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 is exactly becausr they are not realities, that they are roted in delusion. They are misguiding. > Thinking, on the other > hand, which thinks unskilfully, such as the thinking which thinks concepts > are realities, is of course rooted in delusion. And a whole lot of skilful thinking is rooted in delusion as well. But such is the nature of expedient means. Poison to kill poison. 11055 From: egberdina Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 3:58am Subject: Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Dear Sarah, Robert et al, Just when you thought you were going to take a break on this :-) I believe some of the confusion that arises from the rupa / nama division is caused by the way the process of cognition is described. It is said that visible object impinges on the eye sense and seeing nama arises to know the object. The problem with this statement is that the cart is before the horse. The object does not become visible object until after it has been seen. Before it is seen (nama) it is not visible object, just object, and unknown at that, but there nonetheless. The objects that are discerned through the five sense doors impinge on all sense doors alike, and everything else within reach as well. Some rupas impinge meaningfully on more than one sense base and cause namas of more than one type. Sound, for example, can be heard but is also palpable as body sense. This way a deaf man is capable of tuning a musical instrument, based on the vibrations felt in the body. Sound can be felt. Do we identify two rupas in this case or one? Taste and smell are also deeply intertwined. What is the difference between a visible object rupa and a visible object arammana All the best Herman 11056 From: rikpa21 Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 4:00am Subject: Re: one limb of 8 fold path more important --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "anders_honore" wrote: > --- 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. Just to share once again one of my favorite commentaries on emptiness, Professor Richard Hayes's unpacking of Nagarjuna, from the original Sanskrit> And hey, it also deals with prapanca and getting rid of all views and presuppositions! See: http://www.geocities.com/jiji_muge/mmk.html 11057 From: anders_honore Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 4:01am Subject: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas -ANDERS --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > > > ********** > 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. Yes. And then there is the element of Nibbana, which is what people seem to be debating hotly here (whether it is a pure awareness or what). The main point of difference, imo, is whether the experience of Nibbana continues after Parinibbana or not. Since none of us have experienced parinibbana, I'll sign myself out the debate. .-) > 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 I read a sutta just last night, where the Buddha refuted an annihilationist view, consisting of just the cessation of a living being upon Parinnibbana. Not the cessation of self, but the cessation of a living being (which must be defined as the khandas, I'd reckon), and that is all there is to it. It seems the Buddha disagrees with that one, though I don't know if that negates your view of things too. 11058 From: egberdina Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 4:20am Subject: [dsg] Re: llumination of Anders face Dear Anders, I am pretty sure I cannot progress further on the path until you have posted a photo to this site. Please, do it, if only for my sake :-) Skol Herman 11059 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 5:07am Subject: List bulletin Dear Fellow DSG Members Some announcements and reminders-- 1/. Back-up archives at eScribe now 'open' As you know, all posts are backed-up to an archive site called eScribe. You can now access this site without having to provide a password (this is in line with the recent changes that made the dsg list-messages open to the public) http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup 2/. Advertisements on Yahoo Groups website The ads at the website have recently become much more intrusive. If you are bothered by this, we suggest you set the 'Delivery' option to receive individual emails or daily digests to your email account. Another option would be to view the messages at the eScribe archives (although it's not possible to post from the eScribe archives) 3/. Viewing the Photos, Files of Bookmarks pages To view these pages you need to be both subscribed to dsg and registered with Yahoo Groups. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup 4/. Posting messages Just a couple of requests/pointers for postings to the list— - Readers like to see a name at the end of a post, and preferably at the start too, (even if it's just 'All') - When replying to or quoting from a post, please indicate whose post it was and trim any non-relevant parts. - If giving a non-contextual reply to a post, put your comments before, rather than after, the other post if possible (this means the reader doesn't have to scroll to the bottom to see our message) 5/. Guidelines Please check the Guidelines from time to time, as they occasionally get updated. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/DSG_Guidelines Jon & Sarah p.s. Any comments or queries on these or other moderator issues off-list, please. 11060 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Control/No control (was, Re: samma samadhi) Herman --- 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:- ). And I think your objection would be upheld :- ((. Should've known better than to try it with you, Herman. >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. An interesting re-telling of the Buddha's quest for enlightenment. (Think I prefer the sutta version, though ;- )) . ) > 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? But are you saying that there is no such thing as incontinence? And if there is such a thing, then how many exceptions to a general rule are needed for it to be disproved? Must run (nature calls) Jon 11061 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 7:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Panna (was, Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical?) --- Victor Yu wrote: > 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. Dear Victor, I understand your view. If a 'consciousness' or 'mental factor' such as panna had a view of itself, it would indeed be positing itself as a 'self' or 'entity' rather than as just the function which it performs. However, I would like to ask you: Isn't it possible for panna to know *it's own object*, which is *not* itself, without positioning itself as a 'self'? Can not panna know the characteristics of *another* object other than itself, without positing itself as anything at all? Panna looks into the contents of consciousness and the 'world'. In my understanding it does not look at itself. Therefore there is no problem with regarding itself as an entity or being or self. Panna looks at any other object that it encounters as partaking of anatta, anicca and dukkha. But why should it be called upon to look at its own attributes, since it itself does not exist as a thing? I'll be interested in your response. Best, Robert Ep. ======= 11062 From: Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 4:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ayatanas Dear Kom, Rob K, Nina and everyone, I am following the thread. Hmm, it's flavor-rich food for thinking. I am not really clear of the differences between ayatana, dhatu and dvara either. Hope you guys do not mind I thinking out loud. Manayatana and manodvara do not always mean the same thing : As in aspect of vithi-citta and vithi-mutta-citta, manodvara means bhavanga -cupatcheta (any of the 19 possible vipakka-citta). I think the reason it called a door is b/c it's the last citta before mano-dvara-vitthi starts (hmm, in pancha-dvara, it's a pasadarupa) As in aspect of ayatana, manayatana is not equal to manodvara. If you let me guess 81 citta are comprised of 79 citta (excluding 10 pancha-vinnana) plus 2 abhinna-citta (kusala and kiriya) = 81. I don't know, personally, I think all 89 citta should be included in manayatana. But some books mention that Dhammaayatana consists of 16 sukuma-rupa, 52 cetasika and nibbhana [I think pannatti should be included here as well] ( not including 7 visayarupa and 5 pasada). The other 12 gross rupa are in other 10 ayatana, so I do not know where to put the 10 pancha-vinnana. I do not have Dispeller of Delusion (I need a lot of dispeller :) ). From the Book of Analysis (Vibhaga), PTS 1969 by Ven. Sayadaw U Thittila, p. 91 ________________________________ 161. Therein what is mind base [manayatana]? Mind base as way of singlefold division: Is associated with contact. Mind base as way of twofold division: Is accompanied by root; is not accompanied by root. ………… Mind base as way of sixfold division: Eye consciousness; ear consciousness; nose consciousness; tongue consciousness; body consciousness; mind consciousness. Thus is mind base by the way of sixfold division. Mind base as way of sevenfold division: Eye consciousness; ear consciousness; nose consciousness; tongue consciousness; body consciousness; mind element; mind-conscious-element. Thus is mind base by the way of sevenfold division. ……………. _______________________________ So, according to the paragraph, my understanding is, the 10 panchavinnana are included in mind base (manayatana). 18 Dhatu is a different story, I feel like it's pretty concise of what it refers to. I tried to look up the definition of ayata. There are couple of different meaning. 1) Summary of Paramatthadhamma, A.Sujin: "Ayatana is the realities of paramattha-dhamma that meet when citta arise to know arammana for an instant. They can be categorized as 6 internal ayatana and 6 external ayatana. " 2) Abhidhmmattha-sagaha,by Narada Thera, 40. ayatana means a field, sphere, basis. 41.Cakkhayatana means the sensitive part of the eye which responds to visual stimuli. The four remaining sense-organs should be similarly understood. 