11001 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 7:02pm Subject: [dsg] Re: samma samadhi Dear Herman, Jon and All, Herman, my attention was caught by your mention of control. "To those who doubt or reject the notion of control, how many times a day do you need to change your clothes because you have soiled them?", which I took to mean that you think there IS control. But, as you also said 'I do not believe there is such a thing as an ultimate goal, only cause and effect." which I took to mean that you think there ISN'T control. So, I'm not sure if you have a positon on this..... Couldn't it be said that it all depends on conditions? You, presently, are physically mobile and healthy. Many unwell people may wish to have even simple 'control' over bodily functions - but wishing doesn't make it so - you have 'it' until conditions change. As a, perhaps irrelevant, side-note, I was reading that in World War 1, the dastardly British (sorry Sarah & Lucy) achieved considerable success in interrogating Officer prisoners by the simple method of hospitality (food and drink) combined with long interrogation interviews, plus the Officer Class's inhibitions about mentioning the need to use the bathroom. (Ordering the body not to be experiencing discomfort or to halt the digestive process would have been to no avail - no control?). Rather than ask a socially demeaning question (psychologically this was impossible for them - no control?), the Officers became distracted, and revealed information which they didn't wish to do - (no control?) to end the session, because the routine was that Prisoners were always taken back to their cell via a trip to the bathroom. So what is meant when the word 'control' is used? Perhaps 'influence' might be an alternative - Intention combined with Action combined with Hope for a desired result? I still find the idea of no control hard to understand/accept, and would be delighted if someone showed me a loophole .......but, despite trying, I can't point to any area of life where there is complete control. Control seems to be one of those words where it is 'all' or 'nothing'. And, last but not least, 'who' is it that would have this control? On the subject of 'control'/'no-control'.......how does 'padhana' relate? Does the 'rousing of will' in this teaching mean that the application of effort achieves a 'controllable' result? (planning and goal setting) "The monk rouses his will to avoid the arising of evil, unwholesome things not yet arisen ... to overcome them ... to develop wholesome things not yet arisen ... to maintain them, and not to let them disappear, but to bring them to growth, to maturity and to the full perfection of development. And he makes effort, stirs up his energy, exerts his mind and strives" (A. IV, 13). metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "egberdina" wrote: > Dear Jon, > > > > > I'm interested though that you see bliss as the ultimate goal. Do > share > > more when you are ready. > > If we were in court, I'd have to accuse you of leading the witness :- > ). I do not see bliss as the ultimate goal. I am not trying to be > tricky here, but I do not believe there is such a thing as an > ultimate goal, only cause and effect. The state of bliss, within this > frothing, bubbling cauldron of reiterating consequences, is a > possibility. > > Theravada Buddhism was born out of the extreme existential anxiety of > one man, Gautama, within his social and environmental context. He had > sufficient insight prior to enlightenment to be anxious. His anxiety > was sufficient enough for him to forsake everything, and say "I will > not stop until I find a better way of being". He discovered for > himself how cause and effect resulted in the anxious mindstate he > found himself in. Being released from anxiety caused by ignorance (an > unskilful mindstate of his own creation), he then set about teaching > people to train their minds, so as to be free from the consequences > of their untrained mind. > > To those who doubt or reject the notion of control, how many times a > day do you need to change your clothes because you have soiled them? > > If you don't soil your trousers anymore, are you still soiling your > mind? > > > Herman > > > > > > > > > My own experience is that thought, word and deed leads to more of > the > > > same. Kusala, merit, beautiful roots, and their counterparts, you > > > name it, it is all samsara. When there are 83000-odd verses > milling > > > through your head, there are 83000-odd verses milling through > your > > > head. When there is nothing milling through your head, there is > > > bliss. I know this. I do not credit myself with any status on any > > > developmental ladder, but I won't apologise for the state of > bliss. > > > It sure beats the crap out of other states I can also conjure up, > and > > > often do. > > > > > > Cheers for now > > > > > > Herman 11002 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 7:38pm Subject: Read the second one - sorry Dear Herman Jon and All, I prefer the slightly improved duplicate which was sent a few hours after the original post didn't appear... Cheers, Chris 11003 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 10:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas Hi Victor, --- Victor Yu wrote: > Hello Sarah and all, > > This is how I understand it: > Seeing thing/phenomenon as it actually is is not much about classifying > the > thing/phenomenon as nama or rupa. To see thing/phenomenon as it > actually is > is to see it thus: "This is impermanent. This is dukkha. This is not > oneself." > That is just my view on seeing thing/phenomenon as it actually is. The question is, though, if there isn't any basic understanding of what this thing/phenomenon is, how can there be the advanced understanding of the characteristics which are only apparent when the basics (ie nama-ness and rupa-ness, however labelled) are very clear? (This is not just 'my' understanding but also as presented in the texts). Victor, always good to hear your questions...I'll leave the later ones for Jon & Kom as they were in response to their posts I believe. If you're able to humour your Wash.D.C. neighbour, myself and others by putting a photo in the album, we'd all be glad (with or without your favourite good reminder as a caption;-). Sarah ================================================== 11004 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 11:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas Hi Victor, I've just seen this follow-up question of yours with part of a post of mine (now put to the end). Firstly, I appreciate the care you've taken to read what I wrote to Rob Ep;-) --- Victor Yu wrote: > Hello all, > > Or could it be the other way around: seeing phenomenon thus: "This is > impermanent. This is dukkha. This is not oneself" is conducive to > understand the difference between namas and rupas? (Just question for > consideration.) The reason that there has to be clear understanding of namas and rupas (and the difference) first, is because if there isn't any understanding of say, "seeing" , which sees (visible object), experiencing the object momentarily, the more refined understanding which understands not only its nature but also its arising and falling away directly (not by thinking as now) and thereby the inherent unsatisfactoriness of its nature cannot be apparent. Having said that, it's true that even at a real beginner level of satipatthana, well before the first stage of nama-rupa pariccheda nana, at the moments of awareness there is no wrong view of self, permanence or satisfactorieness in the object which is known. There is a beginning of understanding the anattaness of the reality. For example, when visible object (that which is seen) is known, there is no "I", "me" or "mine" in its nature, as you remind us so often. It is just that rupa which is seen at that moment. For most of us, however, we have to really hear and consider a lot about different namas and rupas for even this beginner level of satipatthana to develop. Just my opinion. You may find it helpful to read more about the stages of insight in the Visuddhimagga or a good summary can be found in K.Sujin's 'Sruvey of Paramattha Dhammas' (in a chapter on Anatta towards the end) on Rob K's excellent website: http://www.abhidhamma.org/ or: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Thanks for all your comments as always, Sarah ===================================================== Sarah:> > As a few people have mentioned, clearly understanding (with awareness) > the > > difference between namas and rupas is really the way to understand the > > characterisic of anatta and to begin to understand the conditioned > (and > > non-controlled) nature of the phenomena that make up our lives. This > > precise direct understanding is the first of many stages of insight, > > eventually leading to the first stage of enlightenment. Without this > > understanding, there cannot be any knowledge of the impermanence or > > ultimate unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) of realities. 11005 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 11:03pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Kukkucca ?=regret Dear Lucy, > -----Original Message----- > From: Lucy [mailto:selene@c...] > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 10:12 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] Kukkucca ?=regret > > > Dear Kom > > Thank you very much for helping clear my > questions, expanding the comments > and pointing to things I hadn't considered > before. This is all very helpful > to me because I'm not used to analysing things in > this detail, but it all > seems to be immediately applicable to daily life. > Isn't it wonderful? It is indeed wonderful to have the opportunity to listen to the Buddha's dhamma, to understand that his teachings allow us to understand ourself right now, at this moment, in our daily life, and to have friends who helps us and reminds us all along of what the teaching is all about. Thanks for being a freind! kom 11006 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 27, 2002 11:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kukkucca ?=regret Hi Lucy, --- Lucy wrote: > From: "Sarah" > > > > Now, Lucy is going to lead the discussion on regret soon.....;-)) > > Was that my cue, Sarah? Are you sure my beginner's attempt at tackling > the > cetasikas isn't going to interfere with your studies? Please everybody, > feel free to tell me if so, OK? I wouldn't have considered it a 'beginner's attempt' at all...instead a very neat and helpful summary and condition for useful reflection. many thanks. > 'Regret' (kukkucca) was my 'cetasika of this week'. > This is extracted from Nynatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary: > > "kukkucca: lit. 'wrongly-performed-ness', i.e. scruples, > remorse, uneasiness of conscience, worry, I'm not sure about the definition from the dictionary of 'scruples' here....begins to sound a little too skilful and close to definitions of hiri and ottappa for my liking;-) What do you think? Remorse is a more helpful translation for me. > '.................................... whenever it arises, is > associated with hateful (discontented) consciousness. It is the > 'repentance > over wrong things done, and right things neglected' .... > Restlessness and scruples (uddhacca-kukkucca), combined, are counted as > one > of the 5 mental hindrances (nívarana)." It's interesting that it is always grouped here with uddhacca (restlessness) because whereas uddhacca arises with every unwholesome citta (state of consciousness), kukkucca only arises with some dosa-mula-cittas (cittas rooted in aversion). For sure, whenever there is kukkucca, there is restlessness. When there is remorse, there is a 'state of bondage'. Isn't this true? We can say these unwholesome states are a hindrance for the development of satipatthana in the sense that whenever there is an unskilful state of mind, there is no skilful awareness or other wholesome state. On the other hand, we can say they are not hindrances to satipatthana (unlike to samatha development), in that any object or state can be cognized or known by sati awareness and understanding. > In my mind 'regret' has always been a good thing. But all the > definitions > agree: kukkucca is akusala (unskilful), and it arises with aversion > (dosa) > for its object (the action done or left undone) ..and is always accompanied by unpleasant feeling too. Usually we think of regret/remorse as a long thinking process (at least I tend to;-). Of course, kukkucca, like sloth and torpor, is not dependent on a 'situation' or even on thinking in words. It slips in very fast and momentarily. We may be happily reflecting on a gift we've given and the pleasure caused when kukkucca and other kinds of dosa slip in and out. It can be difficult to know the difference between different states with dosa and we don't have to pinpoint or try and work them out, but it helps to understand more and more of the details, I think, in order to begin to recognise them and understand why they are unskilful. All your other notes and quotes from Nina were really helpful too and I've appreciated Kom's and John's further comments. Thanks for taking up the cue, Lucy, Sarah p.s hope to see yr pic in the album in due course too, tho' I understand we ladies are a little more reticent in this regard;-) ==================================================== 11007 From: egberdina Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:01am Subject: Re: The Highest Bliss Dear Erik, I send a reply to this last night but it hasn't shown up. It was something along the lines of : "Well, you and I don't need to discuss this any further, because one doesn't need to preach to the converted." I then asked what line of work you are in, and that I've got something in the back of my head that says programmer. I know Kom, Howard and myself are up the IT creek. What's your speciality? All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rikpa21" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > Jon: > > Herman > > > > Thanks for the comments. I enjoy your particular way of saying > things! > > > > I'm interested though that you see bliss as the ultimate goal. > > Erik: > I'm interested to see that you bring this up, as it the entire point > of the Buddhist Dharma. I can't tell if you're suggesting that bliss > as the ultimate goal is to be pursued or not from this, but it > sounds as if by asking the question you're suggesting it isn't (and > I apologize if I am misrepresenting your meaning & intent). > > Lest there be any question on what the Buddha said on this matter, I > would refer all interested in the entire aim of the Dhamma to the > following: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/15.html > > If the Dhamma is about anything other than bliss, I'd have nothing > to do with it, according to my preferences of wishing to be free > from suffering and finding the highest bliss known. 