view of separation, is it not? But if we take the point of view of the perceptual act itself, with what I hope is mindfulness, where is the separation between seeing and object seen? All we really have is the object seen, which in turn can be discerned as seeing only. But there is really no opportunity, except conceptually, to distinguish between the object 'rock' and the seeing of 'rock'. The only 'rock' we have is the one we get by 'seeing' it. There is only a 'rock in itself' that stands apart from the act of seeing if we make this separation through conceptual judgment. Now, if I'm right, the Abhidhamma perspective would say that the rupa rock can be discerned *as* a rupa, even though it is only through a nama - perceptual act - that the rupa rock is encountered. So I don't understand how the distinction between the rupa rock and the nama perceptual rock can be anything but a conceptual distinction. It took me a long time to even understand, with Jon's help and Sarah's, what the distinction between the rupa and nama was, because of this conjunction of the two in my way of thinking. But as I reflect on it, I don't see how the distinction between object and percept can be found in the actual moment of perception. One has to presume the rupa is 'real' through other kinds of deductions. One trips over the rock, the rock stays in the same place, the rock has certain discernable properties, etc., etc., but none of these distinguishes an actual rock 'in itself' as set apart from the rock as perceived. Except by logical assumption. I think it is a given for most people, of course, that the rock is really there, and that it is an object, not just a percept, and this is of course very sensible. But when we talk about paramatha dhammas, absolute realities, we need to distinguish exactly what it is we are discerning. If the 'rupa' is an absolute apart from the 'nama' that presents the object, then I have to ask how do we ever encounter the rupa-ness of the rupa independently, since it is always delivered by a nama? I have probably asked this question before and had it answered, so this resurgence of my confusion will probably cause a few sighs among my friends here who have already been so helpful. But I think it is part of the natural flow of these sorts of understandings, that doubt arises until it has been adequately handled. And so I have to bring it up again. I must say that the conflict between these aspects of object-formation is more clear and simple to me than it was when I was confused before. So maybe I'm making progress in some strange way. Regards, Robert Ep. ================= --- egberdina wrote: > Dear Howard, > > Thanks for the post. And I agree with you. The difficulty I had was > with discriminating between, say, visible object as a rupa, but > seeing as a nama, or sound as a rupa, but hearing as a nama. For me > both sight and seeing, sound and hearing are mental in nature, all be > some of the causes non-mental in nature. > > You introduced the subject - object mode of observation. You are very > courageous in view of anatta :-). But again, I agree. I believe that > the language we use to describe cognitive processes, parallel the > processes quite well. So there is subject - verb - object. In the > case of seeing, this is a doing word reflecting the mind directing > awareness to visible object. In the case of hearing, the mind is > directing awareness to sound. So there is a knowable difference > between sound and hearing. Sound is an object, hearing is an act. > This is reflected in the language we use to describe it. 10940 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Thu Jan 24, 2002 2:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Rupa of Air Hi Howard, I also cannot understand the Rupa of Air. therefore Help is gretely appreciated from anyone... But here is what I know. Rupa and Cita are two different things. One Rupa item lives the time period of 51 thought moments where as a cita lives 3 thought moments. Therefore there is actually 17 citas for the time period of One Rupa. For others ideas please.... ~meththa Ranil >From: upasaka@a... >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [dsg] The Rupa of Air >Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:37:44 EST > >Hi, all - > > The rupa of "air" is generally understood as motion. But there >cannot >be any motion within a single citta, can there? Motion or movement or >change >is a matter of being in differing positions or states at differing times. >Thus I find the abhidhammic notion of "air" to be a bit odd. Comments >anyone? > >With metta, >Howard > 10941 From: egberdina Date: Thu Jan 24, 2002 4:16am Subject: Re: samma samadhi Dear Jon, I am confident that as communication within the group continues, we will all get to know each other's approach/outlook quite well. Differences can be triggers towards the realisation that there is a need to delve deeper to understand what is happening, not that I enjoy relinquishing cherished views :-) My own experience is that thought, word and deed leads to more of the same. Kusala, merit, beautiful roots, and their counterparts, you name it, it is all samsara. When there are 83000-odd verses milling through your head, there are 83000-odd verses milling through your head. When there is nothing milling through your head, there is bliss. I know this. I do not credit myself with any status on any developmental ladder, but I won't apologise for the state of bliss. It sure beats the crap out of other states I can also conjure up, and often do. Cheers for now Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Herman > > Well I for one would be interested to hear about your own approach. I do > hope you won't feel constrained by our differences, Herman. > > Jon 10942 From: Date: Thu Jan 24, 2002 3:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Rupa of Air Hi Howard, Ranil and everyone, Let me inform you upfront that, during this time, it will take me a while to respond on dsg. The "air," I assume you talk about the wind-rupa (vayo-dhatu) not space(agasa-rupa or paricheta-rupa). Let me share with you my limited understanding. Kom and Nina mentioned about ayatana, bases and their objects(aramana). For bodysense, it depends on body-base and its aramana. Let me bring up 4 mahabhutarupa,(I like this term a lot, the great 4 illusion or the great 4 monsters). From ABHIDHAMMATTHA - SANGAHA by Narada Thera, Colombo ___________________________________ The paramatthas are pathavi, apo, tejo, and vayo. One must not understand that these elements are earth, water, fire and air, as some Greek thinkers believed in the past. Pathavi means the element of extension, the substratum of matter. Without it objects cannot occupy space. The qualities of hardness and softness which are purely relative are two conditions of this particular element. It may be stated that this element is present in earth, water, fire and air. For instance, the water above is supported by water below. It is this element of extension in conjunction with the element of motion, that produces the upward pressure. Heat or cold is the tejo element, while fluidity is the apo element Apo is the element of cohesion. Unlike pathavi it is intangible. It is this element that makes scattered particles of matter cohere, and gives rise to the idea of 'body'. When solid bodies are melted, this element becomes more prominent in the resulting fluid. This element is found even in minute particles when solid bodies are reduced to powder. The elements of extension and cohesion are so closely interrelated that when cohesion ceases extension disappears. Tejo is the element of heat. Cold is also a form of tejo. Both heat and cold are included in tejo because they possess the power of maturing bodies, Tejo, in other words, is the vitalizing energy. Preservation and decay are also due to this element. Unlike the other three essentials of matter, this element has the power to regenerate matter by itself. Inseparably connected with heat is Vayo, the element of motion. Movements are caused by this element. Motion is regarded as the force or the generator of heat. "Motion and heat in the material realm correspond respectively to consciousness and Kamma in the mental." ____________________________________ These 4 are inseparable and is a base for every other rupa which have to derive from or depend on them. My understanding, vayo-dhatu is including tension, motion and/or vibration. The space that these 4 mahabhutarupa are not connected with other 4 mahabhutarupa called agasa-rupa or paricheta-rupa. Bodysense, as I can think of, is pretty much a perception of the mahabhutarupa(excluding apo-dhatu), from my studying, we called it mechano-perception. Pathavi-dhatu manifests as hardness/firmness, softness, and texture. Tejo as temperature, heat or cold. Vayo as tension, stretching, motion and vibration sense. And another nonspecific bodysense is pain perception which can be from an extreme form of perception of hardness, temperature (both hot and cold), tension-torsion, and I including chemical pain (toxin, acid, ischemic). Bodysense can recognize different aspects and qualities of those matter. Specific for perception of vayo-dhatu. We have ability to recognize muscle tension and tone, we are able to be aware of motion when we move our limbs and joints. Vibration perception is kind of a perception to phasic stimuli. We know the rough the road is through a vibration sense transmitted though the steering wheel. I can feel the vibration of the ground and myself while I am listening the Japanese drum show. As mentioned earlier, the 4 mahabhutarupa is inseparable, this four rupa always come together. The theory of we can be aware of one perception at a time makes some sense to me. Vibration-perception is one of the ability of our sensory system to recognize vibrating stimuli (somewhat similar to audioperception but we perceive noise or sound through the ear). When I grasp my tennis racquet, usually not, I can feel the temperature of the handle (I usually leave my racquets in my car, so it's cold), I can feel how hard the handle is, I can feel the texture quality of the grip. When I hit the ball, if the handle slips and moves, I can sense that and then I tighten my grip. If I grasp it too tight, it's somewhat hurt and uncomfortable. After I hit the ball, I can feel the sting vibrating briefly. In between all of those, I see the ball, I read my opponent, I think of the strategy, I talk to myself and etc. Panchadvara (peripheral perception) and manodvara process as well as reality and concept(pannatti) perception are rapidly and successively alternated. I do not know how to correlate the 17 or 51 moments citta with the vibration sense. From a neuroscience class, there are specific receptors for vibration both low frequency (flutter) and high frequency. Different receptors for muscle tension and skin stretching. I am impressed that the Buddha mentioned and classified this bodysense perception in detail, overall it called kaya-pasada and kayavinna. Num 10943 From: Date: Thu Jan 24, 2002 4:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Rupa of Air Hi, Num (and Ranil) - Thank you for this detailed reply. As I understand it (please correct me if I misunderstand), the wind/air/motion rupa is the physical sensation occurring in the cittas which encompass/accompany what we call physical movement, such "physical movement", I suppose, in phenomenological terms, consisting of the change of locus of occurrence of a variety of physical sensations. To simplify: The main point as I understand it is that this rupa is not what we usually call "motion", i.e., change of position or state, but rather the physical sensation(s) accompanying such motion. Am I correct? With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/24/02 11:40:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, srnsk@a... writes: > Hi Howard, Ranil and everyone, > > Let me inform you upfront that, during this time, it will take me a while > to > respond on dsg. > > The "air," I assume you talk about the wind-rupa (vayo-dhatu) not > space(agasa-rupa or paricheta-rupa). Let me share with you my limited > understanding. > > Kom and Nina mentioned about ayatana, bases and their objects(aramana). > For > bodysense, it depends on body-base and its aramana. Let me bring up 4 > mahabhutarupa,(I like this term a lot, the great 4 illusion or the great 4 > monsters). > > > From ABHIDHAMMATTHA - SANGAHA by Narada Thera, Colombo > ___________________________________ > > The paramatthas are pathavi, apo, tejo, and vayo. One must not understand > that these elements are earth, water, fire and air, as some Greek thinkers > believed in the past. > > Pathavi means the element of extension, the substratum of matter. Without > it > objects cannot occupy space. The qualities of hardness and softness which > are > purely relative are two conditions of this particular element. It may be > stated that this element is present in earth, water, fire and air. For > instance, the water above is supported by water below. It is this element > of > extension in conjunction with the element of motion, that produces the > upward > pressure. Heat or cold is the tejo element, while fluidity is the apo > element > > > Apo is the element of cohesion. Unlike pathavi it is intangible. It is this > > element that makes scattered particles of matter cohere, and gives rise to > the idea of 'body'. When solid bodies are melted, this element becomes more > > prominent in the resulting fluid. This element is found even in minute > particles when solid bodies are reduced to powder. The elements of > extension > and cohesion are so closely interrelated that when cohesion ceases > extension > disappears. > > Tejo is the element of heat. Cold is also a form of tejo. Both heat and > cold > are included in tejo because they possess the power of maturing bodies, > Tejo, > in other words, is the vitalizing energy. Preservation and decay are also > due > to this element. Unlike the other three essentials of matter, this element > has the power to regenerate matter by itself. > > Inseparably connected with heat is Vayo, the element of motion. Movements > are > caused by this element. Motion is regarded as the force or the generator of > > heat. "Motion and heat in the material realm correspond respectively to > consciousness and Kamma in the mental." > > ____________________________________ > > These 4 are inseparable and is a base for every other rupa which have to > derive from or depend on them. My understanding, vayo-dhatu is including > tension, motion and/or vibration. The space that these 4 mahabhutarupa are > > not connected with other 4 mahabhutarupa called agasa-rupa or > paricheta-rupa. > > Bodysense, as I can think of, is pretty much a perception of the > mahabhutarupa(excluding apo-dhatu), from my studying, we called it > mechano-perception. > > Pathavi-dhatu manifests as hardness/firmness, softness, and texture. Tejo > as > temperature, heat or cold. Vayo as tension, stretching, motion and > vibration > sense. And another nonspecific bodysense is pain perception which can be > from > an extreme form of perception of hardness, temperature (both hot and cold), > > tension-torsion, and I including chemical pain (toxin, acid, ischemic). > Bodysense can recognize different aspects and qualities of those matter. > > Specific for perception of vayo-dhatu. We have ability to recognize muscle > tension and tone, we are able to be aware of motion when we move our limbs > and joints. Vibration perception is kind of a perception to phasic stimuli. > > We know the rough the road is through a vibration sense transmitted though > the steering wheel. I can feel the vibration of the ground and myself while > I > am listening the Japanese drum show. As mentioned earlier, the 4 > mahabhutarupa is inseparable, this four rupa always come together. The > theory > of we can be aware of one perception at a time makes some sense to me. > Vibration-perception is one of the ability of our sensory system to > recognize > vibrating stimuli (somewhat similar to audioperception but we perceive > noise > or sound through the ear). When I grasp my tennis racquet, usually not, I > can feel the temperature of the handle (I usually leave my racquets in my > car, so it's cold), I can feel how hard the handle is, I can feel the > texture > quality of the grip. When I hit the ball, if the handle slips and moves, I > can sense that and then I tighten my grip. If I grasp it too tight, it's > somewhat hurt and uncomfortable. After I hit the ball, I can feel the > sting > vibrating briefly. In between all of those, I see the ball, I read my > opponent, I think of the strategy, I talk to myself and etc. Panchadvara > (peripheral perception) and manodvara process as well as reality and > concept(pannatti) perception are rapidly and successively alternated. I do > > not know how to correlate the 17 or 51 moments citta with the vibration > sense. From a neuroscience class, there are specific receptors for > vibration > both low frequency (flutter) and high frequency. Different receptors for > muscle tension and skin stretching. I am impressed that the Buddha > mentioned > and classified this bodysense perception in detail, overall it called > kaya-pasada and kayavinna. > > > 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) 10944 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 24, 2002 10:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] For Nina: 20 Jan 02's Bay Area Study Topics op 23-01-2002 17:21 schreef Kom Tukovinit op tikmok@y...: On the 20th, we generally discussed 2 topics: > vipallasa (perversions), and citta-vithi (panca-dvara only, > haven't got to mano-dvara yet.) > > As for Vipallasa, there are 3 categories: > 1) Sanna-vipallasa (perversion of memory) (S) > 2) Citta-vipallasa (perversion of mind) (C) > 3) Dithi-vipallasa (perversion of view). (D) > > Except for the dithi vipallasa---which occurs only with the > 4 lobha-mula cittas (cittas rooted in attachment) with > micha-ditthi (wrong views)---sanna vipallasa, and citta > vipallasa occur with all akusala cittas (with some ariyans > exempted). Vipallassa are not said to occur in sobhana > (beautiful) cittas and ahetuka (without the 6 hetu > cetasikkas) cittas. > > The objects of the vipalassa are four: > 1) Seeing impermanence as permenance > 2) Seeing dukha as sukha > 3) Seeing anatta as atta > 4) Seeing asubha as subha > > The vipallasa is not completely eradicated until one becomes > an ariyan. The different levels of eradication are as > followed: > > Impermanence Dukha Anatta Asubha > Arahat X X X X X X X X X X X X > Anagami X X X S C X X X X X X X > Sagatakami X X X S C X X X X S C X > Sotapanna X X X S C X X X X S C X > Putujana S C D S C D S C D S C D > > Satipathana eliminates the vipallasa gradually. Different > kinds of satipatthana eliminate different kind of vipallasa > as followed: > > Kaya-nupassana eliminates asubha vipallasa > Citta-nupassana eliminates impermanence vipallasa > Vedana-nupassana eliminates dukha vipallasa > Dhamma-nupassana eliminates anatta vipallasa > > K. Jack mentioned that a type of satipatthana, even though > it eliminates a type of vipallasa as its main function, it > also eliminates other vipallasa, but not as its main > function. Dear Kom, thank you very much for the report, I think also others here may be interested. I think that we should not fix our attention on one perversity, and thinking of eliminating it, we have them all . Also, as we heard in India again, we should not think of the four Applications as separate divisions, because whatever nama or rupa appears can be the object of mindfulness. I know the text of the Path of Discrimination where the elimination of vipallasas are explained, but it is, I believe, not meant as strictly as that; such texts can be reminders. Some people, when they read these, may consider them a schedule to be followed. (See my In Asoka's Footsteps, Ch 4). Thank you for the kind offer of the tapes, but now I have such a lot of tapes from Thailand, these will last me for a long time. I would not know how to find time to listen to so many tapes. As I understood, the group also spends time listening to tapes of A. Sujin and discussing them? Best wishes from Nina. 10945 From: Date: Thu Jan 24, 2002 4:20pm Subject: mindfulness of nama and rupa Here is a quotation from "The Seven Stages of Purification and The Insight Knowledges" by The Venerable Mahathera Matara Sri Nanarama, BPS publication. This very short book is a synopsis of the "Visuddhimagga". This describes how to attain "Knowledge of Delimitation of Mind-and-Matter", in order to complete the "Purification of View". ---------------------- To attain the Knowledge of Delimitation of Mind-and-Matter, the meditator, having purified his mind through the successful practice of concentration, focuses his attention on his meditation subject, which could be a hair, a skeleton, the rising and falling movements of the abdomen (i.e. the wind element as a tactile object), or mindfulness of breathing. As he goes on attending to the meditation subject, he begins to understand it as consisting of two aspects -- a material aspect and a mental aspect, together called "mind-and-matter" (nama-rupa). As a rule, one first becomes aware of those parts pertaining to the material aspect of the meditation subject. Whatever parts pertain to its mental aspect attract one's attention later. But sometimes both the mental and material aspects become manifest to the meditator at once. The meditator may even feel that the meditation subject is actually impinging on his mind. In mindfulness of breathing, for instance, the in-breaths and out-breaths belong to matter while the awareness of them is reckoned as mind. Normally, the in-breaths and out-breaths strike against the tip of the nose or the upper lip as they enter and go out. The meditator should pay attention only to the occurrence of in-breathing and out-breathing. He should not follow the in-breaths inside the body or outside it, speculating on what becomes of them, since this will hinder concentration. As the meditator continues to calm his mind on the pint of contact of the air being inhaled and exhaled (i.e. either at the tip of the nose or on the upper lip), he begins to feel as though his mind approaches and strikes the meditation subject. This happens at a developed stage in his meditation when he becomes aware of the distinction between mind and matter. The mind has the nature of bending towards or leaping towards an object. At first, every in-breath and out-breath appears as a compact unit. Later one begins to understand that the breath is a mass or heap. This is Delimitation of Matter. One then understands the awareness of the breath to be a series or "heap" of discrete thought-moments, each one a "heap" or mass of many mental factors. This is Delimitation of Mind. The ability to understand Mind-and-Matter as a heap necessarily implies the ability to distinguish one thing from another, since a heap is, by definition, a group of things lying one on another. This is the preliminary stage of the Knowledge of Discrimination of Mind-and-Matter. At first this understanding is limited to the subject of meditation. Later on it spreads to the other parts of the body connected with the subjects of meditation until it comes to pervade the entire body. Still later the understanding extends outward towards other beings as well as inanimate things, since the knowledge, when complete, is threefold, internal, external, and internal-and-external. 10946 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 24, 2002 9:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dependence Hi Larry, I appreciated all your excellent questions to Kom and your wise consideration of his respnses. You also sent this question which I don’t think anyone responded to: --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Does anyone know if there is any discussion of different kinds of > dependence in the abhidhamma or commentaries? I can think of two kinds > of irreversible dependence. One is automatic as in "when there is a high > there is a low". The other is over time as in "when there is birth there > is death". These don't apply to "when there is feeling there is > craving". I'm interested in the nature of this kind of dependence and > whether it is the same for all links in the dependent arising chain. .......... I’m not sure if I’m understanding you correctly, so I’ll try to keep this brief;-) As you know, the last book of the Abhidhamma is that of the Patthana (Conditional Relations, trans to English by U Narada and pub. by PTS). All the intricacies of depndence and conditions are elaborated in detail. We read in the Atthasalini (Expositor), Introductory Discourse: “..but when, coming to the Great Book , he began to contemplate the twenty-four universal causal relations of condition, of presentation, and so on, his omniscience certainly found its opportunity therein. For as the great fish Timiratipingala finds room only in the great ocean eighty-four thousand yojanas in depth, so his omniscience truly finds room only in the Great Book. Rays of six coulours - indigo, golden, red, white, tawny, and dazzling - issued from the Teacher’s body, as he was contemplating the subtle and abstruse Law by his omniscience which had found such opportunity....” A litle later, we read: “How wide is the law, contemplated for seven nights and seven days? It is infinite and immeasurable. This, of course, refers to the discourse as thought out in the mind.......” .......... Larry, I think that you would find it useful and interesting to read Nina’s book on “Conditions’ which is a very helpful and detailed introduction to the Patthana. It can be found on the following website: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ .......... I’m not sure we could say that any conditions are not ‘irreversible’ in the sense that when any given set of ingredients are in place at one time, the result is inevitable. Just as when we add the ingredients to a soup pot in particular order and quantity and add the heat at a particular temperature and duration, the cooked soup cannot be any other way. We can also see why two ‘brews’ can never be exactly the same. So it is with the feeling or the craving now; the exact nature, characteristic and degree can never be the same as any other feeling or craving and yet all feelings share the same common characteristics of being namas, being mental factors, of arising with all cittas, of being pleasant, unpleasant or neutral and so on. All cravings only arise with cittas rooted in lobha, are always accompanied by pleasant feeling and so on. In other words, what has been conditioned now, has been formed already. When it seems that some conditions are ‘reversible’, I think we are forgetting other conditions which are added to the soup pot which affect the outcome such as our study or wisdom or wrong view or visible object or memory and so on and so on by the intricate workings of the paccaya (conditions). Each factor has effect. I’m not sure if I’m really answering your questions so I’ll wait for any further clarification. Larry, thanks again for all your excellent and challenging questions. Btw, where do you live?