42. Manayatana - There is no special organ for the mind like the physical organs. By mind-sphere is meant the 'adverting consciousness' (manodvaravajjana) together with the preceding 'arrest bhavanga' (bhavangupaccheda). See Chapter 1. 3) as I mention in the post from my Thai Abhidhmmattha-sagaha : Dhammaayatana consists of 16 sukuma-rupa, 52 cetasika and nibbhana. Thanks for learning and thought provoking post. I enjoy being a member of dsg. A lot more to learn. Looking forward to more discussion. Appreciate. Num __________________________________________ > The > > ayatanas are still an aspect of the teachings that are not clear to > > me. In fact, I rely on you to clarify. > > In the Salayatanavagga - 23(1) it says that 'the all' comprises the > > ayatanas and I had always assumed that ayatanas is another way of > > classifying all namas and rupas - (like the khandas and dhatus).. The > > commentary (SPK) to this says that by 'all' is meant ayatanasabha and > > bodhi's note p1399 says that this means all phenomena of the four > > planes. Bodhi p1400 says that "The six types of consciousness are > > included in the mind base (manayatana). Mind(mano), as a separate > > factor, the supporting condition for mind-consciousness, then becomes > > narrower in scope than the mind base;according to the commentary > > sysetm it denotes the bhavangacitta..Mind consciousness itself > > according to SPK comprises the mind-door adverting consciousness > > (maodvaravajjanacitta) and the javanas." > > It would be nice if we could have the complete translation of this > > section of the commentary. > > > > In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > When > > we were > >> sitting near the Bodhi tree she said that we should know when and > > where > >> there are ayatanas. > >> They are an association of different realities such as eyebase, > > visible > >> object and seeing. We should not just learn the term ayatana but > > know that > >> there are ayatanas now. What do you think of the bhavanga citta > > (life > >> continuum)? Since this does not know an object that impinges on one > > of the > >> six doors, I am inclined to think that there are at the moment of > >> bhavangacitta no ayatanas. > > Dear Robert, > There is more on the ayatanas in Vis. p. 547 and Dispeller I, p. 55 and here > it is said : but only the part of the mind base (manayatana) called bhavanga > is the door of arising... The last bhavanga-citta (arrest bhavanga) before > the mind-door process begins is the mind-door. > It is important to ask ourselves, when are there the ayatanas. I read a > report (sarup) of the Foundation Meeting in Bgk on the ayatanas. It states > that cakkhayatana is the doorway of all the cittas arising in the process of > seeing-consciousness and that visible object, rupayatana is their object. > Some people think that there is only cakkhayatana when there is > cakkuvi~n~nana, visual consciousness, but this is not so. > > < This means that the eyesense (the pasada rupa) at those moments is the > eyedoor and the cakkhayatana of each moment of citta of the eye-door > process. And evenso is visible object rupayatana at each moment of citta of > the eye-door process. Because the eyesense and the visible object are > sabhava dhammas that have not fallen away, and they are associating or > concurring at each moment of citta of the eye-door process.> end quote. > I find that it is clearer now that ayatanas are daily life, not theory. They > are here and now. When we just read the classification of the six types of > consciousness included in the mind-base, where are the processes? > This is all for today, but, of course there is a lot more to it. > > 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? 11063 From: michael newton Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] List bulletin Hello!Sarah; This is Michael again,I'm living in the Small town of Garberville, Northern California.It's very rural here,We have a small dharma study group here where there are Zen,Theravada,and Tibetan style practice here.So,I was wrong in my understanding,and your not going to India after all.Think,I'll send Nina a email too.YOUR IN DHAMMA,MICHAEL 11064 From: michael newton Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ayatanas Hello!Nina; This is Michael Newton,and I live in Northern California near the Oregon border.I met you and Khun Sujin way back in 1976 in Sri Lanka. I was a monk then(rev.Alokananda)I know Ven.Dhammadaro too.Sorry to hear that he has passed away.Been in touch with Sarah.Saw some photos on the group yahoo page of Sujin,Sarah,and a picture of you and your husband in Sarnath.Hope you get this.YOURS IN DHAMMA,MICHAEL >From: Nina van Gorkom >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: >Subject: [dsg] ayatanas >Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 19:08:11 +0100 > >Dear Rob K, you said that A. Sujin spoke about the ayatanas (the bases on >which the processes of cittas depend), and what did she say? When we were >sitting near the Bodhi tree she said that we should know when and where >there are ayatanas. >They are an association of different realities such as eyebase, visible >object and seeing. We should not just learn the term ayatana but know that >there are ayatanas now. What do you think of the bhavanga citta (life >continuum)? Since this does not know an object that impinges on one of the >six doors, I am inclined to think that there are at the moment of >bhavangacitta no ayatanas. >Best wishes, Nina. 11065 From: egberdina Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 3:07pm Subject: [dsg] Control/No control (was, Re: samma samadhi) Dear Jon, If you are saying that the fact that incontinence does occur is proof that control is not possible at all, I would have to disagree. The voluntary nervous system places numerous bodily and mental functions under volitional control. That the level of voluntary control that can be exercised varies amongst the population in general is not in doubt. The statement that control is not possible at all is. You have a wicked sense of humour, though :-) All the best Herman -- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Herman > > --- 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:- ). > > And I think your objection would be upheld :- ((. Should've known better > than to try it with you, Herman. > > >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. > > An interesting re-telling of the Buddha's quest for enlightenment. (Think > I prefer the sutta version, though ;- )) . ) > > > 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? > > But are you saying that there is no such thing as incontinence? And if > there is such a thing, then how many exceptions to a general rule are > needed for it to be disproved? > > Must run (nature calls) > > Jon 11066 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 5:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ayatanas Rob --- "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > --- > 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. Thanks for bringing up this area, which I am likewise very fuzzy on. > (And maybe jon will see that it is good to know the letter(in > this case number) as well as the meaning.:)) Yes, then i could have picked up the anomaly myself ;-). But luckily for me (and everyone) there are the likes of you and Kom around to keep us properly informed and on-track abhidhammically. Jon 11067 From: binh_anson Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 9:26pm Subject: Bravo! Re: List bulletin --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah and Jonothan Abbott wrote: > 1/. Back-up archives at eScribe now 'open' > As you know, all posts are backed-up to an archive > site called eScribe. You can now access this site > without having to provide a password (this is in line > with the recent changes that made the dsg > list-messages open to the public) > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup > 2/. Advertisements on Yahoo Groups website > The ads at the website have recently become much more > intrusive. --------------------------------------------------- BA: Well done, Sarah! Thanks. For a silent lurker like me, who only reads messages from time to time at the website's archive, recent advertisements by Yahoo-groups are a real pain, an un-necessary dukkha! Metta, Binh PS. Sorry that I could not meet DSG friends in Bangkkok earlier this month, although I did manage to speak to Khun Amara on the phone. However, our family really enjoyed visiting a number of forest monasteries in the North-East of Thailand. 11068 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 11:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] luminous mind- Anders Hi Anders. --- anders_honore wrote: A:> > > In my experience, concepts are fundamentally rooted in delusion. > > S:> > I would put it a little differently; all unskilful cittas (moments > of > > consciousness) are rooted in moha (delusion), > A:> '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. S:As we are getting specific here, akusala (unskilful) cittas are not the only ones NOT leading to the cessation of suffering. According to my understanding, vipaka (result of kamma) cittas and all kusala (skilful) cittas not acompanied by rt.understanding would also have to be included in this category. S:> > some also rooted in lobha > > (attachment) or dosa (aversion) as well. > A:> 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. S:Again, I’d like to nit-pick a little. I don’t think we can say ‘inevitably’ here. There are many, many moments in a day or even now when there are cittas (consciousness) rooted in moha (delusion) but not necessarily accompanied by attachment or aversion. On the other hand, whenever there is attachment or aversion, there is moha at these times. S:> > Now we cannot say concepts are > > rooted in anything because they are not realities. > A:> True, the images created by the concepts are not reality, but that > does not mean to negate the existence of the concepts themselves. It > is exactly because they are not realities, that they are rooted in > delusion. They are misguiding. S: Hmmmm....According to the Teachings (which is what we’re discussing I think;-), the images are not created by the concepts (pannatti) themselves, but by the thinking, perception and other realities. While