11008 From: egberdina Date: Sat Jan 26, 2002 10:47pm Subject: Re: The Highest Bliss Dear Erik, There is of course no need to preach to the converted :-), but I do want to ask you something else: What is your line of work? Somewhere in the back of my mind I have that you are a computer programmer. Is that right? What sort of stuff do you specialise in? I know Kom, Howard and myself are all up the IT creek, I ask purely out of interest. We'll find some Dhamma twist later on to make it relevant to the group :-) All the best to you Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rikpa21" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > Jon: > > Herman > > > > Thanks for the comments. I enjoy your particular way of saying > things! > > > > I'm interested though that you see bliss as the ultimate goal. > > Erik: > I'm interested to see that you bring this up, as it the entire point > of the Buddhist Dharma. I can't tell if you're suggesting that bliss > as the ultimate goal is to be pursued or not from this, but it > sounds as if by asking the question you're suggesting it isn't (and > I apologize if I am misrepresenting your meaning & intent). > > Lest there be any question on what the Buddha said on this matter, I > would refer all interested in the entire aim of the Dhamma to the > following: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/15.html > > If the Dhamma is about anything other than bliss, I'd have nothing > to do with it, according to my preferences of wishing to be free > from suffering and finding the highest bliss known. 11009 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 0:35am Subject: [dsg] Re: samma samadhi --- Dear Christine, I like your thinking on this. You might like to read this post too: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/9782 robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Herman, Jon and All, > > Herman, my attention was caught by your mention of control. > "To those who doubt or reject the notion of control, how many times > a > day do you need to change your clothes because you have soiled > them?", which I took to mean that you think there IS control. > But, as you also said 'I do not believe there is such a thing as an > ultimate goal, only cause and effect." which I took to mean that you > think there ISN'T control. So, I'm not sure if you have a positon on > this..... > > Couldn't it be said that it all depends on conditions? You, > presently, are physically mobile and healthy. Many unwell people may > wish to have even simple 'control' over bodily functions - but > wishing doesn't make it so - you have 'it' until conditions change. > As a, perhaps irrelevant, side-note, I was reading that in World War > 1, the dastardly British (sorry Sarah & Lucy) achieved considerable > success in interrogating Officer prisoners by the simple method of > hospitality (food and drink) combined with long interrogation > interviews, plus the Officer Class's inhibitions about mentioning the > need to use the bathroom. (Ordering the body not to be experiencing > discomfort or to halt the digestive process would have been to no > avail - no control?). Rather than ask a socially demeaning question > (psychologically this was impossible for them - no control?), the > Officers became distracted, and revealed information which they > didn't wish to do - (no control?) to end the session, because the > routine was that Prisoners were always taken back to their cell via a > trip to the bathroom. > So what is meant when the word 'control' is used? > Perhaps 'influence' might be an alternative - Intention combined with > Action combined with Hope for a desired result? > > I still find the idea of no control hard to understand/accept, and > would be delighted if someone showed me a loophole .......but, > despite trying, I can't point to any area of life where there is > complete control. Control seems to be one of those words where it > is 'all' or 'nothing'. > And, last but not least, 'who' is it that would have this control? > > On the subject of 'control'/'no-control'.......how does 'padhana' > relate? Does the 'rousing of will' in this teaching mean that the > application of effort achieves a 'controllable' result? (planning > and goal setting) > "The monk rouses his will to avoid the arising of evil, unwholesome > things not yet arisen ... to overcome them ... to develop wholesome > things not yet arisen ... to maintain them, and not to let them > disappear, but to bring them to growth, to maturity and to the full > perfection of development. And he makes effort, stirs up his energy, > exerts his mind and strives" (A. IV, 13). > > metta, > Christine > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "egberdina" wrote: > > Dear Jon, > > > > > > > > I'm interested though that you see bliss as the ultimate goal. > Do > > share > > > more when you are ready. > > > > If we were in court, I'd have to accuse you of leading the > witness :- > > ). I do not see bliss as the ultimate goal. I am not trying to be > > tricky here, but I do not believe there is such a thing as an > > ultimate goal, only cause and effect. The state of bliss, within > this > > frothing, bubbling cauldron of reiterating consequences, is a > > possibility. > > > > Theravada Buddhism was born out of the extreme existential anxiety > of > > one man, Gautama, within his social and environmental context. He > had > > sufficient insight prior to enlightenment to be anxious. His > anxiety > > was sufficient enough for him to forsake everything, and say "I > will > > not stop until I find a better way of being". He discovered for > > himself how cause and effect resulted in the anxious mindstate he > > found himself in. Being released from anxiety caused by ignorance > (an > > unskilful mindstate of his own creation), he then set about > teaching > > people to train their minds, so as to be free from the consequences > > of their untrained mind. > > > > To those who doubt or reject the notion of control, how many times > a > > day do you need to change your clothes because you have soiled > them? > > > > If you don't soil your trousers anymore, are you still soiling your > > mind? > > > > > > Herman 11010 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 3:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: samma samadhi Dear Robert,(and KenO), Thanks for this link.....is there no original thought under the sun?:) Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > --- > Dear Christine, > I like your thinking on this. You might like to read this post > too: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/9782 > robert 11011 From: rikpa21 Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 1:14am Subject: [dsg] Control - Re: samma samadhi --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: Hi Christine, Christine: I still find the idea of no control hard to understand/accept, and would be delighted if someone showed me a loophole .......but, Erik: Can you exert control to where you do not age, get sick, or die, or exter control to the degree that prevents things from changing? Christine: despite trying, I can't point to any area of life where there is complete control. Control seems to be one of those words where it is 'all' or 'nothing'. Erik: It sounds like this mere label, the word "control", is creating a problem for you. If it is posing a problem, why not just let it go for the time being? Christine: And, last but not least, 'who' is it that would have this control? "Who" is it that feels the sting when slapped in the face? Christine: On the subject of 'control'/'no-control'.......how does 'padhana' relate? Doesn't the 'rousing of will' in the teaching mean that the application of effort achieves a 'controllable' result? (planning and goal setting) Is this the loophole I was seeking? Erik: I think the passage below is simple enough even a child can understand it clearly. If the word "control" is posing a problem for you, as it seems, again, why not just let it go? It's just a word, and from the sounds of your message, it's simply engendering papanca (mental proliferation), creating confusion where none need exist. The Dhamma is not at all complicated as some believe, though with our tendencies toward papanca we make it so. > "The monk rouses his will to avoid the arising of evil, unwholesome > things not yet arisen ... to overcome them ... to develop wholesome > things not yet arisen ... to maintain them, and not to let them > disappear, but to bring them to growth, to maturity and to the full > perfection of development. And he makes effort, stirs up his energy, > exerts his mind and strives" (A. IV, 13). More from the Buddha on "control" for those interested: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn107.html 11012 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 5:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] luminous mind- Anders Hi Anders, Great having you around until you fly off to other pastures;-) --- anders_honore wrote: > I'll make a mental note of it. But I don't really have much time to read > the Tipitaka right now. When I've been really busy with work I've gone long spells with very little Tipitaka reading, but it doesn't mean there isn't considering, reflecting and devoloping of insight at these times;-) >I am planning a trip to India in July, where I > intend to visit the four Holy Sites, and from there I'll go and visit my > teacher, KC Oon, who teaches Dzogchen and Ch'an, in Singapore. He has > talked about recommending me to the two Theravada teacher who knows, who > have mastered all eight Jhanas. A rarity these days, so I am definitely > looking forward to spending time with such a personality. I have to say I'd heard a rumour about a trip to Asia;-) Sounds like it should be a really great experience and i'm sure everyone will be interested to follow you around if you have the chance to dive into the odd internet cafe (plenty in bodh Gaya;-)) . Anders, Jaran and Ken O will be glad to meet up with you in Singapore I know and perhaps we can persuade you to make the short hop to Bkk to meet another gang..if we're around, we'd love to join you or encourage you to visit Hong Kong though I have to say it's too hot for hiking then;-) > > Let's agree (I hope) the panna does the uprooting and it uproots the > > delusion rather than the concepts. > > In my experience, concepts are fundamentally rooted in delusion. I would put it a little differently; all unskilful cittas (moments of consciousness) are rooted in moha (delusion), some also rooted in lobha (attachment) or dosa (aversion) as well. Now we cannot say concepts are rooted in anything because they are not realities. Thinking, on the other hand, which thinks unskilfully, such as the thinking which thinks concepts are realities, is of course rooted in delusion. > >so > > many points to agree on for now;-) > > Haha, where's the fun now! :-) Hope I've given you a little fun with a little nit-picking here and I'll just take a look at your other post again as I'm in an 'Anders mood' right now;-) Sarah ===================================================== 11013 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 3:30am Subject: Anatta - Victor Hello Victor, and All, I wonder if you have listened to Bhikkhu Bodhis' dhamma talk on 'Selflessness'? You will be pleased to know that this is the first explanation that I have felt excited about. :-) I actually feel content with what he says, that it is truth, that it is Dhamma. He talks about the four criteria for selfhood - that in order for there to be a Self there must be 1.the idea of duration over time - whether one lifetime or everlastingly 2. there must be simplicity, indivisibility - an incomposite entity, not analysible into parts 3. it must be unconditioned - have its own power of being, not dependent on causes and conditions, and be self sufficient 4. it must be susceptible to its own control - should be able to exercise control over it, exercise mastery over it. These are just my quickly scribbled points, so any errors are mine. He then proceeds to systematically show how the five aggregates, the psycho-physical organism, does not meet these criteria, in a more convincing way then I have heard anywhere else to date. http://www.watthai.net/sounds.htm You have to scroll down below lots of talks by Ajahn Brams on Jhanas and things, before you find Bhikkhu Bodhis' talks - and he does sound slightly like a chipmunk because the files are compressed, but I think you will find it really worthwhile if you haven't already heard him. Takes about 14 minutes to download and 38 minutes to play on Real Audio. I have it on my desk top and will listen again. The particular tape is "3(b) The Three Characteristics of Existence - Impermanence, Unsatisfactoriness, Selflessness" It is 95% about Anatta. metta, Christine 11014 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 5:18am Subject: [dsg] Control - Re: samma samadhi Hi Erik, Erik: Can you exert control to where you do not age, get sick, or die, or exter control to the degree that prevents things from changing? "Who" is it that feels the sting when slapped in the face? Christine: No, I certainly can't prevent or control aging, sickness and death. This together with "who" feels the sting is part of my studying 'anatta'. Erik: It sounds like this mere label, the word "control", is creating a problem for you. If it is posing a problem, why not just let it go for the time being? Erik: I think the passage below is simple enough even a child can understand it clearly. If the word "control" is posing a problem for you, as it seems, again, why not just let it go? It's just a word, and from the sounds of your message, it's simply engendering papanca (mental proliferation), creating confusion where none need exist. The Dhamma is not at all complicated as some believe, though with our tendencies toward papanca we make it so. More from the Buddha on "control" for those interested: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn107.html Christine: I do let it go for most of the time in daily life; but this is a Dhamma Study group, and this is the place I bring forward any uncertainties, questions and areas that I don't understand. Mostly......I find kindness, guidance and help in understanding and learning. This gives me the trustful confidence to keep posting......even when I know my posts might not seem particularly intelligent, or worthwhile. Thank you for your advice Eric and for the link. metta, Christine 11015 From: Victor Yu Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 5:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Panna (was, Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical?) Hello, No problem, I will try my best to explain how I understand it, but I am afraid I would just repeat myself. I see panna as it actually is thus: "Panna is not mine. Panna I am not. Panna is not my self." Suppose it is panna that sees itself as it actually is, then panna knows itself as panna. If panna understood panna thus: "Panna is not mine. Panna I am not. Panna is not my self," panna would run into a self-denial. Otherwise, panna would understand thus: "I am panna," and that is self-view. Panna is not something or someone that sees or knows or understands. That is just my view on panna. Regards, Victor > > Suppose that it is panna that knows and understands conditioned > > phenomenon > > as it actually is. How does panna understand itself as it actually is? > > If > > panna understood thus: "Panna is impermanent. Panna is stressful. > > Panna > > is not mine. Panna I am not. Panna is not my self," panna would run > > into > > a contradiction, a self-denial. > > I don't see any contradiction in panna knowing more about the > characteristic of panna. Could you perhaps elaborate on what you see as > being the contradiction. Thanks. > > Jon 11016 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 5:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas -ANDERS Hi Anders, Hope you’re still there;-) --- anders_honore wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > > > >There is no pure state of > > awareness because this would conflict with what we study in the > abhidhamma > > So what you are really saying is that this can't be true because *you* > have faith in the fact that the Abhidhamma is true? How is this is any > different from the Mahayanist who has faith in the Mahayana Sutras as > true and claims otherwise? > It is bad enough if people should think they'll find any actual truths > in the scriptures, but to set the standards for truth based on personal > preference...? Hmm....iI think the second half of my sentence (snipped - sigh) worked a little better than the first half, so I’ll let this one go. Actually, I remember smiling to myself as I wrote it;-) > > ********** > Spot on! To tell you the truth, I don't really disagree with the 'pure > awareness' theory myself, but I certainly agree with what you say about > future fantasy and all. > I mentioned the 'pure awareness=Nibbana' a while back to counter what I > perceived as an annihilationist view of Buddhism (that there is just > cessation), but the intent of that seems to have been warped somewhat > and shaped into this goal that we must reach. There is just this > reality. How will speculating about how others may experience it help > you understand it any better? For brevity, I’ve chopped the ‘spot on’ comments (it’s all praise and blame on the list;-)), but always happy to find common ground with you Anders. I think (but only think), you and Howard are probably pretty close when it comes to Nibbana and Parinibbana. Now I notice that some people (not Howard) tend to use nibbana and parinibbana interchangably which I find a little confusing. Of course, nibbana can have the two meanings, i.e extinction of defilements and full extinction of the khandhas which we usually refer to as parinibbana. When you mention the annihalationisht view of Buddhism as suggested by cessation (of all khandhas at parinibbana), it reminds me of some discussion with Howard who also referred to annihilationist sounding statements by some of us. This partly prompted me to write a post with references on my understanding of annihilationist theories as discussed by the Buddha at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/10500 Suan also added some very useful posts and translation notes on parinibbana which can be found under Parinibbana at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts > Actually, when one interprets the Pure Land, and perhaps also the > Chrstian Kingdom of the father, esoterically, then they are really quite > the same... But one is of course free to see that as being negative or > positive as they wish... > > > Isn't it really > > a lack of knowledge of namas and rupas? > > To me, it is merely the case of a different focal-point for faith. I think that’s a good place to leave it and a good comment to make. Your maturity and respect always impress me. > >that it's impossible for awareness or any other mental state to last > an > > instant. I hope I haven't misunderstood you. > > I think you have, but it is really a quite abstract concept. For > example, there's a reason why one has to be a stream-entrant to really > know what Nibbana is about. One can speculate, but never quite hit the > mark. I think I’ll wait til I’m brave enough to address Rob Ep’s marathon to see whether I misunderstood him. (Rob, I think we’ll have to split it up into little packages otherwise if I were to reply in context, we might have a mass walk-out....I do see now it wasn’t a mistake, but you were just ‘inspired’;-)) >For > example, there's a reason why one has to be a stream-entrant to really > know what Nibbana is about. One can speculate, but never quite hit the > mark. Agreed, agreed....and on this happy ‘agreed’ note, I’ll sign off. Sarah ====================================================== 11017 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 5:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts/Kom Hi Howard, Good to see you back in action with or without your pipe;-) --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > The way I might put this is, when looking to make a precise > statement, > is something along the lines of "There is the clear and direct seeing of > the > separation and the distinction between nama and rupa as dhammas, and > this > seeing is an instance of wisdom". (Actually, I happen to prefer the word > > 'insight' to 'wisdom', because I find in myself certain associations > with the > word 'wisdom' that are off the mark.) I thought this was very neatly and well put (as are many of your expressions). You may also notice that I've been using 'insight ' in place of 'wisdom' recently as a result of your comments;-) (It may be temporary though;-) Sarah 11018 From: michael newton Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 8:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] luminous mind- Anders >From: Sarah >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [dsg] luminous mind- Anders >Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:00:59 +0800 (CST) > >Hi Anders, > >Great having you around until you fly off to other pastures;-) > > --- anders_honore wrote: > > > I'll make a mental note of it. But I don't really have much time to read > > the Tipitaka right now. > >When I've been really busy with work I've gone long spells with very >little Tipitaka reading, but it doesn't mean there isn't considering, >reflecting and devoloping of insight at these times;-) > > >I am planning a trip to India in July, where I > > intend to visit the four Holy Sites, and from there I'll go and visit my > > teacher, KC Oon, who teaches Dzogchen and Ch'an, in Singapore. He has > > talked about recommending me to the two Theravada teacher who knows, who > > have mastered all eight Jhanas. A rarity these days, so I am definitely > > looking forward to spending time with such a personality. > >I have to say I'd heard a rumour about a trip to Asia;-) Sounds like it >should be a really great experience and i'm sure everyone will be >interested to follow you around if you have the chance to dive into the >odd internet cafe (plenty in bodh Gaya;-)) . Anders, Jaran and Ken O will >be glad to meet up with you in Singapore I know and perhaps we can >persuade you to make the short hop to Bkk to meet another gang..if we're >around, we'd love to join you or encourage you to visit Hong Kong though I >have to say it's too hot for hiking then;-) > > > > Let's agree (I hope) the panna does the uprooting and it uproots the > > > delusion rather than the concepts. > > > > In my experience, concepts are fundamentally rooted in delusion. > >I would put it a little differently; all unskilful cittas (moments of >consciousness) are rooted in moha (delusion), some also rooted in lobha >(attachment) or dosa (aversion) as well. Now we cannot say concepts are >rooted in anything because they are not realities. Thinking, on the other >hand, which thinks unskilfully, such as the thinking which thinks concepts >are realities, is of course rooted in delusion. > > > >so > > > many points to agree on for now;-) > > > > Haha, where's the fun now! :-) > >Hope I've given you a little fun with a little nit-picking here and I'll >just take a look at your other post again as I'm in an 'Anders mood' right >now;-) > >Sarah >===================================================== >Hello!Sarah; I see in this email that in July you will be fying off to India and you will be visiting the 4 holy sites as well as other places.I wonder how the Samanwaya Ashram in Bodh Gaya is doing where I met a teacher of mine(Anagarika Munindra)?Well,this is just to wish you a great trip.Be hot at that time(I'm thinking in Bodh Gaya)maybe monsoon time?I'm glad that I.m in touch with you and maybe this time you might get this message.YOURS IN DHAMMA WITH METTA,MICHAEL (REV.ALOKANANDA) 11019 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kukkucca ?=regret op 26-01-2002 23:07 schreef Lucy op selene@c... > > 'Regret' (kukkucca) was my 'cetasika of this week'. > This is extracted from Nynatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary: > > "kukkucca: lit. 'wrongly-performed-ness', i.e. scruples, > remorse, uneasiness of conscience, worry, is one of the karmically > unwholesome (akusala) mental faculties which, whenever it arises, is > associated with hateful (discontented) consciousness. It is the 'repentance > over wrong things done, and right things neglected' .... > Restlessness and scruples (uddhacca-kukkucca), combined, are counted as one > of the 5 mental hindrances (nívarana)." > > What follows is from Nina's "Cetasikas" > http://www.dhammastudy.com/cetasikas21.html > Part III Akusala Cetasikas. Chapter 19. > (my comments and questions inserted) > > "If we take note of the proximate cause of kukkucca we will better > understand what kukkucca is. The proximate cause of kukkucca is akusala > kamma through body, speech and mind which has been committed and also > kusala kamma through body, speech and mind which has been omitted. " > > This seems to imply some wisdom in recognising what is kusala or akusala. > But couldn't kukkucca arise just from fear of the consequences as in the > case of a criminal afraid he'll be caught? If the criminal were sure that > he'll get away with it, he may not experience kukkucca at all. (?) But for > one who follows the Dhamma there'll be a lot more occasions for kukkucca ! > It may even reach the stage of believing that we can't "progress" in the > path because of past wrong actions. I presume that's when kukkucca becomes > a hindrance (nivarana) (?) > > So, what do we do? Dear Lucy, I like your way of consdiering different cetasikas. We learn from the Dhamma about kusala and akusala, but there are many degrees of understanding these. As to a hindrance: this concerns the development of samatha. Every reality can be object of vipassana and then it is not a hindrance. Kukkucca just arises when there are conditions for it, but it can be realized as a kind of nama. You quote below what I further wrote. I like your reaction, Ah, ha! Best wishes, from Nina. > > "We still consider regret as "my regret". We regret our akusala and our > lack of mindfulness. If we realize that thinking with worry is not helpful > it may be a condition to cultivate kusala. When there is forgetfulness of > realities we should remember that is a conditioned reality, not self. We > should know the characteristics of akusala dhammas which arise as not self. > Then there will be less regret. " > > Ah, ha! > > Lucy 11020 From: Yulia Klimov Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:28am Subject: Attachment to somebody (not to material object) Hello, everyone. Can you please, help me to find any talk on attachment to people. Is it possible to be mindfully not-attached to husband? I am not mention children yet :). Thank you, Yulia 11021 From: Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:02pm Subject: Re: mindfulness of nama and rupa/Jon Hi Jon, Regarding this extract, I haven't been studying it particularly, but thinking it over it occurred to me that one of my difficulties is that I am trying to identify consciousness by itself. Perhaps this is unnecessary or even impossible. In meditation nama is bare attention; this must be a cetasika (consciousness factor) but I'm not sure if it is one or several. The mahathera seems to be pointing to a "heap" (meaning several) of consciousness factors, not consciousness (citta) itself. Another confusion is the tendency to mix up the nama/rupa distinction with the ultimate reality/conventional reality distinction. For example, in attending to a red hat, the attending is nama, red is rupa, and hat is conventional reality. Victor's insistence on anicca, anatta, dukkha has caused me to wonder where that fits in. On the surface this looks like a case of uncovering the error of conventional reality. Aren't permanence, self, and happiness conventional realities? If so perhaps ultimate realities are not plagued by identification with permanence, self, and happiness. This doesn't seem quite right but I can't tell where I'm going wrong. Can you straighten me out? Larry 11022 From: egberdina Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 3:16pm Subject: Re: samma samadhi Dear Christine, I hope I am replying to the right post :-) I've had some difficulty getting my posts through recently, as well. I do not believe that the notion of control and cause and effect are mutually exclusive at all. I guess they would be if either were used in some absolute sense. Such usage tends to occur in religious circles. I see no reason why people should feel as though they must reject on some a priori basis the very small amount of control they can and do exert in their life. After all Ken O went to the toilet , and didn't do it in his pants. The fact that Ken O choose to go to the toilet is not without consequences, and had he chosen to do it in his pants that would have had it's own consequences as well. To point to the inevitable demise of the body as proof absolute that there is no control possible at all is a very extreme position. On the other hand, to say that all things happen because of conditions is to say precisely nothing at all. The same goes for the often used references to accumulations. Life is like a Rorhschach blot, there is no causal nexus between what goes on and how you respond to it. Nonetheless, things go on, and being a spectator is just not possible. I do not have any links for any of the above, nor for the state of bliss :-) All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Herman, Jon and All, > > Herman, my attention was caught by your mention of control. > "To those who doubt or reject the notion of control, how many times > a > day do you need to change your clothes because you have soiled > them?", which I took to mean that you think there IS control. > But, as you also said 'I do not believe there is such a thing as an > ultimate goal, only cause and effect." which I took to mean that you > think there ISN'T control. So, I'm not sure if you have a positon on > this..... > > Couldn't it be said that it all depends on conditions? You, > presently, are physically mobile and healthy. Many unwell people may > wish to have even simple 'control' over bodily functions - but > wishing doesn't make it so - you have 'it' until conditions change. > As a, perhaps irrelevant, side-note, I was reading that in World War > 1, the dastardly British (sorry Sarah & Lucy) achieved considerable > success in interrogating Officer prisoners by the simple method of > hospitality (food and drink) combined with long interrogation > interviews, plus the Officer Class's inhibitions about mentioning the > need to use the bathroom. (Ordering the body not to be experiencing > discomfort or to halt the digestive process would have been to no > avail - no control?). Rather than ask a socially demeaning question > (psychologically this was impossible for them - no control?), the > Officers became distracted, and revealed information which they > didn't wish to do - (no control?) to end the session, because the > routine was that Prisoners were always taken back to their cell via a > trip to the bathroom. > So what is meant when the word 'control' is used? > Perhaps 'influence' might be an alternative - Intention combined with > Action combined with Hope for a desired result? > > I still find the idea of no control hard to understand/accept, and > would be delighted