(sorry if you’ve told us and I’ve forgotten). Hope to see your photo in the album one day too;-) Sarah ====================================================== 10947 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Jan 25, 2002 0:17am Subject: RE: [dsg] For Nina: 20 Jan 02's Bay Area Study Topics Dear Nina, > -----Original Message----- > From: Nina van Gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...] > As I understood, the group also spends time > listening to tapes of A. Sujin > and discussing them? We sometimes (although somewhat rarely) listen to the tapes together. Everybody is listening to the tapes some way or another, though. K. Jack is (somewhat loosely, depending on the situation) following the sequence in the "Survey of Paramatha Dhamma" for both the Thai and English sections, with more mixture of "Cetasikas" for the English session. There are also readings for the Suttas and the Abhidhamma pitakas, but again somewhat randomly (depending on what people ask, on K. Jack's interests, on people who brings the sutta interests...) Please do let me know if you like to know more what we study, although I can't say it is particularly structured. I think the goal K. Jack has is to impart everybody with some basic understanding of the abhidhamma so that when TA comes in October (???), it will be worthwhile for everybody. kom 10948 From: Sarah Date: Fri Jan 25, 2002 1:30am Subject: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas Dear Rob Ep & friends, I hope you don’t mind if reply to a couple of your posts and cut and paste randomly;-) I’ve appreciated your ‘luminous’ thread post and your one to Herman on namas and rupas (along with all the others). I’m really only picking on your posts because you’re always so very good-humoured when I get ‘picky’;-) ********** As a few people have mentioned, clearly understanding (with awareness) the difference between namas and rupas is really the way to understand the characterisic of anatta and to begin to understand the conditioned (and non-controlled) nature of the phenomena that make up our lives. This precise direct understanding is the first of many stages of insight, eventually leading to the first stage of enlightenment. Without this understanding, there cannot be any knowledge of the impermanence or ultimate unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) of realities. When there is direct awareness of a nama such as seeing or feeling, there is no idea or sense at that very moment of awareness of it being ‘subjective’, ‘objective’, ‘separate’ or belonging to anyone. For convenience we can call it ‘subjective’ or my seeing or give it any other label. However, the awareness is just aware of the nature of experiencing (through the eye-door) or the pleasant or unpleasant (mental) feeling (accompanying body consciousnes), for example. In the same way, if there is awareness of a rupa such as hardness or softness (of any degree), there is no idea of rock or computer or ‘objective’ or ‘outside’. These are all pannatti (concepts) which are thought about instantly after the experiencing of these rupas, not necessarily in words at all. It’s not that when awareness develops, that rocks and falling trees no longer ‘exist’, but gradually ‘we’ realise that the ‘existing’ is merely conceptual in terms of what is actually experienced. Of course, regardless of whether we kick the rock or not, there are rupas over there which make up what is called rock. However, without the experiencing of hardness, visible object and thinking, there is no experience of ‘rock’. ********** >Rob Ep: “Now, if I'm right, the Abhidhamma perspective would say that the rupa rock can be discerned *as* a rupa, even though it is only through a nama - perceptual act -that the rupa rock is encountered. So I don't understand how the distinction between the rupa rock and the nama perceptual rock can be anything but a conceptual distinction. It took me a long time to even understand, with Jon's help and Sarah's, what the distinction between the rupa and nama was, because of this conjunction of the two in my way of thinking. But as I reflect on it, I don't see how the distinction between object and percept can be found in the actual moment of perception. One has to presume the rupa is 'real' through other kinds of deductions. One trips over the rock, the rock stays in the same place, the rock has certain discernable properties, etc., etc., but none of these distinguishes an actual rock 'in itself' as set apart from the rock as perceived. Except by logical assumption.” ********** As you rightly say here, there can only be awareness of one reality (a nama or a rupa)at one time. However, by being aware over and over again of different namas and rupas, the wisdom develops which clearly understands the distinct nature and characteristics of these realities and the distinction between them. Just as if you taste strawberry and chocolate ice-creams enough, you don’t have to taste them together to understand the difference. Nor do you have to think and rationalise the distinctions. Each time you taste strawberry, it is apparent what its taste is and clearly distinct from chocolate. ********** >”Rob Ep:I think it is a given for most people, of course, that the rock is really there, and that it is an object, not just a percept, and this is of course very sensible. But when we talk about paramatha dhammas, absolute realities, we need to distinguish exactly what it is we are discerning. If the 'rupa' is an absolute apart from the 'nama' that presents the object, then I have to ask how do we ever encounter the rupa-ness of the rupa independently, since it is always delivered by a nama?” ********** Even with no awareness, each time we kick the rock (I’m thinking of Erik stubbing his toe), a nama (i.e. body consciousness), accompanied by many other namas (the universal mental factors) experiences a rupa (hardness). By developing awareness (another nama), that same rupa with all its ‘rupa-ness’ is the object of this awareness and its characteristic and nature is known or discerned more and more precisely as awareness develops. So of course, it is always sati and panna which in effect encounter and discern the ‘rupa-ness of the rupa’. Without the development of satipatthana, it’s impossible.. How does this relate to the luminous thread, you may be wondering? Well, I’m wondering too if there is a connection, as I enjoy connections so much;-) Please humour me a little here;-) ********** >”Rob Ep:But it seems like the Buddha, perhaps indeed in a form of conventional language, is saying that mind is inherently luminous except for the temporary appearance of defilements, and that mind can be freed from those defilements revealing the true purity and luminosity of consciousness.” ********** I think the problem is that even when we talk conventionally, still the nature of realities is as the Buddha explains in detail in the texts and particularly, the Abhidhamma. So regardless of the language we use or whether we are interested in the explantion in the commentaries, there is no consciousness which lasts in any way or has any inherently pure nature. At this moment of consciousness rooted in attachment, there is no inherently luminous state, hidden by the lobha. When there is awareness of this particular consciousness or of the attachment accompanying it, the consciousness (nama) or lobha (another nama) as object is not cleansed or revealed as luminous at all. Instead it is revealed as unskilful. Although the arahat naturally no longer experiences lobha, ‘he’ may well have awareness of seeing or visible object. At these moments, the objects are just those which are experiencing and experienced now by us. There is no nibbana in their characteristics. Nibbana is only experienced by the lokuttara (supramundane cittas) which fall away. There is no pure state of awareness because this would conflict with what we study in the abhidhamma and what the direct awareness of namas and rupas at this moment teaches us, i.e. one reality or characteristic which can be known at a time and then gone forever. Nothing lasting at all, not even for highly developed wisdom. ********** “>Rob Ep:Now if one takes that statement on its face, it really is of great value, because what it does is give hope to the seeker that his mind has the potential for purity and luminosity, in other words wisdom, and that if he stays on the path he will be able to get past the defilements to this state of pure awareness. This does not posit an entity or a 'mind' that is some sort of final entity at the end of the rainbow. It just says that there is a better state for consciousness to attain, and that this state is particularly attainable, since the basic condition of consciousness is already equipped to attain this state. It is both a very basic structural description of the nature of consciousness when it is freed from defilements, and a paticularly encouraging message for one engaged in that process who is no doubt encountering more and more defilements as he progresses and becomes more aware of them.” ********** I have to admit it’s very hard for me to see why this idea of getting to a ‘state of pure awareness’ is encouraging. Isn’t it encouraging right now to be aware of the defilements and other namas and rupas and to begin to see them in their true colours? Do we need a future ‘fantasy’ of unlimited pure awareness or state of consciousness? I don’t wish or mean to be disrespectful at all to you or other religions or teachings or interpretations, but is it really any different from the ‘pureland’ that Ken O described or the ‘heaven’ that Christians hope for? Isn’t it really a lack of knowledge of namas and rupas? May I just suggest that the more understanding develops of seeing, visible object, feelings, hardness and all the other realities we have been discussing , the clearer it becomes that it’s impossible for awareness or any other mental state to last an instant. I hope I haven’t misunderstood you. ********** >”Rob Ep:... So basically, there is no progressive note in that message, it's just a comparison of the way the pure and impure cittas sort of line up together without really touching each other in any way. It is a closed system.” ”Rob Ep: Even though cittas come and go, they all share a basic nature or essence, and have a certain set of potentials and capabilities. So we can talk about the nature of consciousness without reifying it into a potential object or entity” ********** If we say that cittas have a ‘certain set of potentials and capabilities’, doesn’t this again suggest some change in the cittas? In reality, there is only ever one citta at a time. No other citta or potential exists. the citta at this moment carries all the latent tendencies, accumulations and so on but can never have potential to be any other way. So a bhavanga citta is always a bhavanga citta. Seeing is always seeing. A javana citta is always a javana citta. There are no supramundane or pure awareness states in them, potentially or otherwise. ********** >Rob Ep:“To see the luminous mind as referring to supramundane consciousness would make a lot of sense to me and the sutta would be saying that the current state of the cittas is to be arising with defilements, but when they are purified by sati and panna, then the resulting cittas will reveal the luminosity of their true nature, which is to arise as clear and undefiled partakers of realities.” ********** I think the Sutta is saying clearly that certain cittas are arising with defilements. We know from our Abhidhamma studies that many cittas never arise with defilements (eg some vipaka cittas like seeing and hearing and bhavanga cittas). Again you refer to the true nature of cittas being that of ‘luminosity’ which are purified by sati and panna. Again, I would suggest that cittas are never purified. A citta with attachment is always a citta with attachment regardless of whether this is any awareness of it or not. Still there seems to be an idea of underlying ‘true nature’ which doesn’t accord with ‘my’ understanding of namas and rupas as discussed. ********** . >Rob Ep: “I have probably asked this question before and had it answered, so this resurgence of my confusion will probably cause a few sighs among my friends here who have already been so helpful. But I think it is part of the natural flow of these sorts of understandings, that doubt arises until it has been adequately handled. And so I have to bring it up again. I must say that the conflict between these aspects of object-formation is more clear and simple to me than it was when I was confused before. So maybe I'm making progress in some strange way.” ********** Thanks again for all your careful consideration of earlier posts and for your good-natured and sincere approach to the diversity of understandings. I apologise if I’ve misunderstood you above or by snipping and pasting if I’ve distorted your meaning or the ‘cohesion’ in your posts. Apologies for any repetition and for the long-windedness too. I know I need to get some lessons on pruning from Herman;-) With lots of sighs (just joking ,) Sarah ================= 10949 From: Sarah Date: Fri Jan 25, 2002 5:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana/nama Kom Hi Howard, I think I overlooked your message here: --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah - > > It seems to me that derived materiality may be at the > conventional > level. I'm thinking of such things as deportment of the body, for > example. So > that one knows when one is lying down, etc. > > With metta, > Howard Sarah:> >.... From the Satipatthana Sutta Commentary we read: “There can be > > nothing apart from the qualities of primary and dervied materiality, > in a > > body.â€? When we read about derived materiality in the texts, it usually (always?) refers to 24‘upadaya’ rupas which are those rupas which arise dependent on the 4 great rupas - i.e solidity, cohesion, temperature and motion. they don’t all arise with all kinds of materiality apart from four or them which always arise to gether with the 4 greats. These further 4 are visible object, odour, flavour and nutritive essence and together these 4 greats and 4 ‘derived’ are called the 8 ‘inseparable rupas’. Num has come to our rescue to talk about air element and its role in motion and movement, I think (I’m behind on my reading). Slowly we begin to see how only realities can be known and are being discussed by the Buddha. For example under the section ‘Clear comprehension in the partaking of food and drink’ in the Satipatthana Sutta Commentary notes (and also in the Sammohavinodani (Dispeeler of Delusion) we read as I quoted once before: ********** “Within there is no eater called a self. As stated already, by the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity, only, there is the receiving of food in the bowl; by the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity, only, there is the descent of the hand into the bowl etc.......” “It is oscillation [vayodhatu] that does the taking onward, the moving away from side to side; and it is oscillation that bears, turns round, pulverizes, causes the removal of liquidity, and expels. Extension [pathavidhatu] also does bearing up, turning round, pulverizing and the removal of liquidity. Cohesion (apodhatu] moistens and preserves wetness. Caloricity [tejodhatu] ripens or digests the food that goes in. Space [akasadhatu] becomes the way for the entering of the food. Consciousness [viññanadhatu] as a consequence of right kind of action knows in any particular situation. According to reflection of this sort, should the clear comprehension of non-delusion be understood here. “ . ********** In other words, it may seem that we are being urged to be aware of actions, but really there are only paramattha dhammas being experienced and to be known. A little later under the section of ‘Clear comprehension of walking and so forth’, we read in the Sub-commentary: ********** “Action is doing, function of body and so forth (i.e., bodily expression or verbal expression, kayaviññatti va vaciviññatti). The processes which make action produce the function of bodily expression or the function of verbal expression. Or action is the double function of adverting. The things made of or produced from that action or double function are processes made of action. For by way of adverting, when there is the stoppage of the life-continum, courses of cognition arise Processes are things which go on, move changing, by arising gradually in different ways. Somewhere there is the reading "of mental states", "of action-making mental states, kriyamaya cittanam." It should be understood that this is not a reading of the Ancients as it is against the commentary and explanation to the Abhidhamma and other books Impulsion of either course of cognition (mind-door or five-door course of cognition) is a process made of action. Therefore it is said in the explanation to the Abhiddhamma, "On account of the condition of processes making action of body and so forth and by reason of the condition of originating action of adverting, impulsion of either course of cognition, or lust of every process of the six doors gets known as a process which makes or is made of action." ********** I hope this helps rather than confuses. Perhaps, when it is combined with Num’s post, it will seem a little clearer. Best wishes, Sarah p.s. I notice that just your computer software objects to my posts and sends back a lot of funny symbols.like this:..“. ================================================== 10950 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 25, 2002 10:21am Subject: photo section Dear Rob Ep, I am not good at navigating, when in archives I could not get to photos, although I pressed it. Wanted to look at Herman's boys and curtains. Nina. 10951 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 25, 2002 10:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ayatanas op 24-01-2002 03:17 schreef robertkirkpatrick.rm op robertkirkpatrick@r...: The > ayatanas are still an aspect of the teachings that are not clear to > me. In fact, I rely on you to clarify. > In the Salayatanavagga - 23(1) it says that 'the all' comprises the > ayatanas and I had always assumed that ayatanas is another way of > classifying all namas and rupas - (like the khandas and dhatus).. The > commentary (SPK) to this says that by 'all' is meant ayatanasabha and > bodhi's note p1399 says that this means all phenomena of the four > planes. Bodhi p1400 says that "The six types of consciousness are > included in the mind base (manayatana). Mind(mano), as a separate > factor, the supporting condition for mind-consciousness, then becomes > narrower in scope than the mind base;according to the commentary > sysetm it denotes the bhavangacitta..Mind consciousness itself > according to SPK comprises the mind-door adverting consciousness > (maodvaravajjanacitta) and the javanas." > It would be nice if we could have the complete translation of this > section of the commentary. > > In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: When > we were >> sitting near the Bodhi tree she said that we should know when and > where >> there are ayatanas. >> They are an association of different realities such as eyebase, > visible >> object and seeing. We should not just learn the term ayatana but > know that >> there are ayatanas now. What do you think of the bhavanga citta > (life >> continuum)? Since this does not know an object that impinges on one > of the >> six doors, I am inclined to think that there are at the moment of >> bhavangacitta no ayatanas. Dear Robert, There is more on the ayatanas in Vis. p. 547 and Dispeller I, p. 55 and here it is said : but only the part of the mind base (manayatana) called bhavanga is the door of arising... The last bhavanga-citta (arrest bhavanga) before the mind-door process begins is the mind-door. It is important to ask ourselves, when are there the ayatanas. I read a report (sarup) of the Foundation Meeting in Bgk on the ayatanas. It states that cakkhayatana is the doorway of all the cittas arising in the process of seeing-consciousness and that visible object, rupayatana is their object. Some people think that there is only cakkhayatana when there is cakkuvi~n~nana, visual consciousness, but this is not so. < This means that the eyesense (the pasada rupa) at those moments is the eyedoor and the cakkhayatana of each moment of citta of the eye-door process. And evenso is visible object rupayatana at each moment of citta of the eye-door process. Because the eyesense and the visible object are sabhava dhammas that have not fallen away, and they are associating or concurring at each moment of citta of the eye-door process.> end quote. I find that it is clearer now that ayatanas are daily life, not theory. They are here and now. When we just read the classification of the six types of consciousness included in the mind-base, where are the processes? This is all for today, but, of course there is a lot more to it. Best wishes, from Nina. 10952 From: anders_honore Date: Fri Jan 25, 2002 1:29pm Subject: [dsg] Re: luminous mind: To Sarah, Kom And Nina On Kamma Modifying --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > ...about the phrase "This mind, monks, is luminous.." It has great > significance for many people. I'm not sure, but it might have been Anders who started all the trouble (and hard work;-) If that is indeed the case, then I am truly sorry :-) 10953 From: anders_honore Date: Fri Jan 25, 2002 2:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] one limb of 8 fold path more important Hi, Erik. I am sorry for the late reply. I forget to keep check sometimes... --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rikpa21" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Anders Honore > I agfree up to a point--though we can draw certain inferencces that > are in themselves largely valid, through the use of clear > reasoniong, such that we can arrive at an essential foundation that > dies not diverge from erality. Namely, that because all things arise > in dependence on other factors we can infer (rightly) that they do > not possess "core" or "own-being" (as in being self-produced, or > causelessly). "To 'rightly' infer..." What is right? what is wrong? Such relative concepts, that that people often take to be real. "Right", in this case, should, as with everything else in Buddhism, only be read into one sole context: The cessation of suffering. If it is not skilful towards that end, we expediently call it 'wrong', and that which is skilful is expediently called right, but these are in no way absolute. To speak of 'right inferrence' in the context of accurtaely discerning reality seems to me a futile thing to do, as there is bound to be deficiences in that view, since it is grounded in external extrapolated concepts, absorbed from outside influences, which are very much subject to change, rather than the very cessation of these. > Since the purpose of all this study is to eradicate wrong views, > anything helpful in this regard which give one strong confidence in > the valididity of a proposition is something I find of immense > benefit (and have), because it increases confidence greatly in the > accuracy of the Buddha's ultimate understanding of the nature of > realities as they truly exist. Yes, expdiently, this can be a very skilful practise. But never an end in itself. This must also be abandoned eventually. > The contrary belief--that these supramundane path is inaccessible, > no longer manifests in this world, or that, even having had contact > with the Dharma, it is simply "too difficult" or one "lacks the > acumulations" is, in my opinion, an extremely toxic one. If I may be > blunt, a fatal one. Couldn't agree more... > THAT, to me, represents taking TRUE refuge: in the supreme and > unsurpassed attainment of the Buddha; in the truth of the Dhamma as > a way leading to freedom IN THIS LIFETIME; and in the Sangha, those > who have actualized the fruits of the Dhamma in this very lifetime. I LOVE THAT explanation of the refugees. And I find them very true. That is indeed the refuge that begins to set you on the path of the Dharma proper. 