concepts are experienced by the cittas which think, they have no existence in the sense that they have no sabhava (nature) or characteristics as realities do. It is the moha and ditthi which is misguiding as such, according to my understanding. You seem to suggest that all concepts (or all thinking of concepts in my terminology) is inherently unskilful. As I discussed with someone else yesterday (Rob Ep?), thinking can be very skilful. When there is metta, concept (person) is the object and yet, I’m sure we agree, it’s skilful. When we give, think wisely about the dhamma, abstain from harming an insect and so on, there are more skilful moments of thinking about concepts too. S:> > Thinking, on the other > > hand, which thinks unskilfully, such as the thinking which thinks > concepts > > are realities, is of course rooted in delusion. > A:> And a whole lot of skilful thinking is rooted in delusion as well. > But such is the nature of expedient means. Poison to kill poison. You are suggesting that kusala cittas (skilful consciousness) can be rooted in moha (delusion)??? I don’t think so. (Of course, we can say the latent tendency of moha is there until arahatship, however). Anders, I know you’re busy these days and also not a big fan (for now) of the Abhidhamma, but may I suggest these areas are all covered, for when you have time, in Nina’s ‘Abhidhamma in Daily Life’ to be found on Binh’s or Rob K’s websites at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/links If you have any Sutta references from the texts you recently received to suggest support for any of your comments I’ve questioned, they would be interesting to see too;-) Be sure to keep us all up-dated on your travel plans so we can try to meet up with you somewhere. (Of course, the photo will not only speed up our various paths as Herman commented, but also make it easier to recognise you;-) Sarah ====================================================== 11069 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 11:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samma samadhi --- egberdina wrote: > I do not have any links for any of the above, nor for the state of > bliss :-) Heh heh. That's pretty funny, Herman. Best, Robert 11070 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Jan 30, 2002 11:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Highest Bliss --- egberdina wrote: 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. Herman, You're very sharp lately. Ever think of taking this on the road? Robert 11071 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 1:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Papanca? Dear Sarah, and All, Thanks Sarah for your reply and the quotes and links you provide. Continuing to study them. But a few questions and comments to date......... You say: "I think it's more a question of understanding the danger of tanha, ditthi and mana." I wish someone had mentioned the word 'danger' when I first came to Buddhism. I seem to have heard the quick, sweet, simple version, and remember thinking how easy and comforting it was. Now, there appears to be so much more to it, to study and understand - not so easy, but much more comforting and real, somehow. I don't recall hearing the word 'papanca' before the last few weeks; proliferations had been mentioned, but not the teachings it pointed to. Tanha, ditthi and mana are often mentioned individually - but I was unaware of how sinister and well-disguised these "prolongers of samsara" are. In post 523, 'tanha' is said to come in and masquerade as 'sati' and that it may be useful to study its characteristics more. I wonder if there is a step before this? In order to study the characteristics of something, there has to be the ability to differentiate it from the swirl of feelings, thoughts, and incoming sensory impressions that engulf a person at every moment. One has to first be sure of the 'identity' of the intruder......... "We might start to see the difference between true sati and the manifold counterfeits that are actually tanha, a papanca, a prolonger of samasara. Also we might find out that when we thought we had sati often that this was merely mana, conceit – a papanca, a prolonger of samsara. AND we might begin to realize that when we had the idea that we could make sati arise by concentrating that this is an idea of control, of self. That it is ditthi, another papanca, prolonger of samsara." I also liked "We need to bear in mind that the purpose of study, the purpose of discussion is to help us better understand this moment." I wonder how can we ever be sure whether we have made any real progress? Couldn't constant questioning and doubt as to what is genuine lead to discouragement? always doubting? always suspecting we are fooling ourselves? The Buddha took "four uncalculably long periods plus one hundred thousand aeons" (one aeon is billions and billions of years) to become the Buddha. If this is an actual measure of the passing of time and not just an emphatic way of saying then Samsara seems horribly, wearyingly, endlessly, unbearably long........ Just my thoughts so far, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > 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). <<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>> 11072 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 3:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Papanca? --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" > I don't recall hearing the word 'papanca' before the last few weeks; > proliferations had been mentioned, but not the teachings it pointed > to. Tanha, ditthi and mana are often mentioned individually - but I > was unaware of how sinister and well-disguised these "prolongers of > samsara" are. > > In post 523, 'tanha' is said to come in and masquerade as 'sati' and > that it may be useful to study its characteristics more. I wonder if > there is a step before this? In order to study the characteristics > of something, there has to be the ability to differentiate it from > the swirl of feelings, thoughts, and incoming sensory impressions > that engulf a person at every moment. One has to first be sure of > the 'identity' of the intruder......... > ________ Dear Christine, I think what I find is that there is a little more understanding of tanha's tricks then before. Even now - just from considering the above statement - it means you are a little bit more alert. And that can grow. It doesn"t have to be the deep insight that clearly distinguishes tanha from other cetasikas or nama from rupa to help. Even a litle insight into its conditioned nature is worthwhile. > "We might start to see the difference between > true sati and the manifold counterfeits that are > actually tanha, a papanca, a prolonger of samasara. > Also we might find out that when we thought we had > sati often that this was merely mana, conceit – a > papanca, a prolonger of samsara. AND we might begin > to realize that when we had the idea that we could > make sati arise by concentrating that this is an idea > of control, of self. That it is ditthi, another > papanca, prolonger of samsara." > > I also liked "We need to bear in mind that the purpose of study, the > purpose of discussion is to help us better understand this moment." > > I wonder how can we ever be sure whether we have made any real > progress? Couldn't constant questioning and doubt as to what is > genuine lead to discouragement? always doubting? always suspecting > we are fooling ourselves? ____ When we are busy wondering whether we are making progress what is real at those moments? There are defilements and self, isn't there? And the only way out of this dilemma is to learn to study these moments as they arise - then they can be insighted as conditioned phenomena, as simply nama. Then the thinking just goes on but without attachment (or not so much) to it. I wrote most of that letter as a reminder to myself as I am an overestimator (adhimana) by nature. (I suspect you're an underestimator) > The Buddha took "four uncalculably long periods plus one hundred > thousand aeons" (one aeon is billions and billions of years) to > become the Buddha. If this is an actual measure of the passing of > time and not just an emphatic way of saying time> then Samsara seems horribly, wearyingly, endlessly, unbearably > long........ ________ Ohhh yeah. Samsara is a fearful thing. People react in several ways to this. 1. They ignore it. 2. They try to convince themselves that such teachings are metaphorical or were added in later times. 3. they get scared to death. 4. they realise that the only way out is to develop understanding, are grateful to know the danger, and become more and more interested in the moment. Personally I've tried the first three and they didn't do it for me. The 4th is the only way, and knowing about the beginningless samsara pushes one into the moment. Because a moment of seeing now is just like a moment of seeing last week and a moment last life and a moment one million lives ago. If there isn't some growth in understanding (and all types, whether theory or direct, help) then it will carry on like this and a zillion lives from now there will be seeing. And maybe in this future life we will again be thinking how long samsara is and wishing we were further along the path. All very natural to want something - it is conditioned. But insight does lead to less attachment to the idea of self. And wishing too should be an object. > > keep up the great work. kind regards robert 11073 From: fcckuan Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 7:31am Subject: 4 hallucinations/perversions Re: [dsg] Vipallasa's Hello! Anyone out there? I checked and indeed this message actually did get posted. I did some research on my own questions, and made a little progress (I'll share below). But I still need some hints from you guys on how the sanna (perception aggregate) works as memory. Scriptural references would help, although I'm guessing it's probably later stuff like Abidhamma and commentaries, since it would have made an impression on me if I read anything in Samyutta and Majjhima describing memory and perception. Surely someone here can help me out. Show me some love. I looked up subha, asubha, in reference to the 4th vipallasa (perversion), and it refers not to