if someone showed me a loophole .......but, > despite trying, I can't point to any area of life where there is > complete control. Control seems to be one of those words where it > is 'all' or 'nothing'. > And, last but not least, 'who' is it that would have this control? > > On the subject of 'control'/'no-control'.......how does 'padhana' > relate? Does the 'rousing of will' in this teaching mean that the > application of effort achieves a 'controllable' result? (planning > and goal setting) > "The monk rouses his will to avoid the arising of evil, unwholesome > things not yet arisen ... to overcome them ... to develop wholesome > things not yet arisen ... to maintain them, and not to let them > disappear, but to bring them to growth, to maturity and to the full > perfection of development. And he makes effort, stirs up his energy, > exerts his mind and strives" (A. IV, 13). > > metta, > Christine > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "egberdina" wrote: > > Dear Jon, > > > > > > > > I'm interested though that you see bliss as the ultimate goal. > Do > > share > > > more when you are ready. > > > > If we were in court, I'd have to accuse you of leading the > witness :- > > ). I do not see bliss as the ultimate goal. I am not trying to be > > tricky here, but I do not believe there is such a thing as an > > ultimate goal, only cause and effect. The state of bliss, within > this > > frothing, bubbling cauldron of reiterating consequences, is a > > possibility. > > > > Theravada Buddhism was born out of the extreme existential anxiety > of > > one man, Gautama, within his social and environmental context. He > had > > sufficient insight prior to enlightenment to be anxious. His > anxiety > > was sufficient enough for him to forsake everything, and say "I > will > > not stop until I find a better way of being". He discovered for > > himself how cause and effect resulted in the anxious mindstate he > > found himself in. Being released from anxiety caused by ignorance > (an > > unskilful mindstate of his own creation), he then set about > teaching > > people to train their minds, so as to be free from the consequences > > of their untrained mind. > > > > To those who doubt or reject the notion of control, how many times > a > > day do you need to change your clothes because you have soiled > them? > > > > If you don't soil your trousers anymore, are you still soiling your > > mind? > > > > > > Herman 11023 From: Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Attachment to somebody (not to material object) Hi, Yulia - In a message dated 1/28/02 2:20:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, yklimov@l... writes: > Hello, everyone. > > Can you please, help me to find any talk on attachment to people. > Is it possible to be mindfully not-attached to husband? I am not mention > children yet :). > > Thank you, > Yulia > ========================== We can't enforce nonattachment, and I believe it would be a mistake to try. We'd end up suppressing and avoiding seeing the way things are. We should simply strive to cultivate mindfulness (and calm), and, to be helpful and kind. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 11024 From: egberdina Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 4:46pm Subject: Re: The Highest Bliss Jon, Yes, you are correct, I was not referring to nibbana. As an aside, how does one know whether any state or stateless state that is being experienced equates to a state that is described in a book? I guess that if you follow the instructions, you can assume that the outcome is the same. All I know is that the more I approach a state of not-thinking, the more I experience what I call bliss. It is not excitement, in fact far from it. It is very "quiet". I am extrapolating here, but I assume that when there is no thinking at all, the state of bliss would be very fine indeed, as in subtle. I further extrapolate and assume this would be the same for everybody. I like this state, and much prefer it to an unconcentrated awareness of the present moment. I have a close association with a number of people who are described in medical terms as having Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. I believe they may be good candidates for vipassana insight, because they show no preference at all to anything in their environment. I do not wish to emulate them at this time. All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Erik > > I think as Howard has already pointed out, there is bliss and then there > is bliss. My post was based on certain inferences I had drawn from > Herman's post as to what he meant by the term. I did not take him to be > referring to nibbana (I may of course have been wrong). > > Thanks for the link, where I found the following verse to which your post > refers-- > > "There is no fire like lust and no crime like hatred. There is no ill like > the aggregates (of existence) and no bliss higher than the peace (of > Nibbana)." [Dhp 202] > > I would be interested to know what your understadning of the term > "aggregates (of existence)" is here. > > Jon > > > > --- rikpa21 wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., > Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > Jon: > > > Herman > > > > > > Thanks for the comments. I enjoy your particular way of saying > > things! > > > > > > I'm interested though that you see bliss as the ultimate goal. > > > > Erik: > > I'm interested to see that you bring this up, as it the entire point > > of the Buddhist Dharma. I can't tell if you're suggesting that bliss > > as the ultimate goal is to be pursued or not from this, but it > > sounds as if by asking the question you're suggesting it isn't (and > > I apologize if I am misrepresenting your meaning & intent). > > > > Lest there be any question on what the Buddha said on this matter, I > > would refer all interested in the entire aim of the Dhamma to the > > following: > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/15.html > > > > If the Dhamma is about anything other than bliss, I'd have nothing > > to do with it, according to my preferences of wishing to be free > > from suffering and finding the highest bliss known. 11025 From: Victor Yu Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 5:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta - Victor Hello, Christine, Thank you for sharing your joy in Dhamma. I have not listened to Bhikkhu Bodhi's dhamma talk on 'Selflessness.' I am downloading the Bhikkhu Bodhi's talk "The Three Characteristics of Existence - Impermanence, Unsatisfactoriness, Selflessness" as I am writing this message to you. Thank you for pointing to the dhamma talk website. Metta, Victor ----- Original Message ----- From: "christine_forsyth" To: Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 6:30 AM Subject: [dsg] Anatta - Victor > Hello Victor, and All, > > I wonder if you have listened to Bhikkhu Bodhis' dhamma talk > on 'Selflessness'? You will be pleased to know that this is the > first explanation that I have felt excited about. :-) I actually feel > content with what he says, that it is truth, that it is Dhamma. > He talks about the four criteria for selfhood - that in order for > there to be a Self there must be 1.the idea of duration over time - > whether one lifetime or everlastingly 2. there must be simplicity, > indivisibility - an incomposite entity, not analysible into parts 3. > it must be unconditioned - have its own power of being, not dependent > on causes and conditions, and be self sufficient 4. it must be > susceptible to its own control - should be able to exercise control > over it, exercise mastery over it. These are just my quickly > scribbled points, so any errors are mine. > He then proceeds to systematically show how the five aggregates, the > psycho-physical organism, does not meet these criteria, in a more > convincing way then I have heard anywhere else to date. > http://www.watthai.net/sounds.htm > You have to scroll down below lots of talks by Ajahn Brams on Jhanas > and things, before you find Bhikkhu Bodhis' talks - and he does > sound slightly like a chipmunk because the files are compressed, but > I think you will find it really worthwhile if you haven't already > heard him. Takes about 14 minutes to download and 38 minutes to play > on Real Audio. I have it on my desk top and will listen again. > The particular tape is "3(b) The Three Characteristics of Existence - > Impermanence, Unsatisfactoriness, Selflessness" > It is 95% about Anatta. > > metta, > Christine 11026 From: Victor Yu Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 5:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Control - Re: samma samadhi Hello, > Hi Erik, > > Erik: > Can you exert control to where you do not age, get sick, or die, or > exter control to the degree that prevents things from changing? > "Who" is it that feels the sting when slapped in the face? > > Christine: No, I certainly can't prevent or control aging, sickness > and death. This together with "who" feels the sting is part of my > studying 'anatta'. Body is impermanent. What is impermanent is unsatisfactory. What is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change is to be seen as it actually is thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." But certainly one can control oneself. One can control oneself not to break the five precepts. > > Erik: > It sounds like this mere label, the word "control", is creating a > problem for you. If it is posing a problem, why not just let it go > for the time being? > Erik: > I think the passage below is simple enough even a child can > understand it clearly. If the word "control" is posing a problem for > you, as it seems, again, why not just let it go? It's just a word, > and from the sounds of your message, it's simply engendering papanca > (mental proliferation), creating confusion where none need exist. > The Dhamma is not at all complicated as some believe, though with > our tendencies toward papanca we make it so. > More from the Buddha on "control" for those interested: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn107.html Pertinent discourse indeed. > > Christine: I do let it go for most of the time in daily life; but > this is a Dhamma Study group, and this is the place I bring forward > any uncertainties, questions and areas that I don't understand. > Mostly......I find kindness, guidance and help in understanding and > learning. This gives me the trustful confidence to keep > posting......even when I know my posts might not seem particularly > intelligent, or worthwhile. > Thank you for your advice Eric and for the link. > > metta, > Christine 11027 From: Victor Yu Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 6:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas Hello Sarah, To me, the basic understanding is to see thing/phenomenon as it actually is thus: "This is impermanent. This is dukkha. This is not self." Nama is impermanent, is dukkha, is not self. Rupa is impermanent, is dukkha, is not self. Nama-rupa is impermanent, is dukkha, is not self. But that is just my view on nama and rupa. Metta, Victor > Hi Victor, > > --- Victor Yu wrote: > Hello Sarah and all, > > > > This is how I understand it: > > Seeing thing/phenomenon as it actually is is not much about classifying > > the > > thing/phenomenon as nama or rupa. To see thing/phenomenon as it > > actually is > > is to see it thus: "This is impermanent. This is dukkha. This is not > > oneself." > > That is just my view on seeing thing/phenomenon as it actually is. > > The question is, though, if there isn't any basic understanding of what > this thing/phenomenon is, how can there be the advanced understanding of > the characteristics which are only apparent when the basics (ie nama-ness > and rupa-ness, however labelled) are very clear? (This is not just 'my' > understanding but also as presented in the texts). > > Victor, always good to hear your questions...I'll leave the later ones for > Jon & Kom as they were in response to their posts I believe. > > If you're able to humour your Wash.D.C. neighbour, myself and others by > putting a photo in the album, we'd all be glad (with or without your > favourite good reminder as a caption;-). > > Sarah > ================================================== > 11028 From: lisa14850 Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 6:26pm Subject: Photos Dan and I just posted some photos of our family. Hope we don't break your computer screen. Lisa 11029 From: egberdina Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 6:53pm Subject: Re: Photos Dear Lisa, Dan and kids, I very much enjoyed seeing your photos just now. Thank you, Lisa, for posting them. All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "lisa14850" wrote: > Dan and I just posted some photos of our family. Hope we don't break > your computer screen. > > Lisa 11030 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:51pm Subject: Welcome Michael Dear Michael, I'm glad to see you posting on the list;-) (Nina & others, Michael joined dsg v.recently and sent me a note off-list to say he remembered me from talks with you and K.Sujin in Sri Lanka in 1976. He was then Rev.Alokananda. He also remembers Ven Dhammadharo very well from those days. He wrote to check if I was the same English Sarah;-) Anyway, I hope you find dsg interesting and useful and we look forward to hearing more from you here. Where do you live now, btw? --- michael newton wrote: > >Hello!Sarah; > I see in this email that in July you will be fying off to India and you > will > be visiting the 4 holy sites as > well as other places. Actually, it's Anders that will be making the trip..I was just replying to him. Sorry if I didn't make it clear. I wonder how the Samanwaya Ashram in Bodh Gaya is > doing > where I > met a teacher of mine(Anagarika Munindra)? Perhaps we can ask Anders to check when he's there. I'm afraid I'm very out of touch. You mentioned (off-list) that another mutual friend studied with Munindra at the same time I did (74-75) before he took robes. Were you there then? Well,this is just to wish you > a > great trip.Be hot at > that time(I'm thinking in Bodh Gaya)maybe monsoon time? I think Anders will have a hot trip throughout Asia, but then he has plenty of wisdom to help him with a few heatwaves;-) I'm glad that I.m > in > touch with you > and maybe this time you might get this message. Received by us all and very glad to hear from you Michael. Sarah 11031 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dependence/Sarah Dear Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hello Sarah, nice to hear from you. > > In regard to this question of dependence or conditionality I was just > thinking of what I had vaguely remembered from some suttas that > paticcasamuppada can be stopped or reversed and I was wondering how that > worked. Unfortunately I have almost zero knowledge of the abhidhamma and > it didn't occur to me to look there. The paticcasamuppada (dependent origination) is not as simple as it often first seems, I think. We learn about specific conditions causing the arising of speific phenomena. Without the conditions, the other phenomena don’t arise. All the phenomena discussed, including birth and death, are different namas and rupas. When you mention about being ‘stopped’ or ‘reversed’, I think you maybe referring to the full realisation of nibbana and in particular to the end of the current lifespan at parinibbana. Objects experienced by the arahat are no longer a condition for