10954 From: anders_honore Date: Fri Jan 25, 2002 2:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] luminous mind- Anders --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Great to hear it.....the secret is obviously to give a good subject name > to threads;-) Yeah, putting my name in the subject header certainly gets my attention... :-) > Well, let us know if you come across the specific reference you have in > mind as I'd be interested to see it. I'll make a mental note of it. But I don't really have much time to read the Tipitaka right now. I am planning a trip to India in July, where I intend to visit the four Holy Sites, and from there I'll go and visit my teacher, KC Oon, who teaches Dzogchen and Ch'an, in Singapore. He has talked about recommending me to the two Theravada teacher who knows, who have mastered all eight Jhanas. A rarity these days, so I am definitely looking forward to spending time with such a personality. > A:> And it isn't helped by the fact, that we have a whole lifetime (or > > countless ones) of accumulation of delusion, which > > manifests itself in concepts, which we also have to uproot in order to > > come to Panna. It can be extremely difficult to > > properly discern what is skilful and what is not. > > Let's agree (I hope) the panna does the uprooting and it uproots the > delusion rather than the concepts. In my experience, concepts are fundamentally rooted in delusion. > Thanks Anders.....good to have you around and especially good to find so > many points to agree on for now;-) Haha, where's the fun now! :-) 10955 From: anders_honore Date: Fri Jan 25, 2002 2:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] one limb of 8 fold path more important Hi, Erik. I am sorry for the late reply. I forget to keep check sometimes... --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rikpa21" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Anders Honore > I agfree up to a point--though we can draw certain inferencces that > are in themselves largely valid, through the use of clear > reasoniong, such that we can arrive at an essential foundation that > dies not diverge from erality. Namely, that because all things arise > in dependence on other factors we can infer (rightly) that they do > not possess "core" or "own-being" (as in being self-produced, or > causelessly). "To 'rightly' infer..." What is right? what is wrong? Such relative concepts, that that people often take to be real. "Right", in this case, should, as with everything else in Buddhism, only be read into one sole context: The cessation of suffering. If it is not skilful towards that end, we expediently call it 'wrong', and that which is skilful is expediently called right, but these are in no way absolute. To speak of 'right inferrence' in the context of accurtaely discerning reality seems to me a futile thing to do, as there is bound to be deficiences in that view, since it is grounded in external extrapolated concepts, absorbed from outside influences, which are very much subject to change, rather than the very cessation of these. > Since the purpose of all this study is to eradicate wrong views, > anything helpful in this regard which give one strong confidence in > the valididity of a proposition is something I find of immense > benefit (and have), because it increases confidence greatly in the > accuracy of the Buddha's ultimate understanding of the nature of > realities as they truly exist. Yes, expdiently, this can be a very skilful practise. But never an end in itself. This must also be abandoned eventually. > The contrary belief--that these supramundane path is inaccessible, > no longer manifests in this world, or that, even having had contact > with the Dharma, it is simply "too difficult" or one "lacks the > acumulations" is, in my opinion, an extremely toxic one. If I may be > blunt, a fatal one. Couldn't agree more... > THAT, to me, represents taking TRUE refuge: in the supreme and > unsurpassed attainment of the Buddha; in the truth of the Dhamma as > a way leading to freedom IN THIS LIFETIME; and in the Sangha, those > who have actualized the fruits of the Dhamma in this very lifetime. I LOVE THAT explanation of the refugees. And I find them very true. That is indeed the refuge that begins to set you on the path of the Dharma proper. 10956 From: anders_honore Date: Fri Jan 25, 2002 2:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] luminous mind- Anders --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Great to hear it.....the secret is obviously to give a good subject name > to threads;-) Yeah, putting my name in the subject header certainly gets my attention... :-) > Well, let us know if you come across the specific reference you have in > mind as I'd be interested to see it. I'll make a mental note of it. But I don't really have much time to read the Tipitaka right now. I am planning a trip to India in July, where I intend to visit the four Holy Sites, and from there I'll go and visit my teacher, KC Oon, who teaches Dzogchen and Ch'an, in Singapore. He has talked about recommending me to the two Theravada teacher who knows, who have mastered all eight Jhanas. A rarity these days, so I am definitely looking forward to spending time with such a personality. > A:> And it isn't helped by the fact, that we have a whole lifetime (or > > countless ones) of accumulation of delusion, which > > manifests itself in concepts, which we also have to uproot in order to > > come to Panna. It can be extremely difficult to > > properly discern what is skilful and what is not. > > Let's agree (I hope) the panna does the uprooting and it uproots the > delusion rather than the concepts. In my experience, concepts are fundamentally rooted in delusion. > Thanks Anders.....good to have you around and especially good to find so > many points to agree on for now;-) Haha, where's the fun now! :-) 10957 From: Victor Yu Date: Fri Jan 25, 2002 2:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas Hello Sarah and all, This is how I understand it: Seeing thing/phenomenon as it actually is is not much about classifying the thing/phenomenon as nama or rupa. To see thing/phenomenon as it actually is is to see it thus: "This is impermanent. This is dukkha. This is not oneself." That is just my view on seeing thing/phenomenon as it actually is. Regards, Victor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sarah" To: Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 4:30 AM Subject: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas > > Dear Rob Ep & friends, > > I hope you don't mind if reply to a couple of your posts and cut and paste > randomly;-) I've appreciated your 'luminous' thread post and your one to > Herman on namas and rupas (along with all the others). I'm really only > picking on your posts because you're always so very good-humoured when I > get 'picky';-) > ********** > As a few people have mentioned, clearly understanding (with awareness) the > difference between namas and rupas is really the way to understand the > characterisic of anatta and to begin to understand the conditioned (and > non-controlled) nature of the phenomena that make up our lives. This > precise direct understanding is the first of many stages of insight, > eventually leading to the first stage of enlightenment. Without this > understanding, there cannot be any knowledge of the impermanence or > ultimate unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) of realities. > > When there is direct awareness of a nama such as seeing or feeling, there > is no idea or sense at that very moment of awareness of it being > 'subjective', 'objective', 'separate' or belonging to anyone. For > convenience we can call it 'subjective' or my seeing or give it any other > label. However, the awareness is just aware of the nature of experiencing > (through the eye-door) or the pleasant or unpleasant (mental) feeling > (accompanying body consciousnes), for example. In the same way, if there > is awareness of a rupa such as hardness or softness (of any degree), there > is no idea of rock or computer or 'objective' or 'outside'. These are all > pannatti (concepts) which are thought about instantly after the > experiencing of these rupas, not necessarily in words at all. It's not > that when awareness develops, that rocks and falling trees no longer > 'exist', but gradually 'we' realise that the 'existing' is merely > conceptual in terms of what is actually experienced. Of course, regardless > of whether we kick the rock or not, there are rupas over there which make > up what is called rock. However, without the experiencing of hardness, > visible object and thinking, there is no experience of 'rock'. [snip] 10958 From: anders_honore Date: Fri Jan 25, 2002 2:45pm Subject: Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > >There is no pure state of > awareness because this would conflict with what we study in the abhidhamma So what you are really saying is that this can't be true because *you* have faith in the fact that the Abhidhamma is true? How is this is any different from the Mahayanist who has faith in the Mahayana Sutras as true and claims otherwise? It is bad enough if people should think they'll find any actual truths in the scriptures, but to set the standards for truth based on personal preference...? > ********** > I have to admit it's very hard for me to see why this idea of getting to a > `state of pure awareness' is encouraging. Isn't it encouraging right now > to be aware of the defilements and other namas and rupas and to begin to > see them in their true colours? Do we need a future `fantasy' of unlimited > pure awareness or state of consciousness? Spot on! To tell you the truth, I don't really disagree with the 'pure awareness' theory myself, but I certainly agree with what you say about future fantasy and all. I mentioned the 'pure awareness=Nibbana' a while back to counter what I perceived as an annihilationist view of Buddhism (that there is just cessation), but the intent of that seems to have been warped somewhat and shaped into this goal that we must reach. There is just this reality. How will speculating about how others may experience it help you understand it any better? > I don't wish or mean to be > disrespectful at all to you or other religions or teachings or > interpretations, but is it really any different from the `pureland' that > Ken O described or the `heaven' that Christians hope for? Actually, when one interprets the Pure Land, and perhaps also the Chrstian Kingdom of the father, esoterically, then they are really quite the same... But one is of course free to see that as being negative or positive as they wish... > Isn't it really > a lack of knowledge of namas and rupas? To me, it is merely the case of a different focal-point for faith. >that it's impossible for awareness or any other mental state to last an > instant. I hope I haven't misunderstood you. I think you have, but it is really a quite abstract concept. For example, there's a reason why one has to be a stream-entrant to really know what Nibbana is about. One can speculate, but never quite hit the mark. 10959 From: Date: Fri Jan 25, 2002 5:29pm Subject: dependence/Sarah Hello Sarah, nice to hear from you. In regard to this question of dependence or conditionality I was just thinking of what I had vaguely remembered from some suttas that paticcasamuppada can be stopped or reversed and I was wondering how that worked. Unfortunately I have almost zero knowledge of the abhidhamma and it didn't occur to me to look there. You make an interesting point that conditionality is changed by adding more conditions. However, with high and low or birth and death there are no other conditions that can be added to change the relationship. So perhaps there are some differences between the links of the paticcasamuppada as to which are changeable by adding additional (appropriate) conditions. Another question might be what makes a condition that makes a difference in the various links? For example, given feeling, which conditions would prevent craving from arising. If I get a chance I'll try to get up to the library and dig out some of these answers. As it happens, my internet connectivity doesn't exactly use a computer so I can't download adobe or read pdf files. Hence, no Nina for now. When I originally made a profile for Yahoo I said I was a 100 year old banker from Hong Kong, thinking I would never meet anyone from there. Actually I live in Boulder Colorado, USA and I'm more or less 55 years old and in construction (houses). I really appreciate what you and Jon are doing here. It's very helpful and truly meritorious. best wishes, Larry 10960 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Fri Jan 25, 2002 7:11pm Subject: Re: ayatanas --- Dear Nina, Thanks for this quote from the meeting, which is what Khun Sujin also said to me in Bangkok. I see that only the arrest bhavanga citta is the mind-door. However, aren't the other bhavanga cittas also ayatana - albeit not doors(dvara)? Dispeller of delusion 226 p.56 says that the "mindbase is of 81kinds according to its classification into profitable, unprofitable, resultant and functional consciousness." I would love you to write an article explaining the ayatanas in your usual thorough way with lots of daily life examples. with respect robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > op 24-01-2002 03:17 schreef robertkirkpatrick.rm op > robertkirkpatrick@r...: > > The > > ayatanas are still an aspect of the teachings that are not clear to > > me. In fact, I rely on you to clarify. > > In the Salayatanavagga - 23(1) it says that 'the all' comprises the > > ayatanas and I had always assumed that ayatanas is another way of > > classifying all namas and rupas - (like the khandas and dhatus).. The > > commentary (SPK) to this says that by 'all' is meant ayatanasabha and > > bodhi's note p1399 says that this means all phenomena of the four > > planes. Bodhi p1400 says that "The six types of consciousness are > > included in the mind base (manayatana). Mind(mano), as a separate > > factor, the supporting condition for mind-consciousness, then becomes > > narrower in scope than the mind base;according to the commentary > > sysetm it denotes the bhavangacitta..Mind consciousness itself > > according to SPK comprises the mind-door adverting consciousness > > (maodvaravajjanacitta) and the javanas." > > It would be nice if we could have the complete translation of this > > section of the commentary. > > > > In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > When > > we were > >> sitting near the Bodhi tree she said that we should know when and > > where > >> there are ayatanas. > >> They are an association of different realities such as eyebase, > > visible > >> object and seeing. We should not just learn the term ayatana but > > know that > >> there are ayatanas now. What do you think of the bhavanga citta > > (life > >> continuum)? Since this does not know an object that impinges on one > > of the > >> six doors, I am inclined to think that there are at the moment of > >> bhavangacitta no ayatanas. > > Dear Robert, > There is more on the ayatanas in Vis. p. 547 and Dispeller I, p. 55 and here > it is said : but only the part of the mind base (manayatana) called bhavanga > is the door of arising... The last bhavanga-citta (arrest bhavanga) before > the mind-door process begins is the mind-door. > It is important to ask ourselves, when are there the ayatanas. I read a > report (sarup) of the Foundation Meeting in Bgk on the ayatanas. It states > that cakkhayatana is the doorway of all the cittas arising in the process of > seeing-consciousness and that visible object, rupayatana is their object. > Some people think that there is only cakkhayatana when there is > cakkuvi~n~nana, visual consciousness, but this is not so. > > < This means that the eyesense (the pasada rupa) at those moments is the > eyedoor and the cakkhayatana of each moment of citta of the eye-door > process. And evenso is visible object rupayatana at each moment of citta of > the eye-door process. Because the eyesense and the visible object are > sabhava dhammas that have not fallen away, and they are associating or > concurring at each moment of citta of the eye-door process.> end quote. > I find that it is clearer now that ayatanas are daily life, not theory. They > are here and now. When we just read the classification of the six types of > consciousness included in the mind-base, where are the processes? > This is all for today, but, of course there is a lot more to it. > Best wishes, from Nina. 10961 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Jan 25, 2002 7:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] photo section Dear Nina, If you are able to get into the dsg page in yahoogroups, the steps should be very simple. If you are able to access archives and files, you should also be able to get into the photo album. The steps: Go to the yahoo groups main page. You see a list called 'my groups' on the left. Click on dhammastudygroup. Once you are on the dsg page, you will see another menu on the left. One of the buttons says 'photos'. Click on photos. This should take you directly to the photo album. You will see thumbnails of all the photos and can click on any one to enlarge it. If you do all these steps, and still can't see the photos, I am at a loss as to what the problem would be. But let me know what happens. You can also try this direct link to the photo album. Maybe it will take you there without going through all that. http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst Best, Robert Ep. ========== --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob Ep, I am not good at navigating, when in archives I could not get > to photos, although I pressed it. Wanted to look at Herman's boys and > curtains. Nina. 10962 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Jan 25, 2002 10:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Dear Sarah, Thanks for taking so much time to consider my lengthy statement. I appreciate your comments below. My responses are interspersed throughout: --- Sarah wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep & friends, > > I hope you don’t mind if reply to a couple of your posts and cut and paste > randomly;-) I’ve appreciated your ‘luminous’ thread post and your one to > Herman on namas and rupas (along with all the others). I’m really only > picking on your posts because you’re always so very good-humoured when I > get ‘picky’;-) > ********** So I'm good-humoured, am I???? Just kidding, I always enjoy our interchanges. > As a few people have mentioned, clearly understanding (with awareness) the > difference between namas and rupas is really the way to understand the > characterisic of anatta and to begin to understand the conditioned (and > non-controlled) nature of the phenomena that make up our lives. This > precise direct understanding is the first of many stages of insight, > eventually leading to the first stage of enlightenment. Without this > understanding, there cannot be any knowledge of the impermanence or > ultimate unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) of realities. I like this paragraph very much. Whether one discerns 'nama's and 'rupas', or thinks of discerning things for what they are in general, we agree that distinguishing thoughts and fantasies from things that 'actually appear in presence' is indispensible for coming in for a landing and beginning to see what's actual. In practical terms, it is merely and commonsensically like the difference between someone who panics and indulges in various fantasies if their car breaks down and a second person who opens the hood and tries to see what's broken. The second person may eventually see how the parts of the car are all connected, may then find the part that is broken and may even then have a chance of fixing it, although all of this may take a while. But the person who is sitting in the car 'imagining' possibilities and thinking they are actual will never ever get where they're going. Now we could really go nuts and say that Buddha is the guy in the tow truck, but I'll leave it for now....... > When there is direct awareness of a nama such as seeing or feeling, there > is no idea or sense at that very moment of awareness of it being > ‘subjective’, ‘objective’, ‘separate’ or belonging to anyone. For > convenience we can call it ‘subjective’ or my seeing or give it any other > label. However, the awareness is just aware of the nature of experiencing > (through the eye-door) or the pleasant or unpleasant (mental) feeling > (accompanying body consciousnes), for example. In the same way, if there > is awareness of a rupa such as hardness or softness (of any degree), there > is no idea of rock or computer or ‘objective’ or ‘outside’. These are all > pannatti (concepts) which are thought about instantly after the > experiencing of these rupas, not necessarily in words at all. It’s not > that when awareness develops, that rocks and falling trees no longer > ‘exist’, but gradually ‘we’ realise that the ‘existing’ is merely > conceptual in terms of what is actually experienced. Another excellently clear description. I guess my problem is that I see even the rupa as being inherently conceptual. It seems to me that the 'paramatha dhammas' constitute the Abhidhamma's version of the 'absolute state of pure consciousness', a state without imperfection, because it perceives exactly what is there without undue conceptualization. But in the case of the paramatha dhammas, the 'pure rupa' is still an absolute experience of an object, and to me even a momentary aspect of an object can never be absolute. Even though over many passes by sati and panna the true characteristics of the rupas become discerned, there is still no actual contact with the rupa from my standpoint. This 'coming to know' is a process of deduction and accumulation of separate experiences. This sort of 'coming to know' through repeated passes seems to me to be conceptual in nature, because it seems to me that consciousness is piecing together a picture with increasing knowledge. This does not seem to be direct and just in the moment, it is gradual, cumulative, and consciousness-derived. I agree with the analysis that most of what we experience is conceptual and we don't realize it - we think it's real - I'm just not sure that the analysis of paramatha dhammas doesn't stop at the brink of realizing that it's *all* conceptual by its very nature. Instead there is a saving category that allows us to get to a 'reality' beyond our own limited perceptual and conceptual equipment, and I wonder if that is really the case. Rather than absolute realities, I would see the wise discernment of namas and rupas as being a 'true analysis of the way in which impressions are transmitted by consciousness', which is not absolute in itself, but provides a foundation for wisdom about the human condition. This allows one to make the analysis of anatta, anicca and dukkha, but without positing absolute objects, which I think must be a form of reification of the momentary experience which is always delivered through a perceptual-conceptual apparatus, never 'in itself' in some 'actual' form, except the form of 'mind' or 'consciousness'. In other words, all human experience in the world of objects outside of mind is inherently defiled, irredeemably and irrevocably defiled, because any experience that comes through the human body and mind, the individuated self which is identified with the body and senses, can never get a pure result that is somehow not the product of that equipment. But, to be able to see namas as what they are, and to be able to see rupas as the product of the namas that capture and portray them -- well, that would be seeing directly the exact product that the *mind* creates in a human being. And that would be coming in for a landing in the human reality. But to see rupas as somehow independent outside of the human act of perception, sets up an ideal world beyond what our senses and minds are actually capable of discerning. Any time we presume a real objective world beyond the mind's processes, we have lost the thread of reality, in my opinion. That is why I put my 'absolute reality' in a realm that is not part of the human scene, something that can only happen by mind regarding the properties at the root of mind itself. As long as mind is focussed on its objects as if they existed beyond the mind, mind is still dealing with an illusion. In that case, it is not an illusion of a real self, it is an illusion of a real 'other'. Again, if we see 'hardness' as a nama, I think we're on the right track: discernment of the mental product we perceive as 'hardness'. If we look at it as 'actual hardness directly apprehended' - a rupa that is really there - we cloud the role of mind in creating this impression and posit a reality beyond the senses. I have a feeling that is a mistake which leads to the presumption of a whole realm of illusion, a world of real objects which we presume but can never really know directly. And your next statement points to this problem: Of course, regardless > of whether we kick the rock or not, there are rupas over there which make > up what is called rock. Are there rupas 'over there'? How could we ever possibly know that, except by deduction and faith? I can't see that as a direct experience, except as a direct experience of mind's product: a nama. But rupas 'out there'? What happens to the mind when one takes away that presupposition. What do we really really experience