mundane right views/wrong views, but with the loathsomeness of the body (along the lines of contemplation of impurity). In other words, Purity means we should see this our body as loathsome. I'd like to hear what you guys think about this, and I'll describe my opinion in more detail later maybe, but in short, I don't think this 4th vipallasa belongs in the exalted company of the other 3. -fk --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "fcckuan" wrote: > 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 11074 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 10:01am Subject: ayatana, to Suan, Rob K. Num, Kom. Dear Suan, Robert K. and I were having a discussion on the ayatanas, and then Num and Kom joined in. As I understand the ayatanas, these come into play also now, when an object impinges on a doorway and citta arises experiencing that object. The three of them meet or associate. As I understand it, the bhavangacittas experience their own object, not through a doorway, they do not take part of this scenario. However, I like to be corrected if I am wrong. The bhavangupaccheda, arrest bhavanga is the doorway of the mind-door process cittas. Thus, in as far as it is a doorway, it takes part of the ayatanas, it is also manayatana. Now, when cittas are counted, we have a dilemma. In the Dispeller of Delusion, Ch 2, no. 226, it is said that the manayatana, mind-base is 81 kinds of cittas, whereas in the Vis.XV, 14, manayatana is said to be 89 or 121 kinds, thus all cittas. This can be a matter of different classifications. When we take into account the vipakacittas that can perform the function of bhavanga, should these not be reckoned only as those that are bhavangupaccheda, thus, mind-door, manayatana? In other words, is it right that this does not mean that there are ayatanas at all those moments when bhavangacittas arise in between processes? Moreover, we also have to take into account all the different kinds of vipaka that perform the function of tadalambana (for kamavacara cittas and in the sensuous planes only) and are thus experiencing an object through a doorway, manayatana. You have such a wealth of information from all those Myanmar dictionaries you were speaking about with Jim, but I do not want to burden you. There is no hurry at all with this dilemma. I find that when I know which cittas are manayatana I can better understand when and where there are ayatanas. With best wishes, from Nina. 11075 From: michael newton Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 10:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] ayatana, to Suan, Rob K. Num, Kom. Hi!Nina; Did you get my last message?I'm Michael from Northern California. YOUR IN DHAMMA WITH METTA,MICHAEL NEWTON(REV.ALOKANANDA) >From: Nina van Gorkom >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: >Subject: [dsg] ayatana, to Suan, Rob K. Num, Kom. >Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:01:17 +0100 > >Dear Suan, >Robert K. and I were having a discussion on the ayatanas, and then Num and >Kom joined in. As I understand the ayatanas, these come into play also now, >when an object impinges on a doorway and citta arises experiencing that >object. The three of them meet or associate. As I understand it, the >bhavangacittas experience their own object, not through a doorway, they do >not take part of this scenario. However, I like to be corrected if I am >wrong. The bhavangupaccheda, arrest bhavanga is the doorway of the >mind-door >process cittas. Thus, in as far as it is a doorway, it takes part of the >ayatanas, it is also manayatana. Now, when cittas are counted, we have a >dilemma. In the Dispeller of Delusion, Ch 2, no. 226, it is said that the >manayatana, mind-base is 81 kinds of cittas, whereas in the Vis.XV, 14, >manayatana is said to be 89 or 121 kinds, thus all cittas. This can be a >matter of different classifications. >When we take into account the vipakacittas that can perform the function of >bhavanga, should these not be reckoned only as those that are >bhavangupaccheda, thus, mind-door, manayatana? In other words, is it right >that this does not mean that there are ayatanas at all those moments when >bhavangacittas arise in between processes? >Moreover, we also have to take into account all the different kinds of >vipaka that perform the function of tadalambana (for kamavacara cittas and >in the sensuous planes only) and are thus experiencing an object through a >doorway, manayatana. >You have such a wealth of information from all those Myanmar dictionaries >you were speaking about with Jim, but I do not want to burden you. There is >no hurry at all with this dilemma. I find that when I know which cittas are >manayatana I can better understand when and where there are ayatanas. >With best wishes, from Nina. > > > 11076 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 0:29pm Subject: [dsg] Re: samma samadhi/KenO Hi Ken, Yes, I agree with what you say, and perhaps this is what Victor was pointing to when he said: <<<<>>>> Glad you're posting again, noticed your absence :) (So has David on D-L, if you would like to read post 27798 over there). metta, Christine--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > 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 > 11077 From: egberdina Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 2:55pm Subject: Re: The Highest Bliss Dear Robert, I may end up needing to (take it on the road). The company I work for is on the precipice , and leaning towards the abyss. The thing worth mentioning about this is that I am not loosing my "peace". Wishing you well, as always Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- egberdina wrote: > > 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. > > Herman, > You're very sharp lately. Ever think of taking this on the road? > > Robert > 11078 From: Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 10:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Highest Bliss Hi, Herman - In a message dated 1/31/02 5:57:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@d... writes: > Dear Robert, > > I may end up needing to (take it on the road). The company I work for > is on the precipice , and leaning towards the abyss. The thing worth > mentioning about this is that I am not loosing my "peace". > > Wishing you well, as always > > > Herman > =========================== Sorry to hear about this, but pleased with your maintaining equanimity. Might it be useful to you to mention to the group what you do and where you are located (approximately)? This would be in case some of us have any ideas or contacts? 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) 11079 From: Victor Yu Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 3:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Panna (was, Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical?) Hello Robert and all, I am afraid that I will not get into this discussion too much. To me, panna means wisdom or discernment. It is a quality that one can develop with morality and concentration. I don't see panna as something or someone that knows or understands. But that is just my view on panna. Regards, Victor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Epstein" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Panna (was, Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical?) > > --- Victor Yu wrote: > > 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. > > Dear Victor, > I understand your view. If a 'consciousness' or 'mental factor' such as panna had > a view of itself, it would indeed be positing itself as a 'self' or 'entity' > rather than as just the function which it performs. However, I would like to ask > you: Isn't it possible for panna to know *it's own object*, which is *not* > itself, without positioning itself as a 'self'? Can not panna know the > characteristics > of *another* object other than itself, without positing itself as anything at all? > > Panna looks into the contents of consciousness and the 'world'. In my > understanding it does not look at itself. Therefore there is no problem with > regarding itself as an entity or being or self. Panna looks at any other object > that it encounters as partaking of anatta, anicca and dukkha. But why should it > be called upon to look at its own attributes, since it itself does not exist as a > thing? > > I'll be interested in your response. > > Best, > Robert Ep. 11080 From: Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 11:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] ayatana, to Suan, Rob K. Num, Kom. Dear Kom, Rob K, Nina, Suan and everyone, Ohoh, I made a wrong guess about 81 citta in manayatana. Well, the 2 abhinna citta always has a special place in counting. I think b/c eventhough they are mahakata citta but they has anything as their aramana ( there are some differences between the two). OK, I looked up the pali website VIR which contains chatta-sagayana pali, katha, tika and anutika. Due to my limited wisdom, I can only guess some words but unable to read the whole sentences. Well, I prond to tell you that, I can consult my aunt back in Thailand. She checked the Thai atthakatha version, so thing becomes clearer to me. [ Man±yatana½ tebh³makakusal±kusalavip±kakiriyaviññ±ºabhedena ek±s²tippabheda½. ] The word "tebhuma", means 3 planes. So this 81 citta is including only kamavacara, rupa- and arupavacara. The 8 lokuttara are not included in here. Hmmm, I was surprised that how come the same writer (PraBuddhagosacara) wrote 2 books differently. Well, thing become clear to me that the problem is my limited panna. Thanks Nina, Rob K and Kom for a very rich food for thought. Appreciate. Have to run, Num PS. Rob K, may I ask you to paste more from Dispeller of Delusion esp. the whole paragraph which contains the quote you quoted. I like to do reverse-engineering (reverse-transcriptase :)), to compare the Eng to Pali and Thai translation. 