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 s