as being 'out there' if we don't presume there is a world of real objects beyond our ability to apprehend? However, without the experiencing of hardness, > visible object and thinking, there is no experience of ‘rock’. And that may in fact be all there is of 'rock'. In common sense thinking, of course we presume that 'rock' is a real object. And we can bank on it behaving that way, since we are coordinated with that presumption of reality. But as Buddhists, we have to question where our reality really lives. Does it really live 'out there' somewhere, while we catch a glimpse of 'hardness' or 'softness', or are these impressions all we know for sure? I know it sounds solipsistic, but I want to try to be rigorous about what we really know and don't know. > ********** > >Rob Ep: “Now, if I'm right, the Abhidhamma perspective would say that the > rupa rock can be discerned *as* a rupa, even though it is only through a > nama - perceptual act -that the rupa rock is encountered. So I don't > understand how the distinction between the rupa rock and the nama > perceptual rock can be anything but a conceptual distinction. It took me > a long time to even understand, with Jon's > help and Sarah's, what the distinction between the rupa and nama was, > because > of this conjunction of the two in my way of thinking. But as I reflect on > it, I > don't see how the distinction between object and percept can be found in > the > actual moment of perception. One has to presume the rupa is 'real' > through > other > kinds of deductions. One trips over the rock, the rock stays in the same > place, > the rock has certain discernable properties, etc., etc., but none of these > distinguishes an actual rock 'in itself' as set apart from the rock as > perceived. > Except by logical assumption.” > ********** > As you rightly say here, there can only be awareness of one reality (a > nama or a rupa)at one time. However, by being aware over and over again of > different namas and rupas, the wisdom develops which clearly understands > the distinct nature and characteristics of these realities and the > distinction between them. But is 'understanding' a direct knowledge, or a deduction? It seems to me that it is a kind of logic. Wisdom may see the nature of something deeply and clearly, but even wisdom cannot presume that an object exists differently than it is being seen in the moment. The only thing that is constant in human consciousness is the continuous occurence of recurrent namas and cetasikas, until parinibbana. But the content of any of the cittas, even with all the accumulations that point in one or another direction, can never be presumed as 'real'. It is not unreal either, but by seeing its true nature as the arising content of a particular citta, one can face that it is purely a mind-delivered and mind-derived experience, and that there is perhaps no object to be found beyond the citta itself, and certainly not one that we can experience directly. Just as if you taste strawberry and chocolate > ice-creams enough, you don’t have to taste them together to understand the > difference. Nor do you have to think and rationalise the distinctions. > Each time you taste strawberry, it is apparent what its taste is and > clearly distinct from chocolate. Those qualities are distinct, but they are still delivered through mental operations. If those operations cease, as in parinibbana, then there are no rupas and namas to be distinct from each other. So it is all a product of mind, although perhaps distinct-seeming products. > ********** > >”Rob Ep:I think it is a given for most people, of course, that the rock > is really > there, > and that it is an object, not just a percept, and this is of course very > sensible. > But when we talk about paramatha dhammas, absolute realities, we need to > distinguish exactly what it is we are discerning. If the 'rupa' is an > absolute > apart from the 'nama' that presents the object, then I have to ask how do > we > ever > encounter the rupa-ness of the rupa independently, since it is always > delivered > by > a nama?” > ********** > Even with no awareness, each time we kick the rock (I’m thinking of Erik > stubbing his toe), a nama (i.e. body consciousness), accompanied by many > other namas (the universal mental factors) experiences a rupa (hardness). > By developing awareness (another nama), that same rupa with all its > ‘rupa-ness’ is the object of this awareness and its characteristic and > nature is known or discerned more and more precisely as awareness > develops. If all that exists is a particular citta in any given moment, how can a 'characteristic' of an 'object' be gradually discerned. You cannot possibly do that without presuming the exact opposite of what that entails: that there is an actual object or entity that doesn't change and thus maintains a 'characteristic' over time, beyond the changes from moment to moment. That is presuming a real, unchanging object that maintains its characteristic and doesn't fall apart. It reminds me of the world of 'absolute objects' in Platonic philosophy. The real object was not the one we perceive at any given moment on earth, which is subject to change and imperfection, but the 'perfect' version of each object existed without change in the perfection of its given characteristics in the world of absolute ideals. If you are gradually discerning something's 'true characteristic' through wisdom over time, you are involved in an intellectual process of discernment in which you are arriving at an unchanging essence. The paramatha dhammas replace the 'entityness' of living beings, it seems, with the 'entityness' of consistent characteristics of objects. Where is the anatta in something which has a stable and unchanging charcteristic? It seems to me that this must be an intellectual abstraction and not a reality. So of course, it is always sati and panna which in effect > encounter and discern the ‘rupa-ness of the rupa’. Without the development > of satipatthana, it’s impossible.. But that rupa is gone, completely demolished, never to arise again. The next rupa is brand new, never seen before. How can either one of them have a characteristic for satipatthana to discern? Is satipatthana then confined to reviewing the past characteristics of dead rupas? How can the characteristic of a past rupa whose essential quality has been discerned, accumulated and passed down, have anything to do with the characteristic or essence of the next rupa? Again, one is positing a continuing reality beyond the moment, a real object that has real properties and essence. It is a form of atta of an objective kind, something to hold onto in the shifting world of the kandhas. If the kandhas really are completely shifting and changing, leading always to their own disillusion and destruction, how can a stable characteristic be discerned and stabilized? It seems to me that Buddhism works best when its principles are applied to the way in which the human subject creates delusion, and how objects of mind are seemingly constituted, not when the objects are analyzed as absolutes with stable and lasting essences. > How does this relate to the luminous thread, you may be wondering? Well, > I’m wondering too if there is a connection, as I enjoy connections so > much;-) Please humour me a little here;-) > ********** > >”Rob Ep:But it seems like the Buddha, perhaps indeed in a form of > conventional > language, is saying that mind is inherently luminous except for the > temporary > appearance of defilements, and that mind can be freed from those > defilements > revealing the true purity and luminosity of consciousness.” > ********** > I think the problem is that even when we talk conventionally, still the > nature of realities is as the Buddha explains in detail in the texts and > particularly, the Abhidhamma. So regardless of the language we use or > whether we are interested in the explantion in the commentaries, there is > no consciousness which lasts in any way or has any inherently pure nature. Then how can anything it apprehends have a stable characteristic or actual essence? > At this moment of consciousness rooted in attachment, there is no > inherently luminous state, hidden by the lobha. Now I have to speak in abstract terms myself, based on the recurrent appearance of consciousness: Consciousness itself is luminous, yet covered by defilements. The reason that this is clear is because one can distinguish between the properties of consciousness and that of the defilements. If consciousness were not other than the nature of the defilement, it would not be possible to make these distinctions. We understand that consciousness' nature is the same as its function. It lights upon objects whether mental or physical and discerns them. This in itself invokes certain characteristics, such as awareness, clarity, luminosity to shed light [like a camera] upon a particular object and record something about it, flowingness because it takes the shape and rhythm of various events, objects, conditions and records them, etc., etc. Based on these functions, one can say that consciousness is inherently intelligent, luminous, etc. Luminous does not mean it has some sort of mystical halo, it means it is of the nature of light. It illuminates objects as much as any flashlight and in this sense it is not like a rock, dark and opaque, it is luminous like light and flowing and clear like water. Consciousness is also inherently defiled, because it is marred by always having an object. In a sense this goes against the properties listed above, it is an opaque point in the clear stream of consciousness' movement towards the object. When the object is there, the consciousness shapes and moves around it, picks it up and takes the impression of that object from the sense-door where the object is 'grabbed' back to its source in various mental functions within the mind. If the object is a nama, then consciousness does the same, lights on the thought-form, records its impression and brings it over to another mental function of some kind. So the object is like the object that stops a flashlight beam. The light stops at the object, and in that way is 'obstructed', but also in that way performs its function. When there is no object, where does the mental awareness/energy go? One theory says it does nothing. It just stops. Another says that it is just there in its own nature, stewing in its own juices, because there is no object to stop it or consume it. Either way, I see the Buddha as saying that consciousness is both luminous and defiled, but that the defilements are temporary. When there is awareness of > this particular consciousness or of the attachment accompanying it, the > consciousness (nama) or lobha (another nama) as object is not cleansed or > revealed as luminous at all. Instead it is revealed as unskilful. > > Although the arahat naturally no longer experiences lobha, ‘he’ may well > have awareness of seeing or visible object. At these moments, the objects > are just those which are experiencing and experienced now by us. There is > no nibbana in their characteristics. Nibbana is only experienced by the > lokuttara (supramundane cittas) which fall away. There is no pure state of > awareness because this would conflict with what we study in the abhidhamma > and what the direct awareness of namas and rupas at this moment teaches > us, i.e. one reality or characteristic which can be known at a time and > then gone forever. Nothing lasting at all, not even for highly developed > wisdom. If that is the case, then the accumulations of wisdom doesn't make sense to me. What is being accumulated? Wisdom about something that is gone forever and then applying that wisdom to another temporary rupa? Again, I'm not sure how this can work without being an intellectual operation, a kind of educated knowing of the nature of dhammas in general. > ********** > “>Rob Ep:Now if one takes that statement on its face, it really is of > great value, > because > what it does is give hope to the seeker that his mind has the potential > for > purity > and luminosity, in other words wisdom, and that if he stays on the path he > will > be > able to get past the defilements to this state of pure awareness. This > does > not > posit an entity or a 'mind' that is some sort of final entity at the end > of the > rainbow. It just says that there is a better state for consciousness to > attain, > and that this state is particularly attainable, since the basic condition > of > consciousness is already equipped to attain this state. It is both a very > > basic > structural description of the nature of consciousness when it is freed > from > defilements, and a paticularly encouraging message for one engaged in that > > process > who is no doubt encountering more and more defilements as he progresses > and > becomes more aware of them.” > ********** > I have to admit it’s very hard for me to see why this idea of getting to a > ‘state of pure awareness’ is encouraging. Isn’t it encouraging right now > to be aware of the defilements and other namas and rupas and to begin to > see them in their true colours? This really is a difference of emphasis. Seeing defilements clearly and seeing the distinction between namas and rupas does not seem like it really in itself gets at the nature of mind or the suffering condition for me. It does get at it to see the anatta and anicca in everything that arises, and that can be liberating and even exciting. I have had a few moments here and there where I could sort of see the kandhas being created and crumbling down simeoltaneously from moment to moment, both dizzying and freeing. But in that sense of constant change in the discernment of objects, it is the discerning consciousness that interests me more. Our nature rests in mind, and when we see for a moment what consciousness is and isn't picking up, or for a moment it picks up more of the nature of reality, we get a glimpse, almost like the fish in water, of the medium that creates our reality in the first place. This is what is exciting to me. And I know, you may say that this is an attachment and excitement is not really what it's about. But to me the path of liberation must be....liberating. I think there are aspects of this that we probably would agree on. When we look at namas with discernment or the attempt to discern them in operation, we see into the nature of the mechanism that not only creates our sense of reality, but also our sense of self, of being 'someone'. It is the feeling of being in the center of all these operations that gives one a feeling of entity, and when we start to look at all these operations for what we are, we can see the nature of the mechanism and that no one lives in there directing them, they are on automatic pilot. This is anatta, and I think we would agree that to the extent we become aware of anatta directly within the world of objects and within the world of namas internal to mind, the more clear we become that we are not what we presumed we are. I am only saying, let's carry that same presumption even to the constituents of objects and thoughts. Are the root 'pieces' of the puzzle that we see any more real than the conceptual objects we thought they composed? Is a rupa really absolute? Is it really real or is it just another shifting sand? Does a nama or rupa have some sort of 'essence' or are they just as empty as space? I am wary of the subtle reification of the momentary objects, of turning dhammas into 'real things' and I sense there is a bit of this in Abhidhamma. I think what we want in order to make real progress is a totally denuded created world, one that has no entity on any level, no objects, no aspects, no selves, every apparency utterly shorn of any underlying anything. That may leave us with a level of consciousness that is just like empty space, and if this is what happens, if our world vision decreases until it has nothing in it but momentary illusion, then I think we may be on the right track. If this seems to sound different than my insistence on something other than total non-cessation in the liberated mind, it's not different to me. I never wanted to raise awareness into an object that one could hold onto. But it is very difficult to talk about the possibility of awareness existing at rest without creating this image, even for myself. Do we need a future ‘fantasy’ of unlimited > pure awareness or state of consciousness? It's not a future fantasy to me. It's the current state of consciousness beyond the defilement. It's something that's sensed, like saying that 'sure there are fish in the water, does that mean there's no water?' I don’t wish or mean to be > disrespectful at all to you or other religions or teachings or > interpretations, but is it really any different from the ‘pureland’ that > Ken O described or the ‘heaven’ that Christians hope for? It could be turned into that, but that isn't my intention. My intention is to see the true nature of what actually exists, not to go live in 'awareness heaven' at some point in the future. Pure land and heaven in the sky are not my personal bent. I do however believe that heaven on earth is seeing the nature of the mind directly, whatever that may entail. I think the Buddha was not just lacking in defilements, but pretty damned joyful, something which he himself described quite freely. He was more like a peaceful smile than a clean tooth. Isn’t it really > a lack of knowledge of namas and rupas? May I just suggest that the more > understanding develops of seeing, visible object, feelings, hardness and > all the other realities we have been discussing , the clearer it becomes > that it’s impossible for awareness or any other mental state to last an > instant. I hope I haven’t misunderstood you. Well, to me, I don't see individual cittas as objects arising and falling. If you do look at them that way, they are turned into little units and it's very difficult for me to imagine that these isolated individual events, which are then stretched to include the passing on of accumulations and thus explain the possibility of knowledge and progress, are still like little monads that are being granted a kind of provisional entity. It seems to me that taking a citta as a self-contained event with a definite boundary is indeed imputing a kind of reality to it, creating it as a 'real object' that exists in time and space and granting it a kind of pure, though fleeting, entity. What is the alternative? If one looks at citta as something that arises and falls continously, that has phases and objects that constantly shift and change, one can still have individual risings and fallings of individual objects and percepts, but it doesn't reify consciousness itself into a group of meta-objects, of clear little conscious event-units that each pick up one specific content and then pass it on. I think it is *more* in line with the anatta-ness of all kandhic objects to say that consciousness is *not* divided into individual cittas, but is a more determinate and random operation. To say, 'yes we can cut the cake in any particular place and see a particular rupa being picked up but in fact there is no particular consciousness and there is no particular rupa, that is only a momentary apparency' seems to me to be much more in line with the buddha's teaching on the radical nature of anatta and anicca. If things are truly without bounded object-nature and are truly without central identifiable entity, then we should not be able to take the apparent arising of phenomena and neatly cut them into defineable, let alone *actual* units or discrete individuated consciousness-events. I fear that the theory of the single citta, with one citta per moment, and all of them sort of in a neat logical row, creates consciousnesses as entities. If something is truly defineable and can be said to be *this* or *that*, well, that is the definition of an entity as far as I'm concerned. What is the analysis that leads us to see that a person is not an entity? The only analysis that does this is to look at human experience and to say 'there is no defineable object or property within the body or mind which can be identified as a self, no little object that can be seen to be the center of this human experience. Rather it is a causally but randomly associated group of related events, bound together only by the laws that govern action and reaction among various types of elements.' Now if we apply that analysis to cittas we would have to say 'there is no defineable boundary to this citta that can said to be actual and not arbitrary.' If there is a defineable boundary or definition to a citta that can said to be *real*, then by God the citta is actual, and is a real object or entity. And that would go against the Buddha's teaching that all kandhic objects are radically impermanent, in fact constantly shifting and changing beyond our definition, and radically lacking in entity. So when we look at the single citta and say 'Yes, it has a clear beginning, middle and end, a definite content and function, and this is what it *is*' we have created it as a monad, an entity which really exists while it exists, and then is destroyed at the end. But the Abhidhammic analysis of anatta maintains that the reason that Nibbana as cessation of functions is not annihilationist is because there is *no entity in the first place* to be destroyed, and therefore when those functions cease, nothing is annihilated, because no entity existed in the first place. But this is not so for the single citta theory. It is stated in just the opposite terms, that the citta is actual for the time it exists, and then is utterly destroyed or annihilated with no trace remaining. It is hard to escape the conclusion that this is a little entity which is created, is real and is then annihilated? The analysis of objects which allows us to see their thoroughgoing anattaness is to see that whatever we look at as a boundary or definition of the object breaks down into more little events upon further analysis. So there really is no 'object' just an never-ending infinite regress of more and more detailed levels of discernment. Not so for the citta which is given as an actual event. To bring anattaness to the citta, I believe it would have to be seen as a flow of arising and falling events that have no real separations, definitions or boundaries, no 'one actual event and object for one actual citta', but events within events, objects within objects, cittic phenomenality within each given citta. The definition of everything has to break down into more and smaller events upon further analysis. As long as the analysis of the citta is not subjected to this further scrutiny, it appears to me that it remains an intellectual theory which defines a certain level of cittic existence as the actual event, and not a true discernment of the ever-shifting reality of phenomenal existence. The ever-shifting reality should always break down further and should never arrive at a monad which can be identified as the 'real object'. That is exactly Buddha's point, that there is *nothing* at the center of phenomenal existence. It doesn't break down to an absolute number. It breaks down to a radical zero. I stress that this is true of *phenomenal* existence, within which I include both namas and rupas, and particularl all cittas> I am not arguing at the moment what may or may not be a 'non-phenomenal' existent. But I will say that any existent that can be defined as an object instantly falls back into the realm of phenomena and is subject to anatta and anicca. > ********** > >”Rob Ep:... So > basically, there is no progressive note in that message, it's just a > comparison > of > the way the pure and impure cittas sort of line up together without really > touching each other in any way. It is a closed system.” ********** > Actually I think the sutta (read in full) is about the development of > skilful states and the danger of unskilful states. This is a very > ‘progressive’ path, but when we understand more about the nature of > different cittas, we learn that though they are inter-related and have > effect on each other, no cittas (or other realities) can change in nature > at all. They are just as they are conditioned to be at this moment. My problem with this is that it goes against the language in the sutta in my opinion. And this is my problem with the commentary which does not attempt to connect to the actual semantics of the Buddha's statements. To say that 'mind or citta is pure or luminous, but is defiled by defilements' does not say that one citta is defiled and another is pure. It says clearly that the same consciousness that is defiled is freed of defilements. If it didn't say that, life would be a lot simpler, but it does say that. That is true of every translation we have seen. We can't change the words. It doesn't matter whether the correct term turns out to be pure, luminous or white, radiant. The semantic sense that the Buddha is saying the citta is pure but defiled, and can be cleansed of defilement is clear in the statement. One has to interpret away from the statement to make it mean something else. We can argue whether he is talking about a 'single citta' or about 'consciousness in general' in a conventional sense, but I don't think it can be argued when faced with the sutta itself, that he is saying that one type of citta is pure and its next door neighbor is defiled. I just think that's stretching it out of context. Seeing > will never hear. Pleasant feeling will never be unplesant. A moment of > stinginess can never change into a moment of generosity and so on. Sarah, when you say the above, is there not an inherent concept that the examples you give are