11081 From: egberdina Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 7:14pm Subject: 4 hallucinations/perversions Re: [dsg] Vipallasa's Dear Frank, I loves you, baby :-) I'm sorry, this is the best I can do. I know nothing at all about the topic at hand. I just want you to know I do read your posts, and I always enjoy your style of writing. Alll the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "fcckuan" wrote: > Hello! Anyone out there? I checked and indeed this message actually > did get posted. I did some research on my own questions, and made a > little progress (I'll share below). But I still need some hints from > you guys on how the sanna (perception aggregate) works as memory. > Scriptural references would help, although I'm guessing it's probably > later stuff like Abidhamma and commentaries, since it would have made > an impression on me if I read anything in Samyutta and Majjhima > describing memory and perception. Surely someone here can help me > out. Show me some love. > > I looked up subha, asubha, in reference to the 4th vipallasa > (perversion), and it refers not to mundane right views/wrong views, > but with the loathsomeness of the body (along the lines of > contemplation of impurity). In other words, Purity means we should > see this our body as loathsome. I'd like to hear what you guys think > about this, and I'll describe my opinion in more detail later maybe, > but in short, I don't think this 4th vipallasa belongs in the exalted > company of the other 3. > > > -fk > 11082 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 8:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas -ANDERS Dear Anders, I lost a reply to you on this thread yesterday , so I’m trying to retrace my steps. We all seem to have our patience tested in this way;-) --- anders_honore wrote: > > Yes. And then there is the element of Nibbana, which is what people > seem to be debating hotly here (whether it is a pure awareness or > what). The main point of difference, imo, is whether the experience > of Nibbana continues after Parinibbana or not. Since none of us have > experienced parinibbana, I'll sign myself out the debate. .-) OK...I’ll just summarise by suggesting that if we accept (as stated clearly in my view) that panna (insight) realises nibbana, that panna is included in sankhara khandha (formations aggregate) and that all the khandhas cease completely at parinibbana, then there cannot be any experience or realisation of nibbana, regardless of whether it continues or not. > I read a sutta just last night, where the Buddha refuted an > annihilationist view, consisting of just the cessation of a living > being upon Parinnibbana. Not the cessation of self, but the cessation > of a living being (which must be defined as the khandas, I'd reckon), > and that is all there is to it. It seems the Buddha disagrees with > that one, though I don't know if that negates your view of things too. If this is a Pali canon sutta, may we have the reference or link? As I mentioned in an earlier post (10500) with regard to annihilation and eternalism beliefs: > both views are inherently wrapped up in an idea of ‘self’ > or identity in the ‘uninterrupted continuum’. While we cling to an idea of > self, there is bound to be one of these views. In other words, the understanding of the cessat?on of the khandhas at parinibbana, as we read about in the Teachings, has nothing to do with annihilation theories. Before I quoted some Sutta and commentary notes from B.Bodhi’s translation of the Kaccaanagotta Sutta (SN 11, Nidaanavagga, 15(5) . I’ll just repeat 2 paragraphs here which I think clearly clarify this point: > Com notes (Spk-p.t): > “The annihilationist view might arise in regard to the world of formations > thus: ‘On account of the annihilation and perishing of beings right where > they are, there is no persisting being or phenomenon.’ It also includes > the wrong view, having these formations as its object, which holds: ‘There > are no beings who are reborn.’ That view does not occur in him; for one > seeing with right understanding the production and origination of the > world of formations in dependence on such diverse conditions as kamma, > ignorance, craving, etc, that annihilationist view does not occur, since > one sees the uninterrupted production of formations.” > Com notes (Spk-p.t): > “The eternalist view mght arise in regard to the world of formations, > taking it to exist at all times, owing to the apprehension of identity in > the uninterrupted coninuum occurring in a cause-effect relationship. But > that view ‘does not occur in him’; because he sees the cessation of the > successively arisen phenomena and the arising of succesively new > phenomena, the eternalist view does not occur.” I also quoted the following notes from the Brahmajala Sutta and commentaries which also emphasise annihilation belief as being concerned with the ‘extermination of an existent being’. I’ll requpte these notes because I think they clearly show what the Buddha was saying (and also ‘my’ view of things’ which you seemed unclear about).: I wrote: I> In the Brahmajaala Sutta (and commentaries) we read in detail about all > the possible wrong views including these. 7 kinds of annihilation view are > mentioned in the sutta. I’ll just quote the first one: > ..... > (p.79 B.Bodhi trans.) > “85. ‘Herein, bhikkhus, some recluse or brahmin asserts the following > doctrine and view: ‘The self, good sir, has material form; it is composed > of the four primary elements and originates from father and mother. Since > this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the > body and does not exist after death, at this point the self is completely > annihilated.’ In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, > and extermination of an existent being.’” > ..... > The other 6 kinds of annihilation view all end with the same last sentence > about the belief of the ‘extermination of an existent being’. This idea of > an ‘existent being’ is the real crux of the view. > ..... > In the sub-commentary notes (p.182), we read: > “Since the destruction of the non-existent (asato) is impossible, the > words ‘(annihilation) of an existent being’ are given signifying > annihilation based on existence (atthibhaavanibandhano upacchedo).......” > ..... > A little later (p.183): > > “..For the assumption of a being arises when the compact of aggregates > occurring in the form of a coninuum is not dissected (into its > components). And since it is held that ‘the self exists so long as it is > not annihilated,’ the assumption of annihilationism is based on the > asumption of a being.’ “ Finally, i said: > In summary, I don’t find any support for the idea that the cessation of > all formations (i.e all phenomena including any experiencing of nibbana) > at parinibbana has anything to do with an annihilation view Anders, please let me know if you wish me to clarify further or if you have a sutta reference you understand differently. Sarah ====================================================== 11083 From: azita gill Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 8:45pm Subject: Re: 4 hallucinations/perversions Re: [dsg] Vipallasa's --- , > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "fcckuan" > wrote: > > ). But I still > need some hints > from > > you guys on how the sanna (perception aggregate) > works as memory. > > Scriptural references would help, although I'm > guessing it's > probably > > later stuff like Abidhamma and commentaries, since > it would have > made > > an impression on me if I read anything in Samyutta > and Majjhima > > describing memory and perception. Surely someone > here can help me > > out. Show me some love. hello, my name's Azita and have been a dsg-er for along time, however new to cyber dsg. I have found something on memory. From a little book i found in my bookcase called Abhidhamma Studies, researches in Buddhist Psychology by Nyanaponika Thera. M Memory as we usually understand it is not mentioned as a separate component of a moment of consciousness(citta)becasuse it is not a single mental factor but a complex process. T The mental factor which is most important for the arising of memory is perception(sanna=sanjanana)being that kind of elementary cognition(janana)which proceeds by way of taking up, making and remembering i.e. identifying, marks. A Apart from that what, in common usage, is called "remembering", the reminiscent function of perception in general operates also (a) in the imperceptibly brief phases of a complete perceptual process, the sequence of which is based on the connecting function of "grasping the past phases" (b)in any consecutive train of thought where this "grasping of the past"is so habitual, and refers to an event so close to the present, that in normal parlance it is not called "memory", though it is not essentially different from it. S Sorry, Frank, I forgot to address this to you personally, before I launched into writing the above, as it was you who asked the question. I hope it is of some use to you. from Azita, in very hot Cairns, Australia. 11084 From: binh_anson Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 9:41pm Subject: Photo from Vietnam - The Ansons G'day, As "formally" (joking!) requested by Sarah, I have uploaded a photo taken in our last trip to Vietnam. It was taken at the main shrine (vihara) of Sieu-Ly temple, Vinh-Long province, about 100 km south- west of Saigon. The entire Anson's family were there: myself, Yupa (my wife), and the 2 daughters (Angela & Jennifer). The photo's title is: "Vietnam - Sieu-Ly temple". The name "Sieu-Ly" means "Abhidhamma". The temple is well-known in the Vietnamese Theravadin community for its abhidhammic studies. Its founder, the late Mahathera Tinh-Su, translated the entire 7 sets of the Abhidhamma Pitaka from Pali-Thai script to Vietnamese language. Metta, Binh 11085 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 10:28pm Subject: Re: 4 hallucinations/perversions Re: [dsg] Vipallasa's Hi Frank, --- fcckuan wrote: > Hello! Anyone out there? By the end of the day I expect you’ll have been so showered with love that you'll be begging for a break.....;-) >I checked and indeed this message actually > did get posted. I did some research on my own questions, and made a > little progress (I'll share below). But I still need some hints from > you guys on how the sanna (perception aggregate) works as memory. > Scriptural references would help, although I'm guessing it's probably > later stuff like Abidhamma and commentaries, since it would have made > an impression on me if I read anything in Samyutta and Majjhima > describing memory and perception. Surely someone here can help me > out. Show me some love. OK, OK....just looking quickly at recent posts, I can see Herman and Azita are already setting a fine example. In addition to Azita’s useful notes (great to hear from you, Azita), I recommend you read the chapter on sanna (perception) in ‘Cetasikas’ at: http://www.dhammastudy.com/cetasikas.html Also there have been some useful posts written (mostly by Num) under either sanna or perception (forget for now) at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Please also read Rob K’s post 2064 (which I briefly quoted from to Christine) discussing the connection between the proliferations and perversions discussed in the Mulapariyaya Sutta. In a post to Victor, I also discussed the Mulapariyaya Sutta and the unwise attention (ayoniso manaisakara) of the worldling. I’m looking at it again now. We read in the com notes (B.Bodhi trans p.40): “The function of perception alone is distinct, for perception is more evident. But this perception accords with the conceiving and works in conjunction with the latter; therefore he says: ‘He perceives through a perversion of perception.’ “ ********** Without sanna, there would be no proliferations, no thinking, no attachment or wrong view. Because of its importance, it is a khandha on its own. The following is quoted from my post to Victor and I also see that I brought in the very controversial dsg topic of ‘control’ at the end - another incentive to repeat it;-): ********** >Here is a useful translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi of this sutta with its commentary and subcommentaries, published by BPS under the title 'The Discourse on the Root of Existence'. ..... I think we need to understand, as others have commented before, that in this sutta we are looking at how the world is perceived and understood by the worldling, the learner, the arahat and finally by the Buddha. With regard to the worldlings, we read in the commentary notes (p34) that ‘they have not destroyed the multiple forms of personality view’. From the sutta it says: ‘..he perceves earth as earth; having perceived earth as earth, he conceives ( himself as ) earth; he conceives (himself) in earth; he conceives (himself apart) from earth; he conceives ‘earth as mine’; he delights in earth. What is the reason? Because it has not been fully understood by him, I declare.......water as water ....’’..he perceives through a perversion of perception, seizing upon the conventional expression (and thinking) “it is earth’ (lokavohaara”m gahetvaa sa~n~naavipallaasena sa~njaanaati). Or, without releasing such a segment of earth, he perceives it as a being (satta) or as belonging to a being. Why does he perceive it in this way? This should not be asked, for the worldling is like a madman. he seizes upon anything he can in whatever way he can......” ..... We may think that this just refers to those fighting over land or terrorists, but what about this moment? Do we take the computer for being some-thing? Is there any awareness that all that is seen at this moment is visible object with no thing or self in it? As soon as there is the perversion with the idea of ‘thing’ in it, there is the madness being referred to, as I understand. ..... A little later in the commentary (p.40) we read: ‘Objection: If the conventional expression is applied, what is the fault? Don’t ariyans also make use of the conventional expression, as when they say: “This, venerable sir, is the great earth,” etc? ‘Reply: It is not the mere employment of the expression that is intended here, but the wrong adherence which occurs through the conventional expression. Thus he says: “he perceives through a perversion of perception.” This is his meaning: He perceives it as beautiful, etc., through a perverted perception springing from unwise reflection. By this, weak conceiving through craving, conceit, and views is shown.’ ..... The commentary notes continue with all the many ways earth is perceived as self. the reason for this is ‘because it has not been fully understood by him..’ We read (p46) that ‘He who fully understands the earth understands it by the three types of full understanding: the full understanding of the known (~naataparin~n~na), the full understanding of scrutinization (tiira.napari~n~naa), and the full understanding of abandoning (pahaanapari~n~naa)............Or, alternatively, the defining of mentality-materiality (naamaruupa vavatthaana) is the full understanding of the known; from insight-comprehension of the groups (kalaapasammasana) as far as conformity knowledge (anuloma) is the full understanding by scrutinization; and the knowledge of the ariyan path is the full understanding by abandoning.’ ..... The subcy adds (p47): ‘therein, the “full understanding of the known” is the wisdom of full understanding by which one fully understands, delimits (paricchhindati), the plane of insight (vipassanaabhuumi)....’ .......... Victor, one reason I’ve added some of these quotes is because I think they’re also relevant to other discussions too. As we discussed on the ultimate and conventional truth thread, it’s not so much a question of the words we use, but the understanding that lies behind them. When we say we touch earth or the computer, is there any understanding of only hardness which is experienced at that moment or do we have the idea of touching a thing? As understanding begins to grow, the language doesn’t change in conventional usage but what the arahat or Buddha understand by ‘earth’, ‘water’, ‘Gods’ or ‘Brahma’ is not what is understood by us in our madness. In the same way, we can say ‘form is not self’ as many times as we like, but it doesn’t mean there is necessarily any understanding of any rupa or form appearing at this moment. You wondered why I had got the idea (like Rob Ep, I think) that you were suggesting a self outside the khandhas. I think this was because, although you quote excellent lines about anatta from excellent suttas, the idea of controlling the various realities, suggests a deep-rooted clinging to self rather than an understanding of conditions that determines these same khandhas. If we say ‘Yes, one can control oneself’ (to quote from another post of yours) and know this is merely conventional usage, that’s fine. However, if we cling to an idea that this is possible in truth, it shows the perversity of view at that moment. ********** > I looked up subha, asubha, in reference to the 4th vipallasa > (perversion), and it refers not to mundane right views/wrong views, > but with the loathsomeness of the body (along the lines of > contemplation of impurity). In other words, Purity means we should > see this our body as loathsome. I'd like to hear what you guys think > about this, and I'll describe my opinion in more detail later maybe, > but in short, I don't think this 4th vipallasa belongs in the exalted > company of the other 3. Frank, I hope I re-quoted something useful for you. I’m pretty rushed for time until next week (read: I really hope someone more knowledgable comes to our rescue before then on all yr excellent points here and in your first post). Please keep up the good questions...some complex questions like yours need more consideration (by others) and patience (by you) than some of the simpler ones, I think. I always enjoy your comments and look forward to hearing your opinions too. Sarah p.s now it's your turn to show us some love and find a photo - a 'surfing w/dhamma' one or 'living on nuts in the forest w/nature' one would be fine;-) ====================================================== 11086 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 10:39pm Subject: RE: 4 hallucinations/perversions Re: [dsg] Vipallasa's Dear Frank, > -----Original Message----- > From: fcckuan [mailto:fcckuan@y...] > > little progress (I'll share below). But I still > need some hints from > you guys on how the sanna (perception aggregate) > works as memory. There has been some discussions at length about memory in the past, although I don't think it comes to any sort of conclusion. What you want to know about memory may simply be beyond the details of the text to answer (I don't know that). You may want to check out the useful posts under the memory heading: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_ Posts and raise more specific questions (not guarantee you would get an answer!) > out. Show me some love. Now, now.... Don't know about you, but I am absolutely behind in catching up with the posts. So many meaty discussions, so many good posts. > > I looked up subha, asubha, in reference to the > 4th vipallasa > (perversion), and it refers not to mundane right > views/wrong views, > but with the loathsomeness of the body (along the > lines of > contemplation of impurity). In other words, > Purity means we should > see this our body as loathsome. I'd like to hear > what you guys think > about this, and I'll describe my opinion in more > detail later maybe, > but in short, I don't think this 4th vipallasa > belongs in the exalted > company of the other 3. > I think of subha as beautiful, and asubha as not-beautiful. For example, we (certainly I!) may see a beautiful woman as pretty. However, if we look carefully at the compositions (even conceptually), a body is full of things that are not so pretty (like hair, nails, phlegm, etc.) It doesn't mean that we should loath what we see, but we should see it as it is, closer to realities, instead of far-out conceptual whole (like I do!). If we see things as just visible objects, as realities with its own characteristics, as conditioned dhamma, as impermanence and dukkha, then there is even less to be conceived as "beautiful". Red color is probably less appealing than a red rose, no? Why? The true characteristics of visible is even less appealing than the red color. I am quite intrigued about Jon's questions (or challenges!) about this topics. Maybe if my I-wish-I-can-answer queue is shorter... kom 11087 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 31, 2002 10:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Photo from Vietnam - The Ansons G'Day Binh, --- binh_anson wrote: > > G'day, > > As "formally" (joking!) requested by Sarah, I have uploaded a photo > taken in our last trip to Vietnam. A 'Formal' thank you too.....very nice...pls tell your wife that she