craving and thus, at the end of his life, there will be no more conditions for rebirth-consciousness because ignorance has been eradicated. So we read about both the sequence of origination (1) and the sequence of cessation (2) (B.Bodhi translations snipped for brevity and to save typing in places): (1) “Bhikkhus, what is dependent arising? with ignorance as condition volitional formations come to be; with volitional foramations as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, mentality-materiality..........................death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering. This bhikkhus, is called dependent arising.” (2) “But with the remainderless fding away and cessation of ignorance volitinal formations cease; with the cessation of volitional formations consciousness ceases; with the cessation of consciousness mentality-materiality ceases;...............with the cessation of existence birth ceases; with the cessation of birth, aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering.” (S.X11,1;ii 1-2) In the Mahanidana sutta, the Buddha gives the seqence of conditions in reverse order and this might also be what you have in mind. So here, the series begins with aging and death which have birth as condition and so on back. But the meaning is the same, linking back to the conditioned nature of these phenomena. Birth and death refer to the particular kinds of consciousness (vipaka citta) at these times, accompanied by cetasikas(mental factors referred here as.nama) and rupa (physical phenomena, produced by kamma at rebirth. > You make an interesting point that conditionality is changed by adding > more conditions. However, with high and low or birth and death there are > no other conditions that can be added to change the relationship. So > perhaps there are some differences between the links of the > paticcasamuppada as to which are changeable by adding additional > (appropriate) conditions. I’ll pass on the high and low concepts. If there is birth, there is bound to be death by conditions. Even at this moment, we can talk about the momentary birth of any citta or other reality being a condition for the death of that same citta. Of course, in a lifespan, there are many, many factors or conditions which will affect when and how the cuti citta (death consciousness) will arise. Even considering the dhamma now will affect the various links. There are many ways in which cittas, cetasikas and rupas all condition each other. It’s a very intricate topic and the reason I find the paticca samuppada and other parts of the Suttanta are not as simple as they can seem . > Another question might be what makes a condition that makes a difference > in the various links? For example, given feeling, which conditions would > prevent craving from arising. Unless arahatship has been attained, as we see from paticcasamuppada, there are bound to conditions for craving to arise on account of feeling. However, when there are skilful moments of consciousness, there are no conditions at these times for craving or aversion (its ‘flip-side’) to arise. Usually, for example, there is either attachment or aversion or ignorance following the pleasant or unpleasant feeling accompanying what is experienced through the bodysense; just occasionally, there may be awareness with detachment instead;-) > If I get a chance I'll try to get up to the library and dig out some of > these answers. As it happens, my internet connectivity doesn't exactly > use a computer so I can't download adobe or read pdf files. Hence, no > Nina for now. hmmmm...at least you can read Nina here it seems. I’ll try not to send you off with too many links and follow Herman’s link-free example for a change;-) > When I originally made a profile for Yahoo I said I was a 100 year old > banker from Hong Kong, thinking I would never meet anyone from there. > Actually I live in Boulder Colorado, USA and I'm more or less 55 years > old and in construction (houses). I’m glad you told me, otherwise I might have been wondering which of the 100yr old bankers I bump into here was you;-) We hope to catch peole out with the photo album too..Some may have to use disguises and wigs to look like their initial descriptions;-) Anyway, thanks for sharing this info. I was following that story of the little child beauty queen whose parents were (it seems wrongfully) arrested for her murder. I think they were from Boulder? Conditions for some very hard-to-endure results. > I really appreciate what you and Jon are doing here. It's very helpful > and truly meritorious. Larry, many thanks. It really takes care of itself, thanks to all the great comments and questions from many friends like yourself. Hope I haven’t misunderstood your points as I think I may have done last time. Keep up your useful and challenging questions to us all. Sarah ====================================================== 11032 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Jan 29, 2002 0:37am Subject: Re: Attachment to somebody (not to material object) Hello Yulia, When I was listening to Bhikkhu Bodhis' tapes, I noticed a tape on "Attachment in Family Relationships" by Ajahn Vayama. I haven't listened to it, but it is 47 minutes long so I expect it may take about 20 minutes to download. It requires a Windows Media player which you can obtain free from the site. Hope this is of some help. http://www.watthai.net/sounds.htm (You will need to scroll down to just above Bhikkhu Bodhis' picture. It is the fourth tape above his picture.) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Yulia Klimov" wrote: > Hello, everyone. > > Can you please, help me to find any talk on attachment to people. > Is it possible to be mindfully not-attached to husband? I am not mention > children yet :). > > Thank you, > Yulia 11033 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Photos Thanks, Lisa and Dan. And thanks also to Gayan, Herman, Howard, Num, Rob Ep, Victor and everyone else who has posted pics. Nice to see you all! Jon --- lisa14850 wrote: > Dan and I just posted some photos of our family. Hope we don't break > your computer screen. > > Lisa 11034 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Jan 29, 2002 2:55am Subject: Re: samma samadhi Dear Herman, You said - Herman: "I see no reason why people should feel as though they must reject on some a priori basis the very small amount of control they can and do exert in their life. After all Ken O went to the toilet , and didn't do it in his pants. The fact that Ken O choose to go to the toilet is not without consequences, and had he chosen to do it in his pants that would have had it's own consequences as well." CJF: I take your point that there is a limited amount of control within daily life. I prefer to call it choice, but KenO didn't choose to 'go', he only had a choice of venue (thank goodness!) - not of whether or not the action would proceed, so to speak.... [apologies to KenO - this is just the consequences of posting 'that' post originally] Herman: "I do not have any links for any of the above, nor for the state of bliss :-)" CJF: http://www.egberdina.com/herman.au is a good enough reference for me. :-) Cheers, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "egberdina" wrote: > Dear Christine, > > I hope I am replying to the right post :-) I've had some difficulty > getting my posts through recently, as well. > > I do not believe that the notion of control and cause and effect are > mutually exclusive at all. I guess they would be if either were used > in some absolute sense. Such usage tends to occur in religious > circles. I see no reason why people should feel as though they must > reject on some a priori basis the very small amount of control they > can and do exert in their life. > > After all Ken O went to the toilet , and didn't do it in his pants. > The fact that Ken O choose to go to the toilet is not without > consequences, and had he chosen to do it in his pants that would have > had it's own consequences as well. > > To point to the inevitable demise of the body as proof absolute that > there is no control possible at all is a very extreme position. On > the other hand, to say that all things happen because of conditions > is to say precisely nothing at all. The same goes for the often used > references to accumulations. > > Life is like a Rorhschach blot, there is no causal nexus between what > goes on and how you respond to it. Nonetheless, things go on, and > being a spectator is just not possible. > > I do not have any links for any of the above, nor for the state of > bliss :-) > > > All the best > > Herman 11035 From: fcckuan Date: Tue Jan 29, 2002 8:12am Subject: 4 hallucinations/perversions Re: [dsg] Vipallasa's I would also like to see some discussion. It's an excellent topic. I have some questions and comments: 1) Seeing asubha as subha (the impure as pure). What principle is referred to by pure? The Ledi Sayadaw booklet does not really explain. I would have to guess pure has to refer to something mundane like belief in principle of kamma. 2) It always struck me as incredibly hilarious (in an ironic way) that the 4 hallucinations is exactly the opposite of reality. I.e. people search for happiness in EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE direction of how reality works. Stupid humans. 3) The progression of how different stages of ariya penetrate or remove these hallucinations at the 3 different levels of views, perceptions, consciousness in a certain order seems kind of artificial and contrived to me. To paraphrase a verse from Samyutta, "One who sees the first noble truth of dukkha penetrates all four noble truths." In other words, it makes more sense to me that the ariya would eradicate these hallucinations not in discrete chunks, but instead in a continuous deepening of realization, where dukkha is seen as dukkha and impermanence is seen at impermanence. Makes no sense to me that they would see impermanence but not dukkha. 4) Where in the pali suttas does it talk about the aggregate of perceiption being "memory"? I'd like to learn more about this. More questions and comments later. -fk --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Kom, Nina and all > > Many thanks for posting the summary of the recent Bay Area talk. I would > like echo Nina's comments in her post to you about your substantial and > much appreciated contribution to the discussion on the list here. > > I don't want to burden you further, so I will direct this question to > everyone. Could we possibly have some daily-life examples of the 3 > categories and 4 objects of vipallasa's, please. I would be interested to > discuss further. Thanks. > > Jon > > > --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Nina, > > > > I am assigned to post some (not sure how much) information > > about what the Bay Area's dhamma study group discussed this > > week. On the 20th, we generally discussed 2 topics: > > vipallasa (perversions), and citta-vithi (panca-dvara only, > > haven't got to mano-dvara yet.) > > > > As for Vipallasa, there are 3 categories: > > 1) Sanna-vipallasa (perversion of memory) (S) > > 2) Citta-vipallasa (perversion of mind) (C) > > 3) Dithi-vipallasa (perversion of view). (D) > > > > Except for the dithi vipallasa---which occurs only with the > > 4 lobha-mula cittas (cittas rooted in attachment) with > > micha-ditthi (wrong views)---sanna vipallasa, and citta > > vipallasa occur with all akusala cittas (with some ariyans > > exempted). Vipallassa are not said to occur in sobhana > > (beautiful) cittas and ahetuka (without the 6 hetu > > cetasikkas) cittas. > > > > The objects of the vipalassa are four: > > 1) Seeing impermanence as permenance > > 2) Seeing dukha as sukha > > 3) Seeing anatta as atta > > 4) Seeing asubha as subha > > > > The vipallasa is not completely eradicated until one becomes > > an ariyan. The different levels of eradication are as > > followed: > > > > Impermanence Dukha Anatta Asubha > > Arahat X X X X X X X X X X X X > > Anagami X X X S C X X X X X X X > > Sagatakami X X X S C X X X X S C X > > Sotapanna X X X S C X X X X S C X > > Putujana S C D S C D S C D S C D > > > > Satipathana eliminates the vipallasa gradually. Different > > kinds of satipatthana eliminate different kind of vipallasa > > as followed: > > > > Kaya-nupassana eliminates asubha vipallasa > > Citta-nupassana eliminates impermanence vipallasa > > Vedana-nupassana eliminates dukha vipallasa > > Dhamma-nupassana eliminates anatta vipallasa > > > > K. Jack mentioned that a type of satipatthana, even though > > it eliminates a type of vipallasa as its main function, it > > also eliminates other vipallasa, but not as its main > > function. > > > > The rest of the session we spent discussing vithi-cittas. > > > > Nina, we also taped the entire session (for the first > > time!). I am not sure of the sound quality of the tapes, > > but it you like to have them, I can send them to you. > > > > kom 11036 From: egberdina Date: Tue Jan 29, 2002 2:47pm Subject: Winnie the Pooh (was Re: samma samadhi) Dear Christine, I hope I am not labouring the point here, but the following is my brief description of the extent of a fictitious Winnie the Pooh's ability to control his bowel movements. And certainly, choice is a good word to use. Winnie the Pooh is able to: 1 Defer for a variable but limited time the moment of his evacuation 2 Because of 1 above he is able to pick, to an extent, the location where this event will take place, and which commentary he will take with him to read. 3 Because Winnie is able to control, to a certain extent, which foods and liquids he ingests, he is able to control, to a certain extent, the consistency and quantity of what comes out. Nonetheless, Pooh must poo and this is his samsaric suffering. I feel there is a bit of a parallel with the Dhamma here. We have some control over what we occupy our minds with. And you can guarantee that what we take in will come out again. And as anyone who has ever fasted for a prolonged period of time will know, when you ingest nothing, after a while nothing comes out! I loved your link! All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Herman, > > You said - > Herman: "I see no reason why people should feel as though they must > reject on some a priori basis the very small amount of control they > can and do exert in their life. > After all Ken O went to the toilet , and didn't do it in his pants. > The fact that Ken O choose to go to the toilet is not without > consequences, and had he chosen to do it in his pants that would have > had it's own consequences as well." > > CJF: I take your point that there is a limited amount of control > within daily life. I prefer to call it choice, but KenO didn't > choose to 'go', he only had a choice of venue (thank goodness!) - not > of whether or not the action would proceed, so to speak.... > [apologies to KenO - this is just the consequences of posting 'that' > post originally] > > Herman: "I do not have any links for any of the above, nor for the > state of bliss :-)" > > CJF: http://www.egberdina.com/herman.au is a good enough reference > for me. :-) > > Cheers, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "egberdina" wrote: > > Dear Christine, > > > > I hope I am replying to the right post :-) I've had some difficulty > > getting my posts through recently, as well. > > > > I do not believe that the notion of control and cause and effect > are > > mutually exclusive at all. I guess they would be if either were > used > > in some absolute sense. Such