real and actual as described? When we do a radical analysis of the moment, is there really such a thing as 'just seeing'? Is there really such a thing as 'stinginess' or generosity without a conceptual judgment or definition? I don't think these things are real and discrete objects. We say that in a higher state of discernment we will be able to discern 'one rupa' that is just a 'seeing rupa' and that seeing and hearing don't take place at the same moment, but take rapid turns. I don't have any evidence that this is true, and it seems to me to make a lot more sense to say that consciousness is flitting around doing a variety of things at all times, that hearing and seeing may be sorted out in a particular way, but that to say one sees the bird at a separate moment from when one hears the bird is a stretch. I don't know the commentaries well enough at all to have any idea how this analysis is backed up but it seems to me to be an attempt to simplify the constant barrage of actual phenomena in order to understand it better and develop wisdom. A worthy objective, but one that seems to me to have a strong measure of 'control' in it, which I know we talk about seeing through. Can we really control our taking in of realities to the point where everything breaks down neatly into totally separate and clean, clear cittas? I think that the manifestation of reality is much messier than this, and that perhaps the arahant sees through the whole mess by understanding the nature of mind in the constitution of each object, rather than sorting out individual absolute realities one by one. It seems worthwhile to entertain the notion that the everpresent human desire to control reality may be expressed in the desire to break the moment of perception or conception down to a very clear, discrete set of defineable cittas. it is the Buddha's genius that he had the ability to resist this tendency, because of his complete attainment of wisdom. Perhaps what makes him a Buddha is this unique ability. It only > seems like a closed system when there isn’t any awreness of the nature of > these phenomena. You mention a little later that it seems like “a static > comparison between the bhavanga cittas and the ordinary cittas.” I think > we can say that the Teachings, as we’ve discussed before, are descriptive > of the nature of the nuts and bolts, so to speak. Again, this only seems > static if there isn’t any understanding being developed. I admit the possibility that this may very well be so, and it is an intriguing possibility. Reading a manual on how a car works, one gets individual descriptions of one mechanism at a time. Perhaps even the single citta theory is meant to clearly describe individual types of phenomena, so when they are seen in situ, they may be understood and develope wisdom. If that is the case, perhaps it is also possible that we have taken the arahants' analysis too literally, and have taken their building blocks for 'the way things actually happen.' Aversion (dosa) > now cannot change to compassion, but by knowing its nature better, this > will be a condition for more compassion in future, not by wishing or > hoping but by sincerely understanding and detaching from that which > appears. How is that different than seeing a moment of undefiled consciousness and seeing the real possibility of more undefiled cittas in the future? > ********** > >”Rob Ep: Even though cittas come and go, they > all share a basic nature or essence, and have a certain set of potentials > and > capabilities. So we can talk about the nature of consciousness without > reifying > it into a potential object or entity” > ********** > If we say that cittas have a ‘certain set of potentials and capabilities’, > doesn’t this again suggest some change in the cittas? No, it suggests a constant change from citta to citta and in fact in the continuous flow of consciousness itself. It means that the properties of cittas and their relationship to various defilements can change through development of discernment and wisdom. I don't see this as different from saying that the Buddhic path leads to clarity over the course of time. In reality, there is > only ever one citta at a time. No other citta or potential exists. I would say that this is a theory until one can say they have experienced it directly. If one has, then that is wonderful. If not, it is used as a guiding idea to look at namas and rupas more directly. In the meantime, it is not settled for me that there is truly only one citta at a time. To me this still turns the citta into a discrete object. To me, a citta is an arising of consciousness in relation to an object. It comes from a flow of other cittas, and leads to a flow of more cittas. They do not exist 'in and of themselves'. if they do, they become special entities. the > citta at this moment carries all the latent tendencies, accumulations and > so on but can never have potential to be any other way. That also makes them all separate, if that is the case, which leads more in the direction of turning them into bounded objects, or monads. They are either open and part of a larger process, or they are closed and independent. If they are closed and independent, they fly in the face of anatta. I think this is a problem. One can't have the cittas be that clear and bounded or I believe one runs into the problem of turning them into discrete entitites. I think the citta idea can be useful if one doesn't think they are 'real'. Think of them as really behaving according to the one at a time description, and I think you have a string of little 'attas'. So a bhavanga > citta is always a bhavanga citta. Seeing is always seeing. A javana citta > is always a javana citta. To me these statements of actuality turn these cittas into real objects which are imputed to exist outside of momentary manifestation, and to have actual essences that can be defined and predicted. That seems to me to fly in the face of the nature of the kandhas. There are no supramundane or pure awareness > states in them, potentially or otherwise. I was not saying in this instance, that the cittas contained a 'pure awareness state', just that they had a nature or function that was other than their defilements. I think that consciousness can be seen as more than its defilements without falling into a depiction of 'absolute awareness'. > ********** > >Rob Ep:“To see the luminous mind as referring to supramundane > consciousness would make a lot of sense > to me and the sutta would be saying that the current state of the cittas > is to > be > arising with defilements, but when they are purified by sati and panna, > then > the > resulting cittas will reveal the luminosity of their true nature, which is > to > arise as clear and undefiled partakers of realities.” > ********** > I think the Sutta is saying clearly that certain cittas are arising with > defilements. We know from our Abhidhamma studies that many cittas never > arise with defilements (eg some vipaka cittas like seeing and hearing and > bhavanga cittas). If you separate pure and impure cittas as being separate ones, I think you move away from the statement the Buddha makes in the sutta. Again you refer to the true nature of cittas being that > of ‘luminosity’ which are purified by sati and panna. Again, I would > suggest that cittas are never purified. A citta with attachment is always > a citta with attachment regardless of whether this is any awareness of it > or not. I think that each citta flows into more cittas and is in a continual state of transformation. An individual citta neither changes nor doesn't change, because there is no such thing as a 'thing' that is a citta. Since it is not an object it cannot be said to have an individual essence or property that doesn't change. If such a property is attributed to a citta, it becomes an object that partakes of entity and loses its anattaness, in my opinion. So I don't think we can assert than an X citta is always an X citta. If we do this, we take the shifting reality of the kandhas and reify it into a larger-scale object. This citta must break down to more processes. It must not be a 'single event that cannot be further broken down by more discerning perception.' That means that it cannot be ultimately defined or you have made an intellectual decision about where to stop looking at its anicca nature. It has to go all the way down to an empty center, not an opaque one. Still there seems to be an idea of underlying ‘true nature’ which > doesn’t accord with ‘my’ understanding of namas and rupas as discussed. I may fall into that at times, to be sure. On the other hand, the nama and rupa nature runs the risk of taking objects to be objects, even if the object is just 'hardness'. There is no actual hardness, as you have said in the past. "Hardness" is also an intellectual definition, which, upon further inspection, would break down into even more refined sensations which could not even be defined as hardness. So these 'absolute realities' have to break down into 'non-absolute realities' in my opinion, in order to satisfy anatta and anicca. > ********** > . >Rob Ep: “I have probably asked this question before and had it > answered, so > this > resurgence of my confusion will probably cause a few sighs among my > friends > here > who have already been so helpful. But I think it is part of the natural > flow > of > these sorts of understandings, that doubt arises until it has been > adequately > handled. And so I have to bring it up again. I must say that the > conflict > between these aspects of object-formation is more clear and simple to me > than > it > was when I was confused before. So maybe I'm making progress in some > strange > way.” > ********** > Thanks again for all your careful consideration of earlier posts and for > your good-natured and sincere approach to the diversity of understandings. > I apologise if I’ve misunderstood you above or by snipping and pasting if > I’ve distorted your meaning or the ‘cohesion’ in your posts. Apologies for > any repetition and for the long-windedness too. I know I need to get some > lessons on pruning from Herman;-) I think you've identified a lot of what I was saying. I hope that I've made more clear my point of view. I think the tension between our viewpoints is a very healthy one, at least from my perspective. If we don't wrestle with our own mindsets how can we refine our understanding? I know that my way of seeing things is challenging, and as always, I greatly appreciate your willingness to engage in this kind of exchange. It is extremely stimulating, and I hope in the long run, edifying for me. > With lots of sighs (just joking ,) > Sarah > ================= You're a good dhamma friend. I don't mind the sighs, even if they're real. I'm exhausted!!!!!! : ) And you thought *you* had to practice pruning. Look at me! Best Regards, Robert Ep. 10963 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Jan 25, 2002 10:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Oh my God, Sarah. I just pasted this into a document and it was around 20 pages! I really don't know what to say....... : )) Best, Robert Ep. ======= --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Thanks for taking so much time to consider my lengthy statement. I appreciate > your comments below. My responses are interspersed throughout: [mercifully snipped] 10964 From: Sarah Date: Fri Jan 25, 2002 11:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Hey Rob, At least everyone will think I'm short-winded now in comparison;-) Don't worry - only 15pages from my printer....I've done just the same thing before (we all make mistakes) and look f/w to reading it this evening. Sarah --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Oh my God, Sarah. > I just pasted this into a document and it was around 20 pages! > I really don't know what to say....... : )) > > Best, > Robert Ep. > > ======= 10965 From: rikpa21 Date: Sat Jan 26, 2002 4:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] one limb of 8 fold path more important --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "anders_honore" wrote: > Hi, Erik. I am sorry for the late reply. I forget to keep check sometimes... Hello Anders... No problem on the late reply. I've been very busy as well, and only have very limited time these days. Erik: > > I agfree up to a point--though we can draw certain inferencces that > > are in themselves largely valid, through the use of clear > > reasoniong, such that we can arrive at an essential foundation that > > dies not diverge from erality. Namely, that because all things arise > > in dependence on other factors we can infer (rightly) that they do > > not possess "core" or "own-being" (as in being self-produced, or > > causelessly). Anders: > "To 'rightly' infer..." What is right? what is wrong? Erik: I base this on what is outlined in the Tibetan system based on Dharmakirti's reasoning of "pramana" or "valid cognition" from the "Pramanavartika." According to this mode of analysis, One can use reasoning to arrive at a "valid" (nevertheless conceptual and therefore mundane) inferential understanding of emptiness, for example. (One can also have a "valid cognition" of "blueness", or most inmportantly, a "valid cognition" of the ultimate mode of all phenomena, emptiness). This a type of "negative" logic used extensively in the Tibetan Prasangika system as a way of kicking out the supports from under the views, for example, that things can arise causelessly, from themselves, from inherently existent others, or both; and as a means to understanding how the fact that all things arising on dependence on other factors makes the idea that entities possess "substantial essence" or core entail a logical absurdity. Just another form of upaya--especially effective for those with overly-active intellects. Ahem. :) Anders: Such relative concepts, that that people often take to be real. "Right", in this case, should, as with everything else in Buddhism, only be read into one sole context: The cessation of suffering. If it is not skilful towards that end, we expediently call it 'wrong', and that which is skilful is expediently called right, but these are in no way absolute. Erik: I could not agree more. Given this approach has led many historically to abandon their preconceptions that that phenomena, especially the body or "self" possess fixed entity, to that degree it can be called "right." To the degree it leads those to accumulate an intellectual understanding or set themselves up as clever logicians, it is poison. Perhaps that is why the Tibetan Prasangikas define themselves largely by their logic system emphasing using only negations to refute absurd conclusions, by drawing out the implications of a given line of reasoning--as opposed to using logic to construct "autonomous syllogisms." This is a purely negative (in terms of negation, nevertheless quite wholesome, or, more specifically, not entirely "whole" or entirely "apart" if you want to get really teachnical :) approach to views, with ultimate aim of terminating speculative views altogether by repeatedly undermining cutting through them with the sword of jnana. Does it work? For those with the appropriate accumulations for this sort of approach (including vigorous dealy debate in the Geluk-pa monastic courtyards using logic to point out errors and "absurd" consequences to a given line of reasoning), there is nothing superior. Anders: > To speak of 'right inferrence' in the context of accurtaely discerning reality seems to me a futile thing to do, as there is bound to be deficiences in that view, since it is grounded in external extrapolated concepts, absorbed from outside influences, which are very much subject to change, rather than the very cessation of these. Erik: See above. The Prsangika approach stands in stark contrast to the "Svatantrika" approach as repersented by the Prasangikas seeks to use syllogisms to "prove" the correctness of a view by reasoning from A to B (thus merely serving as a way to accumulate yet more views and speculations rather than terminating speculative thinking altogether). The Prasanga approach is used primarly to demonstrate the absurdity of a flawed view by pointing out what that view entails when drawn out to its fullest conclusion. Anders: > Yes, expdiently, this can be a very skilful practise. But never an end in itself. This must also be abandoned eventually. It is either upaya and helpful or it is not. For those it helps, well, what is there to add? For those it doesn't, what is there to add? Erik: > > The contrary belief--that these supramundane path is inaccessible, > > no longer manifests in this world, or that, even having had contact > > with the Dharma, it is simply "too difficult" or one "lacks the > > acumulations" is, in my opinion, an extremely toxic one. If I may be > > blunt, a fatal one. Anders: > Couldn't agree more... Erik: > > THAT, to me, represents taking TRUE refuge: in the supreme and > > unsurpassed attainment of the Buddha; in the truth of the Dhamma as > > a way leading to freedom IN THIS LIFETIME; and in the Sangha, those > > who have actualized the fruits of the Dhamma in this very lifetime. Anders: > I LOVE THAT explanation of the refugees. And I find them very true. That is indeed the refuge that begins to set you on the path of the Dharma proper. Erik: Just left the above in, because to me this is what it's all about. We either have the confidence (saddha) that this Holy Dharma will lead out of dukkha or we do not, and that it is not something reserved for "someone else", but directly accessible here & now to those who sincerely dedicate themselves to the path and seek out and maintain close association with those of superior wisdom--and put their instructions into practice as diligently as possible--without, of course, any expectation of "results". :) 10966 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 26, 2002 6:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] The "Functional Reality" of Conventional Objects Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > This is just a few thoughts related the recent discussions among Kom, > Larry, and myself: > I have been basically maintaining that it is an overstatement to view > concepts as totally lacking in reality. As I see it, conventional > objects are instances of grounded concepts, and their unreality lies in > the sense of their being "out there"; i.e., their being self-existing > mind-independent "things", rather than mentally created compounds of > so-called paramattha dhammas and relations among them. However, there > are senses in which conventional objects have some "reality". One of > these is the "functional reality" of having effects in terms of > paramattha dhammas. Just as an example, the falling of a tree on one's > leg will result in pain. There is that conditionality. I can see where you're coming from, Howard, but I think the distinction that is made between realties and concepts is a very useful one in that it helps us see what needs to be better known (the realities, as and when they appear) and what is incapable of being better known (the concepts). Acknowledgeing the distinction does not require us to rearrange our conceptual view of existence and non-existence. I do find it useful to consider that an object (such as the computer screen now before our eyes) is never experienced as the object for which we take it, but only as a series of separate and discrete sense- and mind-door experiences, and that to that extent the it is a concept. There is no future in trying to get to know that or any other 'object' better! Jon 10967 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 26, 2002 6:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samma samadhi Herman Thanks for the comments. I enjoy your particular way of saying things! I'm interested though that you see bliss as the ultimate goal. Do share more when you are ready. Jon --- egberdina wrote: > Dear Jon, > > I am confident that as communication within the group continues, we > will all get to know each other's approach/outlook quite well. > > Differences can be triggers towards the realisation that there is a > need to delve deeper to understand what is happening, not that I > enjoy relinquishing cherished views :-) > > My own experience is that thought, word and deed leads to more of the > same. Kusala, merit, beautiful roots, and their counterparts, you > name it, it is all samsara. When there are 83000-odd verses milling > through your head, there are 83000-odd verses milling through your > head. When there is nothing milling through your head, there is > bliss. I know this. I do not credit myself with any status on any > developmental ladder, but I won't apologise for the state of bliss. > It sure beats the crap out of other states I can also conjure up, and > often do. > > Cheers for now > > Herman > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Herman > > > > Well I for one would be interested to hear about your own > approach. I do > > hope you won't feel constrained by our differences, Herman. > > > > Jon 10968 From: abhidhammika Date: Sat Jan 26, 2002 6:48am Subject: Re: Subcommentary On The White Radiant Mind: To Nina, Sarah, Robert Epstein Dear Nina, Sarah, And Robert Epstein How are you? This short note is merely to let you know that I have read your posts in response to the Subcommentary On The White Radiant Mind. Thank you for your input. I also keep in mind the points you made in your respective posts. I will try my best to address those points in my future postings. For now, I have been working on the Sub-subcommentary on the White Radiant Mind. You may wonder why it took so long. It has taken so long because it grows longer than I thought it would at first. It is an amazing thing to imagine how a very short statement of the Buddha led to a commentary longer than it. Then a subcommentary even longer than the commentary appeared. Now my sub-subcommentary way, way longer than the subcommentary is unfolding. And this sub-subcommentary is being written originally in English! I hope I will be able to post my Sub-subcommentary (Antiikaa) On The White Radiant Mind very soon. With best wishes, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org 10969 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 26, 2002 6:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] mindfulness of nama and rupa Larry Thanks for posting this extract. If this is something you have particularly followed or looked into, we would all be interested to hear your thoughts on it. Jon --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Here is a quotation from "The Seven Stages of Purification and The > Insight Knowledges" by The Venerable Mahathera Matara Sri Nanarama, BPS > publication. This very short book is a synopsis of the "Visuddhimagga". > This describes how to attain "Knowledge of Delimitation of > Mind-and-Matter", in order to complete the "Purification of View". > ---------------------- > To attain the Knowledge of Delimitation of Mind-and-Matter, the > meditator, having purified his mind through the successful practice of > concentration, focuses his attention on his meditation subject, which > could be a hair, a skeleton, the rising and falling movements of the > abdomen (i.e. the wind element as a tactile object), or mindfulness of > breathing. As he goes on attending to the meditation subject, he begins > to understand it as consisting of two aspects -- a material aspect and a > mental aspect, together called "mind-and-matter" (nama-rupa). > > As a rule, one first becomes aware of those parts pertaining to the > material aspect of the meditation subject. Whatever parts pertain to its > mental aspect attract one's attention later. But sometimes both the > mental and material aspects become manifest to the meditator at once. > The meditator may even feel that the meditation subject is actually > impinging on his mind. > > In mindfulness of breathing, for instance, the in-breaths and > out-breaths belong to matter while the awareness of them is reckoned as > mind. Normally, the in-breaths and out-breaths strike against the tip of > the nose or the upper lip as they enter and go out. The meditator should > pay attention only to the occurrence of in-breathing and out-breathing. > He should not follow the in-breaths inside the body or outside it, > speculating on what becomes of them, since this will hinder > concentration. As the meditator continues to calm his mind on the pint > of contact of the air being inhaled and exhaled (i.e. either at the tip > of the nose or on the upper lip), he begins to feel as though his mind > approaches and strikes the meditation subject. This happens at a > developed stage in his meditation when he becomes aware of the > distinction between mind and matter. The mind has the nature of bending > towards or leaping towards an object. At first, every in-breath and > out-breath appears as a compact unit. Later one begins to understand > that the breath is a mass or heap. This is Delimitation of Matter. One > then understands the awareness of the breath to be a series or "heap" of > discrete thought-moments, each one a "heap" or mass of many mental > factors. This is Delimitation of Mind. The ability to understand > Mind-and-Matter as a heap necessarily implies the ability to distinguish > one thing from another, since a heap is, by definition, a group of > things lying one on another. > > This is the preliminary stage of the Knowledge of Discrimination of > Mind-and-Matter. At first this understanding is limited to the subject > of meditation. Later on it spreads to the other parts of the body > connected with the subjects of meditation until it comes