looks so young that I had to look carefully to not mistake her for another daughter;-) It was taken at the main shrine > (vihara) of Sieu-Ly temple, Vinh-Long province, about 100 km south- > west of Saigon. The entire Anson's family were there: myself, Yupa > (my wife), and the 2 daughters (Angela & Jennifer). > > The photo's title is: "Vietnam - Sieu-Ly temple". > > The name "Sieu-Ly" means "Abhidhamma". The temple is well-known in > the Vietnamese Theravadin community for its abhidhammic studies. Its > founder, the late Mahathera Tinh-Su, translated the entire 7 sets of > the Abhidhamma Pitaka from Pali-Thai script to Vietnamese language. Thankyou for this fascinating background info too. What an incredible task and excellent work to perform. Your connections and travels in Vietnam, Thailand and Australia are always interesting to hear about too. Hope we meet up one day (I'm sure we will) and look forward to any more 'lurking' posts from you, Binh). Sarah p.s a formal thankyou to Victor and anyone else too;-) ==================================================== 11088 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 0:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Dear Sarah, I really appreciate your interacting with my overwhelming tome. I would only try to clarify one point, which I guess is hard to express properly: that there is no such thing as direct perception of a rupa. The only way we experience hardness or visible object is through an act of perception. In what way is that act of perception ever pure? Even if it is completely devoid of any concept, it is still being transmitted by a perceptual organ [eye] which is picking it up and forming an image of it in order to bring it to the brain through the optical cortex. To what extent are these organs which transmit the image pure? And to what extent does the 'image' which does not exist three-dimensionally which the brain actually gets to 'see' corrrespond with the 'real rupa'. Now if you say there is no 'real rupa' because a rupa is not different than the act of perception that selects it, then you once again have a framed and interpreted object which is the product of the organs of sense and of the brain that interprets the image thus created, not an 'actual rupa'. When the optical cortex gets the image from the eyes, it is upside down, because of the mechanics of the inverted lenses that reflect off of the optical mechanism in the brain. The brain through an act of translation has to turn the image right side up. So this is all a manipulation/translation/correction of a selected aspect of 'reality' that is being produced by mental processes. How does this represent any sort of 'absolute object'? It seems to me that it merely represents the mind's version of object, and a selected aspect at that. There is no getting around the fact that we get all of our experiences through mental mechanics. They are as 'pure' as a camera or a tv set. Get a more expensive HDTV and the image thus created is totally different than the cheaper variety. Now, Jonathan said to me a while back, and helped me quite a bit, that a 'rupa' need not be perfect in some external sense, because one is only getting the perceptions that one is karmically and conditionally ordained to get anyway. The main thing is that one gets the experiences that are appropriate for oneself as an individual. In other words, even having the eyes you have, if you are color blind, comes from a karmic or conditional cause, and so if you get a 'rupa' that is in black and white, because you don't register colors, well, that is the perfect karmic rupa for you, and so it's still a 'paramatha dhamma' because it is *your* absolute object for your current state of evolution/causation. I can accept that as an explanation of what you get being appropriate for you, but on the more basic level of the human condition of being in a body with built in cameras [eyes], sensors [skin] etc., it does not seem that this explanation is satisfactory enough. It does not account for the fact that the human body and mind themselves are inherently subjective, since they only really record images, not the objects themselves. Images may be objects in their own right, and I could accept the idea that images are the real objects of human existence, which is what I think is the case until one has extra-sensory access to objects. But I cannot accept that we get the 'actual' object through our senses. Senses are a particular way of getting at an object, it is not an 'accurate' way. Smell only gives us a certain view of object, it doesn't really give us a 'real' view. It is limited and biased by its own equippage. Same with all the senses, which all form images according to their, not the object's, nature. Is my problem any clearer with all this explanation? I hope so, and that it may have some form of resolution, for I can't see it. This idea leaves me personally with the disposition to look at the mind and its processes [namas] rather than to think that I am actually seeing rupas. In looking at the way the mind processes information, one can get at the reality of being human, but not by positing external objects that are 'real' and whose descriptions we think are accurate. Best, Robert Ep. ========================== --- Sarah wrote: > 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 > ====================================================== > 11089 From: onco111 Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 3:16am Subject: glossing kusala Dear Sarah, Anders, Jon, Herman, etc., In his "Buddhist Dictionary," Nyanatiloka defines "kusala" as: "'karmically wholesome' or 'profitable', salutary, morally good, (skilful). Connotations of the term, according to Com. (Asl), are: of good health, blameless, productive of favourable karma-result, skilful. It should be noted that Com. excludes the meaning 'skilful' when the term is applied to states of consciousness." Atthasalini indeed explicitly excludes the sense of 'skilful' when applied to dhammas: "...in the phrase 'moral states' [kusala dhamma], either 'wholesome,' or 'faultless,' or 'productive of happy results' is a suitable meaning." The sense of "skilful" is reserved for contexts such as "You are kusala at the different parts of a chariot," and "Graceful women who have been trained and are kusala in singing and dancing." Why on earth would Asl. make such a careful distinction and not apply 'skilful' to mental states? One obvious possibility is that 'skilful' could just as easily be applied to the abilities of accomplished murderers, butchers, misers, theives, mechanics, cooks, etc., which have nothing to do with the sense of 'kusala' of kusalacittani. Thus, the use of 'skilful' in reference to states of consciousness tends to blur the critical moral distinction between kusala and akusala. When applied to mental states, kusala is not "something well done" as opposed to the akusala "something poorly done," but this is precisely the sense given by skilful/unskilful. I'm going to stick with wholesome/unwholesome or faultless/faulty to help keep the moral distinction clear. After all, proper discernment of kusala vs. akusala is pivotal in the development of samma ditthi. Dan 11090 From: onco111 Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 3:40am Subject: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas -ANDERS Dear Sarah, You wrote a finished a wonderful post to Anders with: > > In summary, I don't find any support for the idea that the cessation of > > all formations (i.e all phenomena including any experiencing of nibbana) > > at parinibbana has anything to do with an annihilation view Clearly this is true, but if we cling to a notion of an enduring self, the "cessation of all formations" most certainly LOOKS like an annihilation view. According to ditthi the self is in the aggregates or contains the aggregates or IS the aggregates. With parinibbana, those aggregates cease, so ditthi cannot help but see an implicit annihilation in parinibbana: "Where did the self go?" But if 'self' is viewed strictly as a convenient fiction, then there is no anxiety about "cessation of all formations," and parinibbana simply cannot appear to be an annihilationist view because there is no self to be annihilated. As always, wonderful post, Sarah. I hope to check in again in a month or two. Dan 11091 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 4:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Papanca? --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" Hi Christine, > I wonder how can we ever be sure whether we have made any real > progress? Couldn't constant questioning and doubt as to what is > genuine lead to discouragement? Yes. Discouragement is one of the worst enemies of practice. > always doubting? Yes. And doubt (of the skeptical variety, vicikicca) is one of the five hindrances to effective medition and enlightenment. > always suspecting we are fooling ourselves? Yes. This is particularly nasty for those who tend to over- intellectualizing. Always analyzing this & that, missing the forest for the trees. This is one of the most dangerous traps of all to fall into regarding the Dharma--that it becomes a mere intellectual exercise, and not a vehicle leading to liberation. The Dharma as explained by the Buddha DOES work, and doesn't require years of textual study to master. Only basic instruction at first, and then the careful study of our own minds, with the constant emphasis on continued development, including study and meditative practice. The key point is that we need to PRACTICE the instructions on meditation taught by the Buddha in addition to the minimal study needed to set us on the right course (learning what is to be given up and what is to be taken up). And patience. Development takes time and effort. There are ups and down. Three steps forward, and two back. Again and again. Don't worry. Be happy! :) And seriously, I have found no equal to meditative practice involving exertion, will, effort--at least one hour per day of concerted mindfulness PRACTICE (as I say hypocritically at the moment!). It does work, Christine, it really, really does! To heck with being terorized by fears of "self view" and the like when there are far bigger fish to fry. Self-view's there until we realize the Dharma directly for the