usage tends to occur in religious > > circles. I see no reason why people should feel as though they must > > reject on some a priori basis the very small amount of control they > > can and do exert in their life. > > > > After all Ken O went to the toilet , and didn't do it in his pants. > > The fact that Ken O choose to go to the toilet is not without > > consequences, and had he chosen to do it in his pants that would > have > > had it's own consequences as well. > > > > To point to the inevitable demise of the body as proof absolute > that > > there is no control possible at all is a very extreme position. On > > the other hand, to say that all things happen because of conditions > > is to say precisely nothing at all. The same goes for the often > used > > references to accumulations. > > > > Life is like a Rorhschach blot, there is no causal nexus between > what > > goes on and how you respond to it. Nonetheless, things go on, and > > being a spectator is just not possible. > > > > I do not have any links for any of the above, nor for the state of > > bliss :-) > > > > > > All the best > > > > Herman 11037 From: tikmok Date: Tue Jan 29, 2002 5:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bay Area Study Topics Dear Nina, Will do. Will report some when a topics that might be interesting to this forum... kom > -----Original Message----- > From: Nina van Gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...] > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 10:14 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] Bay Area Study Topics > > > op 25-01-2002 09:17 schreef Kom Tukovinit op tikmok@y...: > > It is nice if you report now and then on the > topics, but this depends on the topics you like yourselves and on > your time, > since you spend a lot of time answering questions and helping > people here on > dsg. You may combine now and then, depending on the occasion, both some > topics of the Bay area and questions brought up here on dsg, is that an > idea? But it should not be a burden or too time consuming. > Nina. > 11038 From: tikmok Date: Tue Jan 29, 2002 5:09pm Subject: Re: ayatanas Dear Robert, > -----Original Message----- > From: robertkirkpatrick.rm [mailto:robertkirkpatrick@r...] > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 7:12 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: ayatanas > > > --- > > Dear Nina, > Thanks for this quote from the meeting, which is what Khun Sujin also > said to me in Bangkok. I see that only the arrest bhavanga citta is > the mind-door. However, aren't the other bhavanga cittas also > ayatana - albeit not doors(dvara)? Dispeller of delusion 226 p.56 > says that the "mindbase is of 81kinds according to its classification > into profitable, unprofitable, resultant and functional > consciousness." 81 kinds? What does Dispeler of delusion say about the other 8? Thanks. kom 11039 From: Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala Date: Tue Jan 29, 2002 5:38pm Subject: Fw: Virus alert! Do not open "new photos from my party" Dear Friends and Family, The virus alert below is not a hoax since I had received that very same message with "new photos. . ." and my machine needed to be rebooted. Fortunately, no damage was done since I keep my virus protection up to date. However, please beware of such messages, even when they come from persons you know. All the best, Betty _______________________ Mom Bongkojpriya Yugala 38 Soi 41 Phaholyothin Road Bangkok 10900, Thailand tel: 662-579-1050; 661-826-7160 e-mail: beyugala@k... ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:55 AM Subject: Virus alert! Do not open "new photos from my party" Please do not open a file from anyone that says "new photos from my party" It has already destroyed the computer of a friend's executive assistant and is quickly spreading everywhere. I don't know where it comes from. 11040 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Jan 29, 2002 7:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Attachment to somebody (not to material object) Hi Yulia When you are mindful, it is impossible to be attached. They don't go hand in hand. Others are better in explaining mindfullness than me. kind regards Ken O > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Yulia Klimov" wrote: > > Hello, everyone. > > > > Can you please, help me to find any talk on attachment to people. > > Is it possible to be mindfully not-attached to husband? I am not > mention > > children yet :). > > > > Thank you, > > Yulia 11041 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Jan 29, 2002 7:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kukkucca ?=regret Hi Lucy > This seems to imply some wisdom in recognising what is kusala or > akusala. But couldn't kukkucca arise just from fear of the consequences as in the case of a criminal afraid he'll be caught? If the criminal were sure that he'll get away with it, he may not experience kukkucca at all. (?) But> for one who follows the Dhamma there'll be a lot more occasions for kukkucca! It may even reach the stage of believing that we can't "progress" in the path because of past wrong actions. I presume that's when kukkucca becomes> a hindrance (nivarana) (?) > > So, what do we do? I think there is a need to make a distinction between kukkucca and hiri (remorse). We could regret we do this actions or whatever, but it is remorse that assist us in development. A rich person may regret donating a dollar even though the person is rich. A poor person is remorse that he/she could not donate a dollar bc he/she is poor. Then there is development for the poor and not the rich person. Why should we regret when we are not practising mindfullness. I think we should be remorse abt it and not regreting it. Hopes it helps or I am confusing the matter more. Kind regards Ken O 11042 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Jan 29, 2002 7:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Rupa of Air I thought air is also make up of the 4 great elements as stipulated in the Abidhamma. In fact, heat, water and earth is also make up of the 4 great elements in the Abhidhamma. I think the problem is the definition of the four great elements of rupa in Abhidhamma. these four great elements are not the same as the four elements we usually conventionally understand like air, heat... Presently in another place hence do not have the definition provided by Abhidhamma for the four great elements. kind regards Ken O 11043 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Jan 29, 2002 7:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samma samadhi Hi Christine, There is a Chinese Buddhist saying "no effort is effort". Beginners like me definitely got to control our behaviour bc we have not reach the stage where mindfullness is the guardian of our behaviour. What Abhidhamma trying to achieve in my opinion is "no effort is right effort" that is developing mindfullness till it becomes a natural habit. When we are mindful there is no need to control, all behaviour, speech and mental actions falls in line. So presently there are two schools of thoughts in DSG. One that is control and the other that is no control is possible since it is all conditions. In my perspective until mindfullness has been developed to that level of unprompted, all our efforts are usually self control. there is a need for self control for beginners like me bc it is the basis for development as said in the 8Np, until then we should not worry abt whether our control is attached to self or not bc it will be clear when mindfullness as guardian of our mind is able to exercise its full functionality reaching a stage of "no effort is right effort". kind regards Ken O --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Herman, Jon and All, > > Herman, my attention was caught by your mention of control. > "To those who doubt or reject the notion of control, how many times > a > day do you need to change your clothes because you have soiled > them?", which I took to mean that you think there IS control. > But, as you also said 'I do not believe there is such a thing as an > ultimate goal, only cause and effect." which I took to mean that you > think there ISN'T control. So, I'm not sure if you have a positon on > this..... > > Couldn't it be said that it all depends on conditions? You, > presently, are physically mobile and healthy. Many unwell people may > wish to have even simple 'control' over bodily functions - but > wishing doesn't make it so - you have 'it' until conditions change. > As a, perhaps irrelevant, side-note, I was reading that in World War > 1, the dastardly British (sorry Sarah & Lucy) achieved considerable > success in interrogating Officer prisoners by the simple method of > hospitality (food and drink) combined with long interrogation > interviews, plus the Officer Class's inhibitions about mentioning the > need to use the bathroom. (Ordering the body not to be experiencing > discomfort or to halt the digestive process would have been to no > avail - no control?). Rather than ask a socially demeaning question > (psychologically this was impossible for them - no control?), the > Officers became distracted, and revealed information which they > didn't wish to do - (no control?) to end the session, because the > routine was that Prisoners were always taken back to their cell via a > trip to the bathroom. > So what is meant when the word 'control' is used? > Perhaps 'influence' might be an alternative - Intention combined with > Action combined with Hope for a desired result? > > I still find the idea of no control hard to understand/accept, and > would be delighted if someone showed me a loophole .......but, > despite trying, I can't point to any area of life where there is > complete control. Control seems to be one of those words where it > is 'all' or 'nothing'. > And, last but not least, 'who' is it that would have this control? > > On the subject of 'control'/'no-control'.......how does 'padhana' > relate? Does the 'rousing of will' in this teaching mean that the > application of effort achieves a 'controllable' result? (planning > and goal setting) > "The monk rouses his will to avoid the arising of evil, unwholesome > things not yet arisen ... to overcome them ... to develop wholesome > things not yet arisen ... to maintain them, and not to let them > disappear, but to bring them to growth, to maturity and to the full > perfection of development. And he makes effort, stirs up his energy, > exerts his mind and strives" (A. IV, 13). > > metta, > Christine > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "egberdina" wrote: > > Dear Jon, > > > > > > > > I'm interested though that you see bliss as the ultimate goal. > Do > > share > > > more when you are ready. > > > > If we were in court, I'd have to accuse you of leading the > witness :- > > ). I do not see bliss as the ultimate goal. I am not trying to be > > tricky here, but I do not believe there is such a thing as an > > ultimate goal, only cause and effect. The state of bliss, within > this > > frothing, bubbling cauldron of reiterating consequences, is a > > possibility. > > > > Theravada Buddhism was born out of the extreme existential anxiety > of > > one man, Gautama, within his social and environmental context. He > had > > sufficient insight prior to enlightenment to be anxious. His > anxiety > > was sufficient enough for him to forsake everything, and say "I > will > > not stop until I find a better way of being". He discovered for > > himself how cause and effect resulted in the anxious mindstate he > > found himself in. Being released from anxiety caused by ignorance > (an > > unskilful mindstate of his own creation), he then set about > teaching > > people to train their minds, so as to be free from the consequences > > of their untrained mind. > > > > To those who doubt or reject the notion of control, how many times > a > > day do you need to change your clothes because you have soiled > them? > > > > If you don't soil your trousers anymore, are you still soiling your > > mind? > > > > > > Herman > > 11044 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Jan 29, 2002 10:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] one limb of 8 fold path more important --- anders_honore wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > --- rikpa21 wrote: > > > > What is emptiness? > > > > > > It entirely depends. :) > > > > I'll throw in my two cents on emptiness. To me it is seeing that every > > experience is 'core-less'. When I look into the depths of experience there's > > nothing in the middle. It's all periphery. > > That is only "partial" emptiness. You are still labeling the experience as being > 'core-less'. As long as you're perceiving anything as being 'something', it's > still not seeing emptiness. > > But even that labeling is emptiness.... Anders, I think there's a danger of cofusing emptiness with nothingness. To see things as 'not being anything' is to perhaps deny their arising and see them as 'nothing', a denial of phenomena. To see phenomena as coreless sees that they both are and are not: they arise as seeming objects, but at the same time have no defineable reality. It does deny the apparency, but it does refrain from giving it a definition that would allow it to be seen as solid, or real. But at the same time it also refrains from saying they are nonexistent, and thus avoids falling into the urge to annihilate samsara. Robert 11045 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jan 29, 2002 10:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Dear Rob Ep, Rob Ep’s Marathon -Stage One -------------------------------------------- --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > But the person who is sitting in > the car > 'imagining' possibilities and thinking they are actual will never ever > get where > they're going. Now we could really go nuts and say that Buddha is the > guy in the > tow truck, but I'll leave it for now....... Just as well as it’s all rather beyond me;-) I could never cope with car mechanics but have been mercifully car-free for the last 20yrs;-) > Another excellently clear description. I guess my problem is that I see > even the > rupa as being inherently conceptual. It seems to me that the 'paramatha > dhammas' > constitute the Abhidhamma's version of the 'absolute state of pure > consciousness', > a state without imperfection, because it perceives exactly what is there > without > undue conceptualization. But in the case of the paramatha dhammas, the > 'pure > rupa' is still an absolute experience of an object, and to me even a > momentary > aspect of an object can never be absolute. I’m getting lost here as well. There is no ‘pure’ rupa in the Tipitaka as such. When we discuss paramattha dhammas and rupas, rupa is not any kind of experience of anything. Rupas do not experience, they are experienced (by namas). A rupa such as hardness or smell is very real to the touching or smelling regardless of whether there is any awareness at that instant. Of course, now when we discuss the hardness or smell, it’s a concept of them that we’re discussing. This doesn’t mean they aren’t being experienced or cognized just as they are, however. If there is awareness, the awareness is aware of their ‘paramattha’ or ‘absolute’ or ‘true’ nature. >Even though over many passes > by sati > and panna the true characteristics of the rupas become discerned, there > is still > no actual contact with the rupa from my standpoint. This 'coming to > know' is a > process of deduction and accumulation of separate experiences. It’s true there has to be correct intellectual consideration and understanding initially, using deduction and so on. Still, regardless of whether the understanding is conceptual or direct, there is still the contact of rupas occurring all the time. Right now, there is seeing a rupa (visible object), touching another (hardness), regardless of whether there is any knowledge or not. The knowledge (if it arises) merely shows what is experienced anyway. It isn’t resulting in different objects being seen or touched, for example. Sati (awareness) accompanies each moment of wholesome consciousness, but if it is sati of satipatthana, it is directly aware of a reality, not just conceptually, however brief and unclear it may seem. >This > sort of > 'coming to know' through repeated passes seems to me to be conceptual in > nature, > because it seems to me that consciousness is piecing together a picture > with > increasing knowledge. This does not seem to be direct and just in the > moment, it > is gradual, cumulative, and consciousness-derived. It has to be like this in the beginning, I think. I agree with the > analysis that > most of what we experience is conceptual and we don't realize it - we > think it's > real - I'm just not sure that the analysis of paramatha dhammas doesn't > stop at > the brink of realizing that it's *all* conceptual by its very nature. > Instead > there is a saving category that allows us to get to a 'reality' beyond > our own > limited perceptual and conceptual equipment, and I wonder if that is > really the > case. Rather than absolute realities, I would see the wise discernment > of namas > and rupas as being a 'true analysis of the way in which impressions are > transmitted by consciousness', which is not absolute in itself, but > provides a > foundation for wisdom about the human condition. I agree that the ‘true analysis.....” provides a foundation...” there has to be plenty of this true analysis too, over and over again. However, this is not what is referred to as the ‘wise discernment of namas and rupas’, because it is just analysis and not the direct understanding of these paramattha dhammas. However, realizing as you do here, that the understanding is only on a conceptual level as yet, is a very big step in the right direction to my mind. If we think we already clearly understand the characteristics of impermanence, suffering and so on or have attained high levels of insight, it is a lot harder to begin to understand namas and rupas and to see how little is really known. > This allows one to make the analysis of anatta, anicca and dukkha, but > without > positing absolute objects, which I think must be a form of reification > of the > momentary experience which is always delivered through a > perceptual-conceptual > apparatus, never 'in itself' in some 'actual' form, except the form of > 'mind' or > 'consciousness'. Hmm....We can talk about or analyse the 3 characteristics above, but I think it’s meaningless unless we discuss what they are characteristics of: i.e paramattha dhammas or namas and rupas. This may even be one of Victor’s points. We can discuss the characteristics of seeing or visible object, for example, but not of concepts such as walking or balloons. Again, it’s true that if we ‘analyse’ seeing or visible object now, that it is a concept and the ‘perceptual-conceptual apparatus’ is at work as ‘we’ think. It may be with right understanding or with wrong understanding and reification. The aim is not to stop thinking, which is conditioned like all other realities, but again to understand its nature directly as it occurs. Maybe that’s enough for Stage One...time for refreshment;-) I’ll come back a little later to continue. Thanks for the chance. Please chip in anytime as I have no idea when or if I'll finish the complete marathon. You'll also notice I cheated a little at the beginning and took a short-cut;-) Sarah ====================================================== 11046 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Jan 29, 2002 11:59pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concepts/Kom Dear Howard & Victor, Howard, thanks for your helpful explanation of the expressions. > -----Original Message----- > Running the risk of being disagreeable, I would like to say that it is not > the wisdom that clearly and directly sees the separation and the > distinction > between nama and rupa as dhammas, but one sees clearly and directly the > separation and the distinction between nama and rupa with/through wisdom. > Wisdom of what? Wisdom of seeing thing/phenomenon as it actually is: > "This > is impermanent. This is unsatisfactory. This is not oneself." Until one reaches the third stage of Vipassana nana, sammasana nana, then it is impossible that there is a direct insight of impermanence and unsatisfactoriness of all dhammas. This is why it is important to know the different levels of Vipassana nana, so that we don't mistake thinking about impermanence, unsatifsactorieness, and anattaness, as direct insight. It is important to know what are objects of Satipatthana (realities, and not concepts), what conditions Satipatthana to arise, and what aspect of realities the different levels of panna penetrates. This is so that we don't mistake what is not to be what is. If miccha-vimutti (wrong release, for people who mistake that they have reached nibbana) is possible, then micha-patipati (wrong practice), and misunderstandings of the dhammas are possible. kom 11047 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 0:02am Subject: Re: ayatanas --- Good question Kom. It doesn't say as far as I can tell . I am pretty hopeless when it comes to ayatana. Perhaps nina will know the meaning here. (And maybe jon will see that it is good to know the letter(in this case number) as well as the meaning.:)) robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., "tikmok" wrote: > Dear Robert, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: robertkirkpatrick.rm [mailto:robertkirkpatrick@r...] > > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 7:12 PM > > To: dhammastudygroup@y... > > Subject: [dsg] Re: ayatanas > > > > > > --- > > > > Dear Nina, > > Thanks for this quote from the meeting, which is what Khun Sujin also > > said to me in Bangkok. I see that only the arrest bhavanga citta is > > the mind-door. However, aren't the other bhavanga cittas also > > ayatana - albeit not doors(dvara)? Dispeller of delusion 226 p.56 > > says that the "mindbase is of 81kinds according to its classification > > into profitable, unprofitable, resultant and functional > > consciousness." > > 81 kinds? What does Dispeler of delusion say about the other 8? > > Thanks. > > kom 11048 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 0:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Papanca? Dear Christine, You raised some useful points and it’s always helpful to talk about our daily life experiences;-) .> I ask this question in the spirit of regarding everything that > happens in our daily lives as 'grist for the mill' of Dhamma study. > > Recently I felt I may have offended a friend and apologised. The > friend hadn't been offended, but wondered if my apology may have > arisen by receiving a wrong impression from something he had said in > an unskilfull manner. One or two other friends felt something THEY > may have said could also have contributed to me being offended. I > was amazed as I was NOT offended and saw nothing to be offended > about. I thought I was the perpetrator not the victim. :-) And so > did each person. ********** You asked later about whether these were ‘papanca’ (proliferations) and I like your analogy of the ‘runaway train’ at the end. I think these points are also relevant to Herman’s ‘cut the thinking’ approach and comments. ********** Rob K wrote a really detailed and very helpful post on papanca : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/523 in which he discusses the 3 kinds of papanca, i.e tanha (attachment), ditthi (wrong view) and mana (conceit). ********** I think that when we are lost in our stories, there is bound to be plenty of attachment and possibly wrong view and conceit. It just depends, I think. Sometimes when we read about the danger of papanca in the texts, we think this means we should think less. Really, I think it’s more a question of understanding the danger of tanha, ditthi and mana at these times as at other times. Certainly when we’re lost in the stories, the thinking is bound to be unskilful without any awareness of the thinking. However, this doesn’t mean that all thinking about concepts must be unskilful. If there is thinking with consideration or kindness for others now, or wise reflection on the dhamma, the thinking is still contemplating concepts, but it is useful and helpful reflection. At moments of samatha development, for example, the object is invariably a concept. So ‘non-complication’ as we often read in Suttas (as quoted below from Rob’s post) refers to skilful cittas which are not accompanied by tanha, mana or ditthi, rather than to a lack of thinking: ”In the Anguttara Nikaya VIII.30 Anuruddha Sutta One of the suttas that Theresa emailed, in one sentence the Buddha told Anuruddha “This Dhamma is for one who enjoys non-complication, who delights in non-complication, not for one who enjoys & delights in complication.” ********** In another post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/2064 Rob K discussed the use of mannana (conceiving or distortional thinking) as explained in the commentary to the Mulapariyaya Sutta as a synonym for papanca. He quotes from B.Bodhi’s commentary notes and the connections with vipallassa (perversions) which those discussing that thread may also like to rconsider. These are fairly intricate areas and not an order or list to check off as Frank and Nina have rightly pointed out.. ********** In another useful post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/2292 Rob points under that “Animals don't think in complicated ways but they have a full dose of papanca” because of the accumulated tanha, ditthi and mana. i like the way he ends this post with the following quote: “ In the 'Majjhima nikaya' I (no. 43, Mahavedallasutta) that Kotthita asked Sariputta: "'But what is intuitive wisdom for, your reverence?' 'Your reverence, intuitive wisdom is for super-knowledge, for apprehending, for getting rid of.' 'But how many conditions are there, your reverence, for bringing right understanding into existence?' 'There are two conditions, your reverence, for bringing right understanding into existence: the utterance of another (person) and wise attention. Your reverence, there are the two conditions for bringing wise attention into existence.'" The other person is the Buddha or his disciples, by listening carefully to the right person, by considering and applying what we have heard are the conditions for right understanding built up. It is a slow process but I can't see a faster way. “ ********** Mike also adds a helpful quote on proliferations: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/2689 with an “unusual emphasis on papañca and its place in paticcasamuppada.” As we’re also discussing the paticca and tanha and other kilesa arising on account of feelings, I’d like to requote it here as well: "If, monk, with regard to the cause whereby the perceptions & categories of complication [papañca] assail a person, there is nothing there to relish, welcome, or remain fastened to, then that is the end of the underlying tendencies to passion, to irritation, to views, to uncertainty, to conceit, to passion for becoming, & to ignorance. That is the end of taking up rods & bladed weapons, of arguments, quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive tale-bearing, & false speech. That is where these evil, unskillful things cease without remainder." That is what the Blessed One said. Having said it, the One Well-gone got up from his seat and went into his dwelling." Majjhima Nikaya 18 Madhupindika Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn18.html ********** In another post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/8875 I made the comment that we should remember there’s a very big difference between understanding the danger of the papanca (usually with wrong view) “and realizing that the Teachings are very profound and intricate and that the development of understanding is not a simple matter at all” as discussed in many suttas quoted here like: Samyutta Nikaya XX.7 Ani Sutta The Peg ********** Finally, Jon comments: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/9070 “ As I understand it, when impressions are received through the sense-doors there will inevitably be paying attention with kilesa to the ‘sign’ (shape-and-form/nimitta) and ‘particulars’ (details/anubya~njana) of those sense-impressions. It seems to mean the absence of the guarding of the sense-doors.” If there weren’t these kinds of unskilful ‘paying attention’, and there were the ‘guarding of the sense-doors’ there would be no proliferations. “Visudhimagga I, 42, 54 At I, 42, a discussion of ‘Virtue as restraint of sense faculties’: <<‘On seeing a visible object with the eye, he apprehends *neither the signs nor the particulars* through which, if he left the eye faculty unguarded, evil and unprofitable states of covetousness and grief might invade him, he enters upon the way of its restraint, he guards the eye faculty, he undertakes the restraint of the eye faculty. … [and so on for the other sense doors] …’ (M.i, 180) [This] is virtue of restraint of the sense faculties.