to pervade the > entire body. Still later the understanding extends outward towards other > beings as well as inanimate things, since the knowledge, when complete, > is threefold, internal, external, and internal-and-external. > 10970 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] dependence/Sarah Larry Just a thought that occurred to me on reading your post. --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > You make an interesting point that conditionality is changed by adding > more conditions. However, with high and low or birth and death there are > no other conditions that can be added to change the relationship. So > perhaps there are some differences between the links of the > paticcasamuppada as to which are changeable by adding additional > (appropriate) conditions. I am not aware of any conditions that can intervene to break the link between birth and death. However, there can be a break in the link between death and rebirth. Thus the death of an arahant is a final death, not followed by any rebirth. Jon PS Thanks for the personal info and your kind remarks. We are glad to have you sharing the dhamma with us. > Another question might be what makes a condition that makes a difference > in the various links? For example, given feeling, which conditions would > prevent craving from arising. > > If I get a chance I'll try to get up to the library and dig out some of > these answers. As it happens, my internet connectivity doesn't exactly > use a computer so I can't download adobe or read pdf files. Hence, no > Nina for now. > > When I originally made a profile for Yahoo I said I was a 100 year old > banker from Hong Kong, thinking I would never meet anyone from there. > Actually I live in Boulder Colorado, USA and I'm more or less 55 years > old and in construction (houses). > > I really appreciate what you and Jon are doing here. It's very helpful > and truly meritorious. > > best wishes, Larry 10971 From: anders_honore Date: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] one limb of 8 fold path more important --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rikpa21" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "anders_honore" > wrote: > > Anders: > > "To 'rightly' infer..." What is right? what is wrong? > > Erik: > I base this on what is outlined in the Tibetan system based on > Dharmakirti's reasoning of "pramana" or "valid cognition" from > the "Pramanavartika." According to this mode of analysis, One can > use reasoning to arrive at a "valid" (nevertheless conceptual and > therefore mundane) inferential understanding of emptiness, for > example. (One can also have a "valid cognition" of "blueness", or > most inmportantly, a "valid cognition" of the ultimate mode of all > phenomena, emptiness). Well, I can't match that. All I have to use is my own experience of things... >especially effective for those with overly-active intellects. > Ahem. :) Haha, the only sutra I really care for these days is my own mind, if you get my drift. I am not learning enough from the scriptures anymore... > Erik: > See above. The Prsangika approach stands in stark contrast to > the "Svatantrika" approach as repersented by the Prasangikas seeks > to use syllogisms to "prove" the correctness of a view by reasoning > from A to B (thus merely serving as a way to accumulate yet more > views and speculations rather than terminating speculative thinking > altogether). The Prasanga approach is used primarly to demonstrate > the absurdity of a flawed view by pointing out what that view > entails when drawn out to its fullest > conclusion. Can you express your understanding simply too? No pun intended or anything. I am just curious... I really am. :-) > It is either upaya and helpful or it is not. Is it? Depends on which time-scale you define it. Something may be helpful to ease suffering now, but in the long run, is potentially damaging. Another thing may be greatly harmful now and for an extended duration, but in the long, helps end a lot of suffering. So which is more skilful than the other? The very moment such a relative concept as time is brought, is seems to indicate to me, how relative a thing this is, that we can hardly speak of 'either skilful or not'. One question I'd like to ask you. In your own words entirely: What is emptiness? It's not easy to answer, and words can never give a satisfying result, but it can be done to a certain extent... Anders 10972 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 26, 2002 10:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bay Area Study Topics op 25-01-2002 09:17 schreef Kom Tukovinit op tikmok@y...: > > We sometimes (although somewhat rarely) listen to the tapes > together. Everybody is listening to the tapes some way or > another, though. > > K. Jack is (somewhat loosely, depending on the situation) > following the sequence in the "Survey of Paramatha Dhamma" > for both the Thai and English sections, with more mixture of > "Cetasikas" for the English session. There are also > readings for the Suttas and the Abhidhamma pitakas > > Please do let me know if you like to know more what we > study, although I can't say it is particularly structured. > I think the goal K. Jack has is to impart everybody with > some basic understanding of the abhidhamma so that when TA > comes in October (???), it will be worthwhile for everybody. Dear Kom, I appreciate very much what your group is doing, having Thai and English sessions. Anumodana. It is nice if you report now and then on the topics, but this depends on the topics you like yourselves and on your time, since you spend a lot of time answering questions and helping people here on dsg. You may combine now and then, depending on the occasion, both some topics of the Bay area and questions brought up here on dsg, is that an idea? But it should not be a burden or too time consuming. Nina. 10973 From: Victor Yu Date: Sat Jan 26, 2002 0:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas Hello all, Or could it be the other way around: seeing phenomenon thus: "This is impermanent. This is dukkha. This is not oneself" is conducive to understand the difference between namas and rupas? (Just question for consideration.) Regards, Victor > As a few people have mentioned, clearly understanding (with awareness) the > difference between namas and rupas is really the way to understand the > characterisic of anatta and to begin to understand the conditioned (and > non-controlled) nature of the phenomena that make up our lives. This > precise direct understanding is the first of many stages of insight, > eventually leading to the first stage of enlightenment. Without this > understanding, there cannot be any knowledge of the impermanence or > ultimate unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) of realities. 10974 From: Lucy Date: Sat Jan 26, 2002 2:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kukkucca ?=regret From: "Sarah" > > Now, Lucy is going to lead the discussion on regret soon.....;-)) Was that my cue, Sarah? Are you sure my beginner's attempt at tackling the cetasikas isn't going to interfere with your studies? Please everybody, feel free to tell me if so, OK? 'Regret' (kukkucca) was my 'cetasika of this week'. This is extracted from Nynatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary: "kukkucca: lit. 'wrongly-performed-ness', i.e. scruples, remorse, uneasiness of conscience, worry, is one of the karmically unwholesome (akusala) mental faculties which, whenever it arises, is associated with hateful (discontented) consciousness. It is the 'repentance over wrong things done, and right things neglected' .... Restlessness and scruples (uddhacca-kukkucca), combined, are counted as one of the 5 mental hindrances (nívarana)." What follows is from Nina's "Cetasikas" http://www.dhammastudy.com/cetasikas21.html Part III Akusala Cetasikas. Chapter 19. (my comments and questions inserted) "The characteristic of kukkucca is repentance. Repentance is generally considered a virtue, but the reality of kukkucca is not wholesome, it arises with dosa-mula-citta. " In my mind 'regret' has always been a good thing. But all the definitions agree: kukkucca is akusala (unskilful), and it arises with aversion (dosa) for its object (the action done or left undone) "Kukkucca which "regrets" the commission of evil and the omission of kusala is different from wholesome thinking about the disadvantages of akusala and the value of kusala." So this is why! What we call 'regret' is a complex process and involves hundreds (?) of cittas (some akusala, some kusala) each with its set of cetasikas. Kukkucca refers to only one aspect of the process. It may be just the pang of worrying (with dosa) over the action (or omission). But as Nina explains: " The conventional term "worry" which is also used as translation of kukkucca may not be clear either. When we say that we worry, it may not be the reality of kukkucca but it may be thinking with aversion about an unpleasant object without there being kukkucca. For example, we may worry about the way how to solve a problem in the future; this kind of worry is not the reality of kukkucca. " "If we take note of the proximate cause of kukkucca we will better understand what kukkucca is. The proximate cause of kukkucca is akusala kamma through body, speech and mind which has been committed and also kusala kamma through body, speech and mind which has been omitted. " This seems to imply some wisdom in recognising what is kusala or akusala. But couldn't kukkucca arise just from fear of the consequences as in the case of a criminal afraid he'll be caught? If the criminal were sure that he'll get away with it, he may not experience kukkucca at all. (?) But for one who follows the Dhamma there'll be a lot more occasions for kukkucca ! It may even reach the stage of believing that we can't "progress" in the path because of past wrong actions. I presume that's when kukkucca becomes a hindrance (nivarana) (?) So, what do we do? "We still consider regret as "my regret". We regret our akusala and our lack of mindfulness. If we realize that thinking with worry is not helpful it may be a condition to cultivate kusala. When there is forgetfulness of realities we should remember that is a conditioned reality, not self. We should know the characteristics of akusala dhammas which arise as not self. Then there will be less regret. " Ah, ha! Lucy 10975 From: rikpa21 Date: Sat Jan 26, 2002 6:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] one limb of 8 fold path more important --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "anders_honore" Hi Anders, Erik: > > It is either upaya and helpful or it is not. Anders: > Is it? Depends on which time-scale you define it. Something may be helpful to ease suffering now, but in the long run, is potentially damaging. Another thing may be greatly harmful now and for an extended duration, but in the long, helps end a lot of suffering. So which is more skilful than the other? The very moment such a relative concept as time is brought, is seems to indicate to me, how relative a thing this is, that we can hardly speak of 'either skilful or not'. Erik: I have had this very conversation earlier with my wife: that sometimes short-term pain can bring long-term gain. I've had a lot of short-term pain for many years. In fact, my lama asked my to pray for that, as a means to training in the paramita of forbearance and in terms of letting go of clinging. One could say that ultimately everything is skillful, even behavior that leads to short-term suffering, since that can act as a spur to find an escape from suffering. True in my case, for sure--or, as Blake said, "If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise." > One question I'd like to ask you. In your own words entirely: > > What is emptiness? It entirely depends. :) 10976 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 26, 2002 6:50pm Subject: Papanca? Dear All, I ask this question in the spirit of regarding everything that happens in our daily lives as 'grist for the mill' of Dhamma study. Recently I felt I may have offended a friend and apologised. The friend hadn't been offended, but wondered if my apology may have arisen by receiving a wrong impression from something he had said in an unskilfull manner. One or two other friends felt something THEY may have said could also have contributed to me being offended. I was amazed as I was NOT offended and saw nothing to be offended about. I thought I was the perpetrator not the victim. :-) And so did each person. But, on thinking it over, I realised that all those involved had been creating and expanding stories about the situation in their own minds, projecting them onto the situation and then complicating the whole process with further stories. And NOTHING had happened to begin with....... It is all sorted out now, but could so easily have led to estrangement between friends. So, I wondered what this was, this magnifiying and multiplying of stories and probabilities, and worrying about it all. A friend suggested this was 'papanca'. There doesn't seem much specifically on papanca (at least, a search on Google hasn't revealed much). I notice a few posts in the Useful Posts section that I will read today - but I wondered if this might not be something others experienced as well, and if there are other readings available. It seems to me this could cause a great deal of trouble in peoples' lives if they aren't aware how powerful it is - a bit like a runaway train...... metta, Christine 10977 From: rikpa21 Date: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:28pm Subject: The Highest Bliss --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: Hi Jon, Jon: > Herman > > Thanks for the comments. I enjoy your particular way of saying things! > > I'm interested though that you see bliss as the ultimate goal. Erik: I'm interested to see that you bring this up, as it the entire point of the Buddhist Dharma. I can't tell if you're suggesting that bliss as the ultimate goal is to be pursued or not from this, but it sounds as if by asking the question you're suggesting it isn't (and I apologize if I am misrepresenting your meaning & intent). Lest there be any question on what the Buddha said on this matter, I would refer all interested in the entire aim of the Dhamma to the following: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/15.html If the Dhamma is about anything other than bliss, I'd have nothing to do with it, according to my preferences of wishing to be free from suffering and finding the highest bliss known. 10978 From: Date: Sat Jan 26, 2002 4:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Highest Bliss Hi, Erik (and Jon) - In a message dated 1/26/02 10:30:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, rikpa21@y... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > Jon: > > Herman > > > > Thanks for the comments. I enjoy your particular way of saying > things! > > > > I'm interested though that you see bliss as the ultimate goal. > > Erik: > I'm interested to see that you bring this up, as it the entire point > of the Buddhist Dharma. I can't tell if you're suggesting that bliss > as the ultimate goal is to be pursued or not from this, but it > sounds as if by asking the question you're suggesting it isn't (and > I apologize if I am misrepresenting your meaning & intent). > > Lest there be any question on what the Buddha said on this matter, I > would refer all interested in the entire aim of the Dhamma to the > following: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/15.html > > If the Dhamma is about anything other than bliss, I'd have nothing > to do with it, according to my preferences of wishing to be free > from suffering and finding the highest bliss known. > > > ===================================== Well, I would suppose this has a lot to do with exactly what one means by 'bliss'. Even with regard to the jhanas, the "bliss" of piti (rapture) is considered grosser and of less value than the calmer "bliss" of sukkha (happiness), and that is considered grosser and of less value than the even clamer upekkha (equanimity). While I do recall the Buddha as having spoken of nibbana as the "highest bliss", it seems to me that it is more frequently presented as perfect peace and as the end of suffering. One problem that I see in using 'bliss' to describe nibbana is that this English word usually carries with it a sense of "excitement" inappriate for association with nibbana. 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) 10979 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Jan 26, 2002 10:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! I appreciate it. Robert Ep. --- Sarah wrote: > Hey Rob, > > At least everyone will think I'm short-winded now in comparison;-) > > Don't worry - only 15pages from my printer....I've done just the same > thing before (we all make mistakes) and look f/w to reading it this > evening. > > Sarah > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Oh my God, Sarah. > > I just pasted this into a document and it was around 20 pages! > > I really don't know what to say....... : )) > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > > > ======= 10980 From: egberdina Date: Sat Jan 26, 2002 10:41pm Subject: [dsg] Re: samma samadhi Dear Jon, > > I'm interested though that you see bliss as the ultimate goal. Do share > more when you are ready. If we were in court, I'd have to accuse you of leading the witness :- ). I do not see bliss as the ultimate goal. I am not trying to be tricky here, but I do not believe there is such a thing as an ultimate goal, only cause and effect. The state of bliss, within this frothing, bubbling cauldron of reiterating consequences, is a possibility. Theravada Buddhism was born out of the extreme existential anxiety of one man, Gautama, within his social and environmental context. He had sufficient insight prior to enlightenment to be anxious. His anxiety was sufficient enough for him to forsake everything, and say "I will not stop until I find a better way of being". He discovered for himself how cause and effect resulted in the anxious mindstate he found himself in. Being released from anxiety caused by ignorance (an unskilful mindstate of his own creation), he then set about teaching people to train their minds, so as to be free from the consequences of their untrained mind. To those who doubt or reject the notion of control, how many times a day do you need to change your clothes because you have soiled them? If you don't soil your trousers anymore, are you still soiling your mind? Herman > > > > > My own experience is that thought, word and deed leads to more of the > > same. Kusala, merit, beautiful roots, and their counterparts, you > > name it, it is all samsara. When there are 83000-odd verses milling > > through your head, there are 83000-odd verses milling through your > > head. When there is nothing milling through your head, there is > > bliss. I know this. I do not credit myself with any status on any > > developmental ladder, but I won't apologise for the state of bliss. > > It sure beats the crap out of other states I can also conjure up, and > > often do. > > > > Cheers for now > > > > Herman > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > Herman > > > > > > Well I for one would be interested to hear about your own > > approach. I do > > > hope you won't feel constrained by our differences, Herman. > > > > > > Jon 10981 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 5:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical? Lucy (and Herman on the side) Thanks for the comments, and my apologies for taking so long to get back to you (and others, lately). BTW, I've just seen your post on kukkucca. Interesting and very nicely done. Please feel free to share more of your 'cetasika of the week' thoughts any time. --- Lucy wrote: > > > As I understand it, most 'situations' from our lives are in fact > > combination s of different kinds of cittas, some kusala but most > akusala, > > and vary according to the individual. > > > > And also vary at different times for the individual ! Are most really > akusala - or simply neutral? I presume the Tipitaka Abhidhamma also > admits a 'neutral' category? Briefly, and somewhat simplistically, for every moment of sense-door experience (for example, seeing or hearing) there are many, many moments of thinking about the sense-door object (i.e., the visible object or sound) and these are all mind-door moments. (Without such thinking the raw data that is experienced at the sense-doors would have no meaning -- it is only by such thinking that things 'make sense' to us (no pun intended!).) Now according to the texts, while the moments of sense-door experience are vipaka (result of past deeds), and so 'morally neutral', the many moments of thinking about the sense-door object are either kusala (wholesome) or akusala (unwholesome); they cannot be 'neutral'. This means that for the whole of our waking day (during which there is continual experiencing of sense-door objects), there are wholesome or unwholesome mental states arising in vast numbers. As to whether these are predominantly kusala or akusala, Mike has described in his post to you how almost everything we do, even the most mundane of actions, is motivated by attachment of some kind or another, and I think a few moments' reflection will confirm how true this is. So the majority of those mind-door moments are undoubtedly unwholesome. This should not be a cause for undue alarm, however, since for the most part the unwholesomeness is of a level that does not lead to the commission of unwholesome deeds (akusala kamma), and is not likely to lead us away from future opportunity to hear the dhamma. Fortunately for us, the development of the path taught by the Buddha is not a matter of being free from akusala first. Realities such as sloth or torpor or regret can be the object of direct awareness just as much as the wholesome realities may be, and such moments are equally the development of the path as the direct awareness of the wholesome qualities (as indeed is the direct awareness of the presently arising visible object or sound). > > If awareness has been developed, the kusala and akusala that arises > can be > > experienced and known for what it is without being identified, > classified > > or labelled. And this will bring more understanding about the true > nature > > of the realities that make up our life. > > Agree there. But I'm finding out with this exercise that the labelling > and classification helps to be more aware. Although they are simple > labels for rather complex processes, seems to make the task simpler. > Sometimes feels like a train spotter standing at a station keeping > note of the cetasikas that come and go !!! I think what you are describing is the volitional observation of whatever is going on at the moment (please correct me if I am wrong). While this kind of labelling can help one to be more 'aware' of what is happening in the normal sense of that word, the question is whether it is the awareness taught by the Buddha in suttas such as the satipatthana sutta. (What follows is just my understanding on the matter, based on a reading of the texts and consideration of what I have read -- please treat it as such). The awareness or understanding that directly experiences dhammas is not something that can arise by reason of an intention to observe or take note of things. It can only arise because the conditions for its arising have been developed. It arises independently of any intention to observe or notice things, and it takes an object that is likewise independent of any choice on our part. Dhammas can be *directly known* only by panna (understanding), and this directly knowing is indeed the function of panna (see the passage pasted below). What appears at times of volitional observation cannot be dhammas (no matter how different it may be from our normal experiences), and I believe that such activity is likely to be a form of experiencing at the conceptual level. (Side note to Herman: In certain areas such as this there is a sense in which I could say that what I have read and studied has been confirmed by experience, just as I believe it to be capable of confirmation by anyone who has the confidence to apply it to their own experience. This of course was not the case with the jhanas and enlightenment stages that your earlier post was asking about. Having said that, I don't think that my experience should be of any significance or relevance to anyone else [not that I mind you asking], just as I myself would never put any store on anyone else's claimed experience, other than the Master himself or, to a lesser extent, the ancient masters who lived during a period when the teachings were in much more pristine form than they are today, the best evidence of which is the suttas and commentaries as we have them today.) > > BTW, watching TV does not preclude wholesome moments of > consciousness from > > arising. There could for example be useful reflection on the > dhamma, or > > any of a number of other forms of kusala at moments one was watching > TV. > > You're right there too. But there are times when I feel a certain pang > of guilt when watching TV (too much of it in the UK over the Christmas > week)...and I don't always switch it off when the "inner voice" says > it's time to go and study or meditate. I still think that the > disinclination to switch it off at those moments is an instance of > thina, at least in part. Well, given what we discussed above, it's bound to be akusala of one kind or another! (just like the pang of guilt you mention -- kukkucca, perhaps?) The point is, it doesn't matter all that much exactly what it is or what label it falls under. There is bound to be an awful lot of 'daily life akusala', and the important thing to realise is that whatever reality arises (a) can be known for what it is by developed awareness and understanding and (b) can't be changed to anything else anyway (being already arisen). And if you follow this through I think you will find it let's you off the hook when it comes to watching TV vs. thinking you should be doing any 'practice'! Jon The Atthasalini, cited in Nina's 'Cetasikas' at http://www.dhammastudy.com/cetasikas36.html gives the following for the characteristic, function and proximate cause of understanding (panna cetasika): Characteristic: the *penetration of intrinsic nature* …, like the penetration of an arrow shot by a skilled archer; Function: illumination of the object …, as it were a lamp; Proximate cause: non perplexity …, as it were a good guide in the forest. 10982 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 5:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - … > This > > however does not mean the 2 are the same. To my understanding, any > > perception of impermanence or not-self arising from such a practice > cannot > > be the direct knowledge of those qualities *as a characteristic of > > realities/dhammas/the khandhas *. > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > Is your point here, jon, that this would be a metter of intellectual > projection rather than direct discovery of the way things are? That we > should not approach our observing *looking* for the tilakhana? This is indeed a fair inference from what I said, Howard, and is something that, as a general statement, I think is probably true. But in fact it was not really, or not wholly, the point I had in mind. I should have been more precise (and my apologies for the lack of precision). What I meant to say was that *intentional observation of things* is not and cannot be the same as the *direct awareness or understanding of realities* because dhammas/realities cannot be directly experienced by volitional observation (at least as I understand that term), but only by awareness and understanding, qualities whose arising is not dependent on volitional action or activity of any kind. I think that by definition any form of volitional action on our part is bound to be coloured by the very ignorance, wrong view and desire for results that we believe to be the cause of our bondage to this round of existence. This means that we have only a (necessarily mistaken) idea of what these realities are that we are trying to observe, and that we are bound to be motivated mostly by attachment and desire for results (your point above, I think). > If so, > then what role does knowledge of the Dhamma play in your view? (I happen > to think that whatever there is to be "seen" will be seen if one has > suppressed the defilements by adequate concentration, and that coming in > with expectations is not the way to go. Is that your position?) You could be read here, Howard, as equating the jhanas with enlightenment (absence of defilements = dhammas appearing in their pristine form). But I presume this is not what you really intend. Actually, when defilements are (temporally) suppressed by the jhanas, they are still latent in the consciousness (as anusaya). It is just that there are no conditions for the latent tendencies to manifest at that moment. In this respect, the moment of mundane jhana is no different from a moment of the kind of wholesome consciousness that might arise now (i.e., not associated with jhana at all), when the defilements are likewise temporarily suppressed, or from moments of sense-door experience (vipaka cittas) all of which arise unaccompanied by any deferments. I would be interested to know what in your view is so special about the jhana moments as far as the understanding of the characteristic of a presently arising reality is concerned. > > Finally, I would suggest that the awareness or understanding taught by > the > > Buddha must be something that arises quite independently of any > conscious > > effort on our part. This would mean that its arising cannot be in any > way > > determined by any intention/volition/effort as to: > > - time and place (i.e. carrying out a chosen practice) > > - the reality/dhamma/khandha that is to be the object of awareness > etc > > (i.e. choosing an object to 'be aware of/understand') > > - what is to be known about the reality reality/dhamma/khandha (e.g. > the > > characteristic of impermanence or not-self). > -------------------------------- > Howard: > What role then does right effort play in one's practice. We are, > after all, talking about a cultivation. If cultivating occurs when the > conditions for it are in place, but no attempt to do anything will > create those conditions, then a non-practitioner is as much of a > practitioner as an .. um, practitioner! ;-)) I think it comes back again to what we understand by the term right effort. You and I have discussed this subject before, Howard ;-)). The mental factor of energy/effort (viriya) is said to arise with every wholesome and unwholesome moment of consciousness, and I understand right effort to be the same mental factor when accompanying a (wholesome) moment of direct awareness or understanding of a presently appearing reality. Whatever one's understanding of the term, I am sure we are agreed that it is a *wholesome quality or factor*, and so can arise with a moment of wholesome consciousness only. I must say I have difficulty in seeing how it could be equated with the volitional effort to have more wholesomeness or less unwholesomeness since we all know that wholesomeness can arise, and unwholesomeness cease, regardless of any volitional effort on our part. Take for example the kusala that comes from the useful consideration of the dhamma discussed on this list. Does checking our email and reading posts require volitional effort for wholesomeness, or is it something we find easy to do anyway? When reading and considering the messages, and thinking over the points that arise (surely involving some level of kusala at some moments), do we have to think about having energy for kusala? This is not to deny the 'reality' of volitional effort; I am simply saying that volitional effort cannot be equated with right effort, any more than volitional observing can be equated with direct awareness. Volitional effort or observing may or may not be wholesome. I am sure we are agreed that there is no way one could assert that effort and observing are *necessarily wholesome*, since effort and observing, like concentration, are neither morally one nor the other but may be either depending on the situation. And unless we know by direct experience the difference between moments that are kusala and moments that are accompanied by subtle attachment, we have no way of being sure which. I suggest that we in fact can only *assume or infer* supposed wholesomeness from the nature of the subject matter, e.g., studying dhamma/realities, or because the moments are somehow 'different', not because we can discriminate wholesomeness from unwholesomeness by its own characteristic. But in my view these are only assumptions, and dangerously unreliable ones at that. > > If it were otherwise, then awareness/understanding would not truly be > > not-self! > > > > The conditions for the arising of such panna (at whatever level has > been > > developed to date) are both extremely subtle and extremely complex. > But > > they are there in the suttas to be read, pondered and realised. > ----------------------------- > Howard: > What are they? And what brings them forward? Luck? Accumulations? We > all have accumulations. Calling oneself a Buddhist doesn't create the > conditions, does it? It seems to me that one has to "walk the walk". > ------------------------------ Good questions, Howard. I would like to send off what I've written so far, and come back to this part in a separate post. Hope you don't mind. Jon 10983 From: Lucy Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 7:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical? From: "Jonothan Abbott" > Thanks for the comments, and my apologies for taking so long to get back > to you (and others, lately). > Hi Jon Thanks for your helpful comments, still being digested and pondered here. No need to apologise for 'taking so long' (?). It doesn't matter when the comments arrive, they're always timely - and much appreciated : ) > > .. But I'm finding out with this exercise that the labelling > > and classification helps to be more aware. Although they are simple > > labels for rather complex processes, seems to make the task simpler. > > > I think what you are describing is the volitional observation of whatever > is going on at the moment (please correct me if I am wrong). Correct! > While this > kind of labelling can help one to be more 'aware' of what is happening in > the normal sense of that word, the question is whether it is the > awareness > taught by the Buddha in suttas such as the satipatthana sutta. Agreed. > The awareness or understanding that directly experiences dhammas is not > something that can arise by reason of an intention to observe or take > note > of things. It can only arise because the conditions for its arising have > been developed. It arises independently of any intention to observe or > notice things, and it takes an object that is likewise independent of any > choice on our part. > Dhammas can be *directly known* only by panna (understanding), and this > directly knowing is indeed the function of panna (see the passage pasted > below). What appears at times of volitional observation cannot be > dhammas > (no matter how different it may be from our normal experiences), and I > believe that such activity is likely to be a form of experiencing at the > conceptual level. Agree in general. Now, the question from a relative beginner is: isn't this practice of watching experiences at the conceptual level part of the Right Effort from which the conditions will eventually arise (as well as from application of the other 7)? Although not real awareness, the 'intentional, conceptual watching' seems to be very necessary, at least to 'my' conditions. I once practised with a school that goes with panna alone, but that kept me feeling lost (not knowing what to do when not sitting in meditation - or even during meditation!) and eventually regressing. In the end, had to admit that it wasn't the right path for 'my' conditions and that more effort at the conceptual level was needed - even though that way of practice seems to fit other people like a glove! It's very true that there is only the conditions that are arising now, everything else is like a varnish that we fabricate. And we can get into a real mess if we don't recognise that (been there, done that!). But within those conditions isn't there a slot for Right Effort, viriya ? Please correct me if this is silly, every moment 'we' create the conditions that will arise 'later' and modify existing tendencies, habits, etc., so, even if the effort isn't the 'real thing', isn't it part of the path? The other question that comes to mind is, what to do when there's an inner urge to do more? I know this can be false, but could it also be true aspiration? Part of the conditions? I've been concerned with this question for a while now, not knowing whether to take it seriously or dismiss it. My reaction varies from wanting to shave my head at once to 'if I ignore it, it'll go away' - would you or anyone have a 'Middle Way' to suggest? Duh!, I'm sure this has been discussed before - better go and read old messages in the archive to find out. About watching TV..... > > Well, given what we discussed above, it's bound to be akusala of one kind > or another! (just like the pang of guilt you mention -- kukkucca, > perhaps?) The point is, it doesn't matter all that much exactly what it > is or what label it falls under. There is bound to be an awful lot of > 'daily life akusala', and the important thing to realise is that whatever > reality arises (a) can be known for what it is by developed awareness and > understanding and (b) can't be changed to anything else anyway (being > already arisen). > > And if you follow this through I think you will find it let's you off the > hook when it comes to watching TV vs. thinking you should be doing any > 'practice'! > Oh, no! It DOESN'T --- and I was going to watch Liverpool vs. Arsenal next. Well, perhaps I'll watch just this once and try to develop equanimity : ) Thank you again, Jon. Much kindness in your comments, shows through. Lucy 10984 From: Victor Yu Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 7:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical? Hello all, This is how I understand it: It is not panna that directly knows dhammas. Panna is not someone or something that knows. Panna is not oneself. Suppose that it is panna that knows and understands conditioned phenomenon as it actually is. How does panna understand itself as it actually is? If panna understood thus: "Panna is impermanent. Panna is stressful. Panna is not mine. Panna I am not. Panna is not my self," panna would run into a contradiction, a self-denial. That is just my view. I hope the following passage provides an example on communicating who or what direct knows. Majjhima Nikaya 149 Maha-salayatanika Sutta The Great Six Sense-media Discourse http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn149.html "He comprehends through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be comprehended through direct knowledge, abandons through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be abandoned through direct knowledge, develops through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be developed through direct knowledge, and realizes through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be realized through direct knowledge." Regards, Victor > The awareness or understanding that directly experiences dhammas is not > something that can arise by reason of an intention to observe or take note > of things. It can only arise because the conditions for its arising have > been developed. It arises independently of any intention to observe or > notice things, and it takes an object that is likewise independent of any > choice on our part. > > Dhammas can be *directly known* only by panna (understanding), and this > directly knowing is indeed the function of panna (see the passage pasted > below). What appears at times of volitional observation cannot be dhammas > (no matter how different it may be from our normal experiences), and I > believe that such activity is likely to be a form of experiencing at the > conceptual level. 10985 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 8:02am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concepts/Kom Dear Howard, > -----Original Message----- > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > In the > > > case of seeing, this is a doing word reflecting > the mind directing > > awareness to visible object. In the case of > hearing, the mind is > > directing awareness to sound. So there is a > knowable difference > > between sound and hearing. Sound is an object, > hearing is an act. > > This is reflected in the language we use to describe it. > > > -------------------------------------------------- > --------- > Howard: > Yes. And if I'm not mistaken, the clear > seeing of this distinction is > the first of the enlightenment factors to be > developed. Correction or > confirmation, anyone? > -------------------------------------------------- The first Vipassana nana, the first nana among the many different nanas before the englightenment, is Nama-Rupa-Paricheta-Nana. Paricheta pretty much means separation. It is the wisdom that clearly and directly (not thinking) sees the separation and the distinction between nama and rupa as dhammas. Without knowing rupa as rupa, and nama as nama, it is impossible to develop higher vipassana nana including seeing the impermanence or the non-endurance of the dhammas. kom 10986 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 8:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Subcommentary On The White Radiant Mind: To Nina, Sarah, Robert Epstein I'm looking forward to it! Robert Ep. ====== --- abhidhammika wrote: > > > > Dear Nina, Sarah, And Robert Epstein > > How are you? > > This short note is merely to let you know that I have read your posts > in response to the Subcommentary On The White Radiant Mind. Thank you > for your input. > > I also keep in mind the points you made in your respective posts. I > will try my best to address those points in my future postings. > > For now, I have been working on the Sub-subcommentary on the White > Radiant Mind. > > You may wonder why it took so long. It has taken so long because it > grows longer than I thought it would at first. > > It is an amazing thing to imagine how a very short statement of the > Buddha led to a commentary longer than it. Then a subcommentary even > longer than the commentary appeared. > > Now my sub-subcommentary way, way longer than the subcommentary is > unfolding. And this sub-subcommentary is being written originally in > English! > > I hope I will be able to post my Sub-subcommentary (Antiikaa) On The > White Radiant Mind very soon. > > With best wishes, > > > Suan > > http://www.bodhiology.org 10987 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 8:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] one limb of 8 fold path more important --- rikpa21 wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "anders_honore" > Hi Anders, > > Erik: > > > It is either upaya and helpful or it is not. > > Anders: > > Is it? Depends on which time-scale you define it. Something may be > helpful to ease suffering now, but in the long run, is potentially > damaging. Another thing may be greatly harmful now and for an > extended duration, but in the long, helps end a lot of suffering. So > which is more skilful than the other? The very moment such a > relative concept as time is brought, is seems to indicate to me, how > relative a thing this is, that we can hardly speak of 'either > skilful or not'. > > Erik: > I have had this very conversation earlier with my wife: that > sometimes short-term pain can bring long-term gain. I've had a lot > of short-term pain for many years. In fact, my lama asked my to pray > for that, as a means to training in the paramita of forbearance and > in terms of letting go of clinging. > > One could say that ultimately everything is skillful, even behavior > that leads to short-term suffering, since that can act as a spur to > find an escape from suffering. True in my case, for sure--or, as > Blake said, "If the fool would persist in his folly he would become > wise." > > > One question I'd like to ask you. In your own words entirely: > > > > What is emptiness? > > It entirely depends. :) I'll throw in my two cents on emptiness. To me it is seeing that every experience is 'core-less'. When I look into the depths of experience there's nothing in the middle. It's all periphery. Robert 10988 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 8:33am Subject: RE: [dsg] Kukkucca ?=regret Dear Lucy, Thank you on your post on the definitions and explanations of Kukucca. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lucy [mailto:selene@c...] > "If we take note of the proximate cause of > kukkucca we will better > understand what kukkucca is. The proximate cause > of kukkucca is akusala > kamma through body, speech and mind which has > been committed and also > kusala kamma through body, speech and mind which > has been omitted. " > > This seems to imply some wisdom in recognising > what is kusala or akusala. Even some basic knowledge about kusala and akusala is already adequate for this. Even before you have learned about the Buddha's dhamma, didn't you ever feel that you shouldn't have felt angry and did what you did? This is because you know what you did was bad. How about feeling regret because you should have helped the person but you didn't? Again, some people know that helping other people is good. > But couldn't kukkucca arise just from fear of the > consequences as in the > case of a criminal afraid he'll be caught? If the > criminal were sure that > he'll get away with it, he may not experience > kukkucca at all. I think this is a really complex process that is really hard to distinguish. Depending on the accumulations, the person may feel both afraid about what would happen to her/him and regret about what he/she did. Being afraid of what to come and feeling regret about what I did seem to be quite different, though. >(?) But for > one who follows the Dhamma there'll be a lot more > occasions for kukkucca ! I think that if one follows the dhamma and understands the drawbacks and disadvantages of kukucca, there will be less (no gaurantee!) conditions for kukucca to arise. Some people who study dhamma report that they become a "better" person because they understand the difference between kusala and akusala. > It may even reach the stage of believing that we > can't "progress" in the > path because of past wrong actions. I presume > that's when kukkucca becomes > a hindrance (nivarana) (?) When Kukucca arises, it is already a hindrance, because when there is kukucca, there is no skillful mental states. Instead of considering the drawbacks of akusala kamma already committed, or the benefits of kusala kamma that was omitted, one feels regret instead. This is true with other nivarana also, when it arises, it prevents kusala from arising. When you feel thina-mitha (like feeling very comfortable watching TV after dinner or something like this), are you more inclined or less inclined to help out other people? Thank you for the really good reminder! kom 10989 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 8:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Highest Bliss --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Erik (and Jon) - > > In a message dated 1/26/02 10:30:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, > rikpa21@y... writes: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > Jon: > > > Herman > > > > > > Thanks for the comments. I enjoy your particular way of saying > > things! > > > > > > I'm interested though that you see bliss as the ultimate goal. > > > > Erik: > > I'm interested to see that you bring this up, as it the entire point > > of the Buddhist Dharma. I can't tell if you're suggesting that bliss > > as the ultimate goal is to be pursued or not from this, but it > > sounds as if by asking the question you're suggesting it isn't (and > > I apologize if I am misrepresenting your meaning & intent). > > > > Lest there be any question on what the Buddha said on this matter, I > > would refer all interested in the entire aim of the Dhamma to the > > following: > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/15.html > > > > If the Dhamma is about anything other than bliss, I'd have nothing > > to do with it, according to my preferences of wishing to be free > > from suffering and finding the highest bliss known. > > > > > > > ===================================== > Well, I would suppose this has a lot to do with exactly what one means > by 'bliss'. Even with regard to the jhanas, the "bliss" of piti (rapture) is > considered grosser and of less value than the calmer "bliss" of sukkha > (happiness), and that is considered grosser and of less value than the even > clamer upekkha (equanimity). While I do recall the Buddha as having spoken of > nibbana as the "highest bliss", it seems to me that it is more frequently > presented as perfect peace and as the end of suffering. One problem that I > see in using 'bliss' to describe nibbana is that this English word usually > carries with it a sense of "excitement" inappriate for association with > nibbana. > > With metta, > Howard Howard, Well you have begun a good clarification of its more exact meaning. I think it would be worth going into, since in any case it seems to suggest that there is something in Nibbana other than cessation. It seems to me that even if the Buddha says something only once, that this is not the same thing as him not saying it at all. : ) Best, Robert Ep. 10990 From: anders_honore Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 9:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] one limb of 8 fold path more important --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rikpa21" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "anders_honore" > > One question I'd like to ask you. In your own words entirely: > > > > What is emptiness? > > It entirely depends. :) Haha. 10991 From: anders_honore Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 9:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] one limb of 8 fold path more important --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- rikpa21 wrote: > > > What is emptiness? > > > > It entirely depends. :) > > I'll throw in my two cents on emptiness. To me it is seeing that every > experience is 'core-less'. When I look into the depths of experience there's > nothing in the middle. It's all periphery. That is only "partial" emptiness. You are still labeling the experience as being 'core-less'. As long as you're perceiving anything as being 'something', it's still not seeing emptiness. But even that labeling is emptiness.... 10992 From: Lucy Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 10:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kukkucca ?