>>” ********** So again we see the inter-relatedness, I think, between the sense doors and experiences, the unskilful mental states and the value of awareness and insight. I started off intending to add more details and references that I checked, but when I re-read these posts which I’ve just briefly mentioned, I found they already include a wealth of information. I hope you, Rob K or anyone else will follow up if you have anything further to add or comment on. with thanks for encouraging me to consider more, Sarah ====================================================== 11049 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 0:30am Subject: Winnie the Pooh (was Re: samma samadhi) Dear Herman, It was almost a compulsion to continue, and I only managed to resist because of a fear of offending the rest of the List with tasteless humour. However, you need to know that I often work in the Paediatric Ward and I have an arsenal of Pooh jokes up my sleeve to deal with sophisticated eight year olds. I could have, as a parting gift (or is it a Parthian Shot?), offered a small sample of these but chose instead to 'bear' the disappointment, abandoning the debate and relinquishing the field to you. Loved your post! metta, Christine Q. What do you get if you cross Winnie the Pooh with a donkey? A. Dhiarr-Eeyore! --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "egberdina" wrote: > Dear Christine, > > I hope I am not labouring the point here, but the following is my > brief description of the extent of a fictitious Winnie the Pooh's > ability to control his bowel movements. And certainly, choice is a > good word to use. > > Winnie the Pooh is able to: > > 1 Defer for a variable but limited time the moment of his evacuation > 2 Because of 1 above he is able to pick, to an extent, the location > where this event will take place, and which commentary he will take > with him to read. > 3 Because Winnie is able to control, to a certain extent, which foods > and liquids he ingests, he is able to control, to a certain extent, > the consistency and quantity of what comes out. > > Nonetheless, Pooh must poo and this is his samsaric suffering. > > I feel there is a bit of a parallel with the Dhamma here. We have > some control over what we occupy our minds with. And you can > guarantee that what we take in will come out again. > > And as anyone who has ever fasted for a prolonged period of time > will know, when you ingest nothing, after a while nothing comes out! > > I loved your link! > > All the best > > Herman > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Dear Herman, > > > > You said - > > Herman: "I see no reason why people should feel as though they must > > reject on some a priori basis the very small amount of control they > > can and do exert in their life. > > After all Ken O went to the toilet , and didn't do it in his pants. > > The fact that Ken O choose to go to the toilet is not without > > consequences, and had he chosen to do it in his pants that would > have > > had it's own consequences as well." > > > > CJF: I take your point that there is a limited amount of control > > within daily life. I prefer to call it choice, but KenO didn't > > choose to 'go', he only had a choice of venue (thank goodness!) - > not > > of whether or not the action would proceed, so to speak.... > > [apologies to KenO - this is just the consequences of > posting 'that' > > post originally] > > > > Herman: "I do not have any links for any of the above, nor for the > > state of bliss :-)" > > > > CJF: http://www.egberdina.com/herman.au is a good enough reference > > for me. :-) > > > > Cheers, > > Christine > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "egberdina" wrote: > > > Dear Christine, > > > > > > I hope I am replying to the right post :-) I've had some > difficulty > > > getting my posts through recently, as well. > > > > > > I do not believe that the notion of control and cause and effect > > are > > > mutually exclusive at all. I guess they would be if either were > > used > > > in some absolute sense. Such usage tends to occur in religious > > > circles. I see no reason why people should feel as though they > must > > > reject on some a priori basis the very small amount of control > they > > > can and do exert in their life. > > > > > > After all Ken O went to the toilet , and didn't do it in his > pants. > > > The fact that Ken O choose to go to the toilet is not without > > > consequences, and had he chosen to do it in his pants that would > > have > > > had it's own consequences as well. > > > > > > To point to the inevitable demise of the body as proof absolute > > that > > > there is no control possible at all is a very extreme position. > On > > > the other hand, to say that all things happen because of > conditions > > > is to say precisely nothing at all. The same goes for the often > > used > > > references to accumulations. > > > > > > Life is like a Rorhschach blot, there is no causal nexus between > > what > > > goes on and how you respond to it. Nonetheless, things go on, and > > > being a spectator is just not possible. > > > > > > I do not have any links for any of the above, nor for the state > of > > > bliss :-) > > > > > > > > > All the best > > > > > > Herman 11050 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 0:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Winnie the Pooh (was Re: samma samadhi) Dear Chris and Herman, No wonder Yahoo has been playing tricks and delaying posts from Down Under;-) I reckon you're a good match for each other when it comes to Pooh Dhamma S p.s Where's the samma samadhi and bliss I'm wondering? --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Herman, > > It was almost a compulsion to continue, and I only managed to > resist because of a fear of offending the rest of the List with > tasteless humour. However, you need to know that I often work in the > Paediatric Ward and I have an arsenal of Pooh jokes up my sleeve to > deal with sophisticated eight year olds. I could have, as a parting > gift (or is it a Parthian Shot?), offered a small sample of these > but chose instead to 'bear' the disappointment, abandoning the debate > and relinquishing the field to you. Loved your post! > > metta, > Christine > Q. What do you get if you cross Winnie the Pooh with a donkey? > A. Dhiarr-Eeyore! 11051 From: Victor Yu Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 2:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts/Kom Hello Kom, Thank you for sharing your views with us. Regards, Victor > Until one reaches the third stage of Vipassana nana, > sammasana nana, then it is impossible that there is a direct > insight of impermanence and unsatisfactoriness of all > dhammas. This is why it is important to know the different > levels of Vipassana nana, so that we don't mistake thinking > about impermanence, unsatifsactorieness, and anattaness, as > direct insight. > > It is important to know what are objects of Satipatthana > (realities, and not concepts), what conditions Satipatthana > to arise, and what aspect of realities the different levels > of panna penetrates. This is so that we don't mistake what > is not to be what is. If miccha-vimutti (wrong release, for > people who mistake that they have reached nibbana) is > possible, then micha-patipati (wrong practice), and > misunderstandings of the dhammas are possible. > > kom 11052 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 2:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Stage Two ------------- Dear Rob Ep, You wrote: > In other words, all human experience in the world of > objects > outside of mind is inherently defiled, irredeemably and irrevocably > defiled, > because any experience that comes through the human body and mind, the > individuated self which is identified with the body and senses, can > never get a > pure result that is somehow not the product of that equipment. As I mentioned in Stage One, we talk about cittas (consciousness) and cetasikas (mental factors) being defiled, but not rupas or ‘objects outside of mind’. Wrong view of an ‘individuated self which is..’ is also of course an akusala cetasika (unwholesome or defiled mental factor) which, as you suggest, will never lead to a ‘pure result’. . >But, to > be able to > see namas as what they are, and to be able to see rupas as the product > of the > namas that capture and portray them -- well, that would be seeing > directly the > exact product that the > *mind* creates in a human being. Just a sec....I’d rather refer to rupas as the objects or physical phenomena experienced (not products) of the namas. Of course, namas can also be the object of other namas too. And then I’m a little lost in what you say.... >And that would be coming in for a > landing in the > human reality. ? >But to see rupas as somehow independent outside of the > human act > of perception, sets up an ideal world beyond what our senses and minds > are > actually capable of discerning. I’m lost with the ‘ideal world’ too. If we talk about visible object, or sound or hardness (all rupas) as objects of experience by seeing, hearing, body consciousness or mind and their connected mental factors, I’m not sure why these would be considered as ‘independent outside...’ or any different from what is being experienced now, mostly with ignorance. >Any time we presume a real objective > world beyond > the mind's processes, we have lost the thread of reality, in my opinion. ? > That is > why I put my 'absolute reality' in a realm that is not part of the human > scene, > something that can only happen by mind regarding the properties at the > root of > mind itself. Maybe, but when we read about paramattha dhammas, they refer to the very real or actual phenomena which can be known and understood right now, very much part of the ‘human scene’. >As long as mind is focussed on its objects as if they > existed beyond > the mind, mind is still dealing with an illusion. In that case, it is > not an > illusion of a real self, it is an illusion of a real 'other'. ? > Again, if we see 'hardness' as a nama, I think we're on the right >rack: I think we’re on the wrong track here;-) > discernment of the mental product we perceive as 'hardness'. If we look > at it as > 'actual hardness directly apprehended' - a rupa that is really there - > we cloud > the role of mind in creating this impression and posit a reality beyond > the > senses. I have a feeling that is a mistake which leads to the > presumption of a > whole realm of illusion, a world of real objects which we presume but > can never > really know directly. Rob, I’m stumbling here quite a bit..... The rupas are very apparent and real and can be known directly at any moment. I don’t know whether we can say they are beyond the senses or not. Just now, regardless of whether there is any awareness, as soon as we open our eyes, seeing (nama) sees an object which thinking may think about and conjure up all kinds of stories. If we have the idea that these realities cannot be known or that it’s a matter of thinking and thinking, perhaps they won’t be known. R:>And your next statement points to this problem: > S:>> Of course, regardless > > of whether we kick the rock or not, there are rupas over there which >> make > > up what is called rock. > R:> Are there rupas 'over there'? How could we ever possibly know that, > except by > deduction and faith? I can't see that as a direct experience, except as > a direct > experience of mind's product: a nama. But rupas 'out there'? What > happens to > the mind when one takes away that presupposition. What do we really > really > experience as being 'out there' if we don't presume there is a world of > real > objects beyond our ability to apprehend? So we are not concerned and the Buddha’s path is not concerned with what is out there. All that is of importance is what can be directly known and understood by panna (wisdom) at this moment. We may make other inferences about others’ experience or about the rupas which make up a rock, but the reality to be known at these times is thinking. So we may even agree here;-) > However, without the experiencing of hardness, > > visible object and thinking, there is no experience of ‘rock’. > > And that may in fact be all there is of 'rock'. In common sense > thinking, of > course we presume that 'rock' is a real object. And we can bank on it > behaving > that way, since we are coordinated with that presumption of reality. > But as > Buddhists, we have to question where our reality really lives. Does it > really > live 'out there' somewhere, while we catch a glimpse of 'hardness' or > 'softness', > or are these impressions all we know for sure? > > I know it sounds solipsistic, but I want to try to be rigorous about > what we > really know and don't know. Good...I’m following a lot more easily here. In truth all that is ‘real’ when we look at the rock, are the seeing, visible object, touching and hardness (if touched) and lots of thinking with sanna (perception)and other mental factors. As I’ve been stumbling and going in circles on this stage (lack of training??), I think I’ll drop out here. If there are any particular points or questions from the rest of your post you’d like me (or anyone else) to comment on, perhaps you could repost them. Any Tipitaka support other than the famous (now infamous) Luminous Sutta would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Sarah ====================================================== 11053 From: anders_honore Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 3:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] one limb of 8 fold path more important --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > --- anders_honore wrote: > > That is only "partial" emptiness. You are still labeling the experience as being > > 'core-less'. As long as you're perceiving anything as being 'something', it's > > still not seeing emptiness. > > > > But even that labeling is emptiness.... > > Anders, > I think there's a danger of cofusing emptiness with nothingness. Yes, that is why emptiness can be so hard to fathom. It's 'no- thingness'is often confused with nothingess. To see things as > 'not being anything' I'd rephrase and say: To not see things as anything. To see things as 'not being anything' still involves a negation. The true experience of emptienss is the absence of the extrapolating mind. > is to perhaps deny their arising and see them as 'nothing', a > denial of phenomena. Yes, there is certainly a danger in seeing emptiness in contrast to phenomena. > To see phenomena as coreless sees that they both are and are > not: they arise as seeming objects, but at the same time have no defineable > reality. It does deny the apparency, but it does refrain from giving it a > definition that would allow it to be seen as solid, or real. But at the same time > it also refrains from saying they are nonexistent, and thus avoids falling into > the urge to annihilate samsara. I am not saying to avoid it. Indeed, I will say that such a perception is extremely skilful. But it is perception nonetheless, and thus only 'partial emptiness'. 11054 From: anders_honore Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 3:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] luminous mind- Anders --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > --- anders_honore wrote: > > > I'll make a mental note of it. But I don't really have much time to read > > the Tipitaka right now. > > When I've been really busy with work I've gone long spells with very > little Tipitaka reading, but it doesn't mean there isn't considering, > reflecting and devoloping of insight at these times;-) On the contrary. I've found that these qualities are often developed considerably more, when not devoting time to the scriptures. Such as these days. > I have to say I'd heard a rumour about a trip to Asia;-) Well, somebody is squealing around here ;-) > Sounds like it > should be a really great experience and i'm sure everyone will be > interested to follow you around if you have the chance to dive into the > odd internet cafe (plenty in bodh Gaya;-)) . Anders, Jaran and Ken O will > be glad to meet up with you in Singapore I know I'll be more than happy to. >and perhaps we can > persuade you to make the short hop to Bkk to meet another gang..if we're > around, we'd love to join you or encourage you to visit Hong Kong though I > have to say it's too hot for hiking then;-) well, it all depends on what will happen after Singapore. It may be New Zeland, it may be Thailand. I am not sure yet. > > In my experience, concepts are fundamentally rooted in delusion. > > I would put it a little differently; all unskilful cittas (moments of > consciousness) are rooted in moha (delusion), 'unskilful', in this relative context, must then be defined as 'cittas not leading to the cessation of suffering'. I agree, all such cittas are rooted in delusion. > some also rooted in lobha > (attachment) or dosa (aversion) as well. Inevitably, there is attachment during such moment. I'd throw in some desire as well to go with the clinging, and dependent on the circumstances, some aversion might arise as a consequence of that desire. > Now we cannot say concepts are > rooted in anything because they are not realities. True, the images created by the concepts are not reality, but that does not mean to mnegate the existence of the concepts themselves. It