=regret Dear Kom Thank you very much for helping clear my questions, expanding the comments and pointing to things I hadn't considered before. This is all very helpful to me because I'm not used to analysing things in this detail, but it all seems to be immediately applicable to daily life. Isn't it wonderful? Lucy 10993 From: Victor Yu Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 10:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts/Kom Hello, Running the risk of being disagreeable, I would like to say that it is not the wisdom that clearly and directly sees the separation and the distinction between nama and rupa as dhammas, but one sees clearly and directly the separation and the distinction between nama and rupa with/through wisdom. Wisdom of what? Wisdom of seeing thing/phenomenon as it actually is: "This is impermanent. This is unsatisfactory. This is not oneself." But that is just my view. Regards, Victor > The first Vipassana nana, the first nana among the many > different nanas before the englightenment, is > Nama-Rupa-Paricheta-Nana. Paricheta pretty much means > separation. It is the wisdom that clearly and directly (not > thinking) sees the separation and the distinction between > nama and rupa as dhammas. Without knowing rupa as rupa, and > nama as nama, it is impossible to develop higher vipassana > nana including seeing the impermanence or the non-endurance > of the dhammas. 10994 From: Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 5:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) Hi, Jon - I have copied your entire post below. It, including the statements by you and me quoted therein, is a bit lengthy. So what I have done is pasted right here two paragraphs of yours which express the the main ideas of your post to which I'd like to respond at the moment. One thing you write is: "What I meant to say was that *intentional observation of things* is not and cannot be the same as the *direct awareness or understanding of realities* because dhammas/realities cannot be directly experienced by volitional observation (at least as I understand that term), but only by awareness and understanding, qualities whose arising is not dependent on volitional action or activity of any kind." I agree that one cannot *will* insight. It arises, as you are wont to say ;-), when conditions for its arising are in place. My position, however, is the following: The Buddha presented a complete program of practice which, if undertaken properly, for sufficient time, will lead to the arising of insight and ultimate liberation. It is much like a traveller who well knows the way to a distant city having given precise directions there. But for us to get to that city, the directions must not only be read and understood, but followed. Doing so is an exercise of volition. Animals don't make the trip - they lack the understanding. For the most part, devas don't make the trip - they lack the motivation, the inclination, the will. Even most humans don't make the trip, for many reasons including mainly ignorance of the possibility of even making it. However, of those humans whose lives are not completely desperate nor utterly wonderful, and who have learned of the possibility and worth of making a trip to that golden city, and who even have confidence that the directions there are correct, most will not actually exercise the will to make the trip, arduous as it is, or, if so, only haltingly, with repeated false starts, hesitations, detours, and postponements. Only strong, courageous, consistent exertion of will can succeed. Oh, one can point to those folks who, "because of conditions" entered the stream upon hearing a sutta, or being directly lead by the words of a living Buddha. But those conditions, those accumulations, had to have been created by a previous walking of the Buddha's path. After all, the Buddha's path *is* ekayana, and nothing comes from nothing. You also write: "I think that by definition any form of volitional action on our part is bound to be coloured by the very ignorance, wrong view and desire for results that we believe to be the cause of our bondage to this round of existence." This and some other statements you have made appear to have the flavor of randomness and dependence on luck. I'm sure that is not your intention, but it is something I have consistently detected. Randomness and dependence on luck are unrelated to the Dhamma. As I wrote above, nothing comes from nothing. I think there is a danger in conflating impersonality and lack of (total) control with randomness and dependence on luck. Truly, not only our volition, but all of our mental function is colored by ignorance. We seem to be a "self" dealing with mind-independent, self-existing "external things". That's where we are! That's where we begin. But we have a choice: We can follow the Buddha's directions - and that requires will! - or not. We exercise volition all the time. Some volitional actions are harmful, some neutral, some helpful. If we do not refrain from the harmful ones and pursue the useful ones - and such refraining and pursuit is right effort! - then we will continue in our ignorance, bound by wrong understanding, craving, and aversion. With metta, Howard P.S. Just a couple more odds and ends: 1) You write: "You could be read here, Howard, as equating the jhanas with enlightenment (absence of defilements = dhammas appearing in their pristine form). But I presume this is not what you really intend." That is correct. It is not what I intended. 2)You also ask: "I would be interested to know what in your view is so special about the jhana moments as far as the understanding of the characteristic of a presently arising reality is concerned." I don't make a really big deal out of the jhanas per se. My point is only that equanimity and holding the defilements at bay simply make clear seeing easier. The Buddha taught the development of calm for good reason, and as part of the path. In a message dated 1/27/02 8:30:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > … > > This > > > however does not mean the 2 are the same. To my understanding, any > > > perception of impermanence or not-self arising from such a practice > > cannot > > > be the direct knowledge of those qualities *as a characteristic of > > > realities/dhammas/the khandhas *. > > --------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Is your point here, jon, that this would be a metter of intellectual > > projection rather than direct discovery of the way things are? That we > > should not approach our observing *looking* for the tilakhana? > > This is indeed a fair inference from what I said, Howard, and is something > that, as a general statement, I think is probably true. But in fact it > was not really, or not wholly, the point I had in mind. I should have > been more precise (and my apologies for the lack of precision). > > What I meant to say was that *intentional observation of things* is not > and cannot be the same as the *direct awareness or understanding of > realities* because dhammas/realities cannot be directly experienced by > volitional observation (at least as I understand that term), but only by > awareness and understanding, qualities whose arising is not dependent on > volitional action or activity of any kind. > > I think that by definition any form of volitional action on our part is > bound to be coloured by the very ignorance, wrong view and desire for > results that we believe to be the cause of our bondage to this round of > existence. > > This means that we have only a (necessarily mistaken) idea of what these > realities are that we are trying to observe, and that we are bound to be > motivated mostly by attachment and desire for results (your point above, I > think). > > > If so, > > then what role does knowledge of the Dhamma play in your view? (I happen > > to think that whatever there is to be "seen" will be seen if one has > > suppressed the defilements by adequate concentration, and that coming in > > with expectations is not the way to go. Is that your position?) > > You could be read here, Howard, as equating the jhanas with enlightenment > (absence of defilements = dhammas appearing in their pristine form). But > I presume this is not what you really intend. > > Actually, when defilements are (temporally) suppressed by the jhanas, they > are still latent in the consciousness (as anusaya). It is just that there > are no conditions for the latent tendencies to manifest at that moment. > > In this respect, the moment of mundane jhana is no different from a moment > of the kind of wholesome consciousness that might arise now (i.e., not > associated with jhana at all), when the defilements are likewise > temporarily suppressed, or from moments of sense-door experience (vipaka > cittas) all of which arise unaccompanied by any deferments. > > I would be interested to know what in your view is so special about the > jhana moments as far as the understanding of the characteristic of a > presently arising reality is concerned. > > > > Finally, I would suggest that the awareness or understanding taught by > > the > > > Buddha must be something that arises quite independently of any > > conscious > > > effort on our part. This would mean that its arising cannot be in any > > way > > > determined by any intention/volition/effort as to: > > > - time and place (i.e. carrying out a chosen practice) > > > - the reality/dhamma/khandha that is to be the object of awareness > > etc > > > (i.e. choosing an object to 'be aware of/understand') > > > - what is to be known about the reality reality/dhamma/khandha (e.g. > > the > > > characteristic of impermanence or not-self). > > -------------------------------- > > Howard: > > What role then does right effort play in one's practice. We are, > > after all, talking about a cultivation. If cultivating occurs when the > > conditions for it are in place, but no attempt to do anything will > > create those conditions, then a non-practitioner is as much of a > > practitioner as an .. um, practitioner! ;-)) > > I think it comes back again to what we understand by the term right > effort. You and I have discussed this subject before, Howard ;-)). The > mental factor of energy/effort (viriya) is said to arise with every > wholesome and unwholesome moment of consciousness, and I understand right > effort to be the same mental factor when accompanying a (wholesome) moment > of direct awareness or understanding of a presently appearing reality. > > Whatever one's understanding of the term, I am sure we are agreed that it > is a *wholesome quality or factor*, and so can arise with a moment of > wholesome consciousness only. I must say I have difficulty in seeing how > it could be equated with the volitional effort to have more wholesomeness > or less unwholesomeness since we all know that wholesomeness can arise, > and unwholesomeness cease, regardless of any volitional effort on our > part. Take for example the kusala that comes from the useful > consideration of the dhamma discussed on this list. Does checking our > email and reading posts require volitional effort for wholesomeness, or is > it something we find easy to do anyway? When reading and considering the > messages, and thinking over the points that arise (surely involving some > level of kusala at some moments), do we have to think about having energy > for kusala? > > This is not to deny the 'reality' of volitional effort; I am simply > saying that volitional effort cannot be equated with right effort, any > more than volitional observing can be equated with direct awareness. > > Volitional effort or observing may or may not be wholesome. I am sure we > are agreed that there is no way one could assert that effort and observing > are *necessarily wholesome*, since effort and observing, like > concentration, are neither morally one nor the other but may be either > depending on the situation. And unless we know by direct experience the > difference between moments that are kusala and moments that are > accompanied by subtle attachment, we have no way of being sure which. I > suggest that we in fact can only *assume or infer* supposed wholesomeness > from the nature of the subject matter, e.g., studying dhamma/realities, or > because the moments are somehow 'different', not because we can > discriminate wholesomeness from unwholesomeness by its own characteristic. > But in my view these are only assumptions, and dangerously unreliable > ones at that. > > > > If it were otherwise, then awareness/understanding would not truly be > > > not-self! > > > > > > The conditions for the arising of such panna (at whatever level has > > been > > > developed to date) are both extremely subtle and extremely complex. > > But > > > they are there in the suttas to be read, pondered and realised. > > ----------------------------- > > Howard: > > What are they? And what brings them forward? Luck? Accumulations? We > > all have accumulations. Calling oneself a Buddhist doesn't create the > > conditions, does it? It seems to me that one has to "walk the walk". > > ------------------------------ > > Good questions, Howard. I would like to send off what I've written so > far, and come back to this part in a separate post. Hope you don't mind. > > Jon > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 10995 From: Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 5:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts/Kom Hi, Victor - In a message dated 1/27/02 1:20:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, victoryu@s... writes: > Hello, > > Running the risk of being disagreeable, I would like to say that it is not > the wisdom that clearly and directly sees the separation and the > distinction > between nama and rupa as dhammas, but one sees clearly and directly the > separation and the distinction between nama and rupa with/through wisdom. > Wisdom of what? Wisdom of seeing thing/phenomenon as it actually is: > "This > is impermanent. This is unsatisfactory. This is not oneself." > > But that is just my view. > > Regards, > Victor > =============================== And I wouldn't put it *either* way, when trying to be precise rather than using conventional speech (as you do). As I see it saying "One sees clearly and directly the separation and the distinction between nama and rupa with/through wisdom." is a perfectly good way of speaking clearly and conventionally. (If understood *literally*, however, one ;-)) must ask what this "one" is that sees clearly.) On the other hand, talk of wisdom seeing clearly and directly, while intended to be an exercise in precision, ends up being a kind of personification, wherein wisdom comes across as an "actor". That, of course, was unintended. The way I might put this is, when looking to make a precise statement, is something along the lines of "There is the clear and direct seeing of the separation and the distinction between nama and rupa as dhammas, and this seeing is an instance of wisdom". (Actually, I happen to prefer the word 'insight' to 'wisdom', because I find in myself certain associations with the word 'wisdom' that are off the mark.) 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) 10996 From: Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 0:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Rupa of Air Hi Howard, <<<<< As I understand it (please correct me if I misunderstand), the wind/air/motion rupa is the physical sensation occurring in the cittas which encompass/accompany what we call physical movement, such "physical movement", >>>>> As I understand it, perception (citta) of physical aramana ( earth-, fire-, wind(vayo)-element, visible object-, sound-, smell-, and taste-element) can occur when there are meetings between 1) physical aramana, 2) sense-organs (pasada-rupa: eye, ear, nose, tongue and body elements) and 3) conscious elements(vinnana-dhatu), which occur at the appropriate sense organ. I am not sure what you meant by physical sensation. My understanding is sensation (perception, conscious) is nama-dhamma, which is a nature of an ability to know and physical aramana is an object (rupa-dhamma), which is known. According to what I have read, there is no citta occurs without its object. So when there is a sensation, there are both citta and its object exist at that moment. As I understand, sati can mindful at one thing at a time, even though at that very brief moment of perception there are both citta, which is cognizing its object, and object. Sati can either mindful nama or rupa, one thing at a time (depends on conditions and accumulation). <<<<< I suppose, in phenomenological terms, consisting of the change of locus of occurrence of a variety of physical sensations. >>>>> You always make me think, I like it:). Again my understanding about vayo-dhatu is it's about pressure or tension and movements. In abhidhamma, atthasalini and visuddhimagga ( as far as I have read), mentioned briefly about each elements. In abhidhammattha-sagaha, said that two main kinds of vayo-dhatu are 1) tension (vitatamma) and 2) movement (samira). In our bodies, feeling of muscle tension, spasm, aching or when we pump or hold our hands or joints tightly is a feeling of tension-vayo-dhatu. Externally, a tension or pressure in a ball or balloon is a manifestation of this vaya-dhatu. Movement-vayo-dhatu is a rupa occurs when we move parts of our bodies. 6 main kinds of this movement-vayo-dhatu is classified : breathing, general body movement, movement in big intestine, movement in abdominal cavity, upward movement (e.g. yawning and sneezing), downward movement (e.g. during a birth of a baby or flatus). Externally, movement-vayo-datu manifests as a wind, storm or the move of the leaves in the wind. <<<<< To simplify: The main point as I understand it is that this rupa is not what we usually call "motion", i.e., change of position or state, but rather the physical sensation(s) accompanying such motion. Am I correct? >>>>> I think you referred to a long and complicated process of bodily movement. According to abhidhamma, as Kom mentioned, there are only 28 rupa. The aggregation of these 28 made indefinite forms and names of physical existence. ( I like the analogy that there are only 26 alphabets in English but it can be put together to make indefinite number of words. In Thai we have 46 and some more of the accent and tonal symbols !!!!) So my understanding is if we break the action of each bodily movement down, it consists of series of rapid successive phenomena ( paramattha). So the conventional term or action of "motion" is pannatti (concept) which roots from rapid successive series of arisen and fallen of citta, its aramana, and also mental cofactors (cetasika). And if we strip all parts of concept out, we are left with series of brief, rapid, successive of minute arisen and completely fallen away dhamma. That is my opinion. I think the discussion on what is nama, what is rupa and what is pannatti is ongoing on dsg. For me too, I have to keep on studying, hopefully with careful and wise attention. Someone told me the meaning of panna is well-rounded knowledge or knowing it all. Have to tell you that my understanding is limited and it's pretty much book-level knowledge not well rounded knowledge or knowledge which is accompanied with sati-patthana. Num 10997 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 6:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipallasa's Kom, Nina and all Many thanks for posting the summary of the recent Bay Area talk. I would like echo Nina's comments in her post to you about your substantial and much appreciated contribution to the discussion on the list here. I don't want to burden you further, so I will direct this question to everyone. Could we possibly have some daily-life examples of the 3 categories and 4 objects of vipallasa's, please. I would be interested to discuss further. Thanks. Jon --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Nina, > > I am assigned to post some (not sure how much) information > about what the Bay Area's dhamma study group discussed this > week. On the 20th, we generally discussed 2 topics: > vipallasa (perversions), and citta-vithi (panca-dvara only, > haven't got to mano-dvara yet.) > > As for Vipallasa, there are 3 categories: > 1) Sanna-vipallasa (perversion of memory) (S) > 2) Citta-vipallasa (perversion of mind) (C) > 3) Dithi-vipallasa (perversion of view). (D) > > Except for the dithi vipallasa---which occurs only with the > 4 lobha-mula cittas (cittas rooted in attachment) with > micha-ditthi (wrong views)---sanna vipallasa, and citta > vipallasa occur with all akusala cittas (with some ariyans > exempted). Vipallassa are not said to occur in sobhana > (beautiful) cittas and ahetuka (without the 6 hetu > cetasikkas) cittas. > > The objects of the vipalassa are four: > 1) Seeing impermanence as permenance > 2) Seeing dukha as sukha > 3) Seeing anatta as atta > 4) Seeing asubha as subha > > The vipallasa is not completely eradicated until one becomes > an ariyan. The different levels of eradication are as > followed: > > Impermanence Dukha Anatta Asubha > Arahat X X X X X X X X X X X X > Anagami X X X S C X X X X X X X > Sagatakami X X X S C X X X X S C X > Sotapanna X X X S C X X X X S C X > Putujana S C D S C D S C D S C D > > Satipathana eliminates the vipallasa gradually. Different > kinds of satipatthana eliminate different kind of vipallasa > as followed: > > Kaya-nupassana eliminates asubha vipallasa > Citta-nupassana eliminates impermanence vipallasa > Vedana-nupassana eliminates dukha vipallasa > Dhamma-nupassana eliminates anatta vipallasa > > K. Jack mentioned that a type of satipatthana, even though > it eliminates a type of vipallasa as its main function, it > also eliminates other vipallasa, but not as its main > function. > > The rest of the session we spent discussing vithi-cittas. > > Nina, we also taped the entire session (for the first > time!). I am not sure of the sound quality of the tapes, > but it you like to have them, I can send them to you. > > kom 10998 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 6:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Highest Bliss Erik I think as Howard has already pointed out, there is bliss and then there is bliss. My post was based on certain inferences I had drawn from Herman's post as to what he meant by the term. I did not take him to be referring to nibbana (I may of course have been wrong). Thanks for the link, where I found the following verse to which your post refers-- "There is no fire like lust and no crime like hatred. There is no ill like the aggregates (of existence) and no bliss higher than the peace (of Nibbana)." [Dhp 202] I would be interested to know what your understadning of the term "aggregates (of existence)" is here. Jon --- rikpa21 wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > Jon: > > Herman > > > > Thanks for the comments. I enjoy your particular way of saying > things! > > > > I'm interested though that you see bliss as the ultimate goal. > > Erik: > I'm interested to see that you bring this up, as it the entire point > of the Buddhist Dharma. I can't tell if you're suggesting that bliss > as the ultimate goal is to be pursued or not from this, but it > sounds as if by asking the question you're suggesting it isn't (and > I apologize if I am misrepresenting your meaning & intent). > > Lest there be any question on what the Buddha said on this matter, I > would refer all interested in the entire aim of the Dhamma to the > following: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/15.html > > If the Dhamma is about anything other than bliss, I'd have nothing > to do with it, according to my preferences of wishing to be free > from suffering and finding the highest bliss known. 10999 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 6:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Panna (was, Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical?) Victor --- Victor Yu wrote: > Hello all, > > This is how I understand it: > It is not panna that directly knows dhammas. Panna is not someone or > something that knows. Panna is not oneself. Agreed, panna is not someone or oneself. But as a mental factor it nevertheless experiences an object and has a particular function and characteristic. As I mentioned in my post to Lucy its function is the "illumination of the object …, as it were a lamp", and its characteristic "the *penetration of intrinsic nature* …, like the penetration of an arrow shot by a skilled archer". > Suppose that it is panna that knows and understands conditioned > phenomenon > as it actually is. How does panna understand itself as it actually is? > If > panna understood thus: "Panna is impermanent. Panna is stressful. > Panna > is not mine. Panna I am not. Panna is not my self," panna would run > into > a contradiction, a self-denial. I don't see any contradiction in panna knowing more about the characteristic of panna. Could you perhaps elaborate on what you see as being the contradiction. Thanks. Jon > I hope the following passage provides an example on communicating who or > what direct knows. > Majjhima Nikaya 149 > Maha-salayatanika Sutta > The Great Six Sense-media Discourse > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn149.html > > "He comprehends through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be > comprehended through direct knowledge, abandons through direct knowledge > whatever qualities are to be abandoned through direct knowledge, > develops > through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be developed through > direct knowledge, and realizes through direct knowledge whatever > qualities > are to be realized through direct knowledge." > > Regards, > Victor