first time anyway, so we have to work with it--skillfully. The Buddha certainly did in his instructions to his disciples. Altbhough as an arahabnt, he did so without misapprehending it. The rest of us will have to content ourselevs with "I, me, mine" at some level, and deal with it as skillfully as possible, and not get worried over "ohmigosh, self view!" Surprise! That's the human condition! :) Just a comment: your obvious yoniso manasikara (wise attention to the appropriate objects, like anatta, etc.) bode VERY well for your progress on the path. You ask all the right questions, and I want to share with you how encouraging I find this. Speaking only for myself, I have found the best strategy is to stick with teachers who give clear, concise explanations on our points of doubt, follow their instructions with the utmost diligence, and above all, serve them. And others. I believe, no matter what, cultivating ANY kind of kusala is GOOD! Why worry about things like "near enemies" of kusala like a little lobha when we already have such coarse, vile enemies to deal with, for example? We have to begin where we are. And where we are is (for most of us) nowhere near having to worry about "near enemies" and all the other subtle stuff, but about things at a far more mundane level. Just to reiterate my understanding: the Dharma is utterly simple. Too simple to grasp. And yet so difficult at the same time, for this very reason. But never let anyone's explanations or actions discourage you on your path, never let any interpretation serve as a cause for doubt about your ability to master and overcome your defilements IN THIS LIFETIME. When the fruit it ripe, it will drop all by itself--no need for effort at this point! There is nothing you can do to stop it, except NOT putting into practice the Holy Dharma taught by Lord Buddha, combining basic study of points of doubt combined with daily meditation--for some, Satipatthana. For me, Master Kamalasila's "Bhavana Krama" on cultivating jhana and the union of samatha & vipassana. That fruit needs all the requisite conditions to grow and ripen to the point of dropping, however, so it is critical, like a good farmer, to understand all the conditions needed for it to grow and eventually ripen. Thsis is best summarized by the 37 Bodhipakkiya Dhammas, the 37 "Wings to Awakening." This summarizes all the key points of the Budha's teachings on the path to enlightenment: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/wings/index.html May you realize the Noble Fruits of the path in this very lifetime! :) 11092 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 4:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] glossing kusala Dear Dan, my 2 cents, kusala - thoughts generating of non greed, non hatred and non delution akusala - thoughts generating of greed, hatred and delution ~meththa Ranil >From: "onco111" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [dsg] glossing kusala >Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 11:16:19 -0000 > >Dear Sarah, Anders, Jon, Herman, etc., > >In his "Buddhist Dictionary," Nyanatiloka defines "kusala" >as: "'karmically wholesome' or 'profitable', salutary, morally good, >(skilful). Connotations of the term, according to Com. (Asl), are: of >good health, blameless, productive of favourable karma-result, >skilful. It should be noted that Com. excludes the meaning 'skilful' >when the term is applied to states of consciousness." > >Atthasalini indeed explicitly excludes the sense of 'skilful' when >applied to dhammas: "...in the phrase 'moral states' [kusala dhamma], >either 'wholesome,' or 'faultless,' or 'productive of happy results' >is a suitable meaning." The sense of "skilful" is reserved for >contexts such as "You are kusala at the different parts of a >chariot," and "Graceful women who have been trained and are kusala in >singing and dancing." > >Why on earth would Asl. make such a careful distinction and not >apply 'skilful' to mental states? One obvious possibility is >that 'skilful' could just as easily be applied to the abilities of >accomplished murderers, butchers, misers, theives, mechanics, cooks, >etc., which have nothing to do with the sense of 'kusala' of >kusalacittani. Thus, the use of 'skilful' in reference to states of >consciousness tends to blur the critical moral distinction between >kusala and akusala. When applied to mental states, kusala is >not "something well done" as opposed to the akusala "something poorly >done," but this is precisely the sense given by skilful/unskilful. >I'm going to stick with wholesome/unwholesome or faultless/faulty to >help keep the moral distinction clear. After all, proper discernment >of kusala vs. akusala is pivotal in the development of samma ditthi. > >Dan 11093 From: Sarah Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 5:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] glossing kusala Dan, I'll add a quick 2 cents to Ranil's..... I have to laugh because for years I'd use wholesome and unwholesome (and other friends too) but a long list of objections can be raised to these terms too, so I've been tending more to skilful and unskilful. (Really it would be so much easier if the whole world just used kusala, akusala and other Pali terms like your son in kindergarten. I think these are really translation points and the use of skilful in translation in the Atthasalani may not even be consistent. Sometimes it's hard to know without the Pali terms. For example, Atth (PTS) p.83: "Moreover, from the absence of the faultiness, hate, and torments of the 'corruptions,' kusala has the sense of 'faultlessness.' Understanding is described as skilfulness. 'Good' has the sense of 'brought about by skilfulness.' " Hmmmm I think I'd make sure I add 'kusala' in brackets after using one of these terms. Hope this catches you to ponder before you run off... Sarah =================================================== --- onco111 wrote: > Dear Sarah, Anders, Jon, Herman, etc., > > In his "Buddhist Dictionary," Nyanatiloka defines "kusala" > as: "'karmically wholesome' or 'profitable', salutary, morally good, > (skilful). Connotations of the term, according to Com. (Asl), are: of > good health, blameless, productive of favourable karma-result, > skilful. It should be noted that Com. excludes the meaning 'skilful' > when the term is applied to states of consciousness." > > Atthasalini indeed explicitly excludes the sense of 'skilful' when > applied to dhammas: "...in the phrase 'moral states' [kusala dhamma], > either 'wholesome,' or 'faultless,' or 'productive of happy results' > is a suitable meaning." The sense of "skilful" is reserved for > contexts such as "You are kusala at the different parts of a > chariot," and "Graceful women who have been trained and are kusala in > singing and dancing." > > Why on earth would Asl. make such a careful distinction and not > apply 'skilful' to mental states? One obvious possibility is > that 'skilful' could just as easily be applied to the abilities of > accomplished murderers, butchers, misers, theives, mechanics, cooks, > etc., which have nothing to do with the sense of 'kusala' of > kusalacittani. Thus, the use of 'skilful' in reference to states of > consciousness tends to blur the critical moral distinction between > kusala and akusala. When applied to mental states, kusala is > not "something well done" as opposed to the akusala "something poorly > done," but this is precisely the sense given by skilful/unskilful. > I'm going to stick with wholesome/unwholesome or faultless/faulty to > help keep the moral distinction clear. After all, proper discernment > of kusala vs. akusala is pivotal in the development of samma ditthi. > > Dan 11094 From: Sarah Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 5:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas -ANDERS Dan, Thanks and very helpful additional comments (in my mind anyway). Can't you stay a little to help any posts that come in which don't share these sentiments?? Always good to know you're around and thanks again for the colourful pixs.....I'll mark a month or two down in my diary;-) Sarah --- onco111 wrote: > Dear Sarah, > You wrote a finished a wonderful post to Anders with: > > > In summary, I don't find any support for the idea that the > cessation of > > > all formations (i.e all phenomena including any experiencing of > nibbana) > > > at parinibbana has anything to do with an annihilation view > > Clearly this is true, but if we cling to a notion of an enduring > self, the "cessation of all formations" most certainly LOOKS like an > annihilation view. According to ditthi the self is in the aggregates > or contains the aggregates or IS the aggregates. With parinibbana, > those aggregates cease, so ditthi cannot help but see an implicit > annihilation in parinibbana: "Where did the self go?" But if 'self' > is viewed strictly as a convenient fiction, then there is no anxiety > about "cessation of all formations," and parinibbana simply cannot > appear to be an annihilationist view because there is no self to be > annihilated. > > As always, wonderful post, Sarah. > > I hope to check in again in a month or two. > > Dan 11095 From: wangchuk37 Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 5:48am Subject: Buddhist bibliography February update the February update to the Buddhist bibliography is now online at : http://www.cyberdistributeur.com/buddbib.html I have listed new Buddhist web sites at : http://www.cyberdistributeur.com/buddlinks.html if you see that a Buddhist web site is not listed please do not hesitate to let me know and i'll include it a.s.a.p. happy Lo-Sar ! Roger 11096 From: onco111 Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 6:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] glossing kusala Dear Ranil, Of course! but I would say "rooted in" rather than "generating of". Dan > Dear Dan, > > my 2 cents, > > kusala - thoughts generating of non greed, non hatred and non delution > akusala - thoughts generating of greed, hatred and delution > > ~meththa > Ranil > > >From: "onco111" > >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@y... > >To: dhammastudygroup@y... > >Subject: [dsg] glossing kusala > >Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 11:16:19 -0000 > > > >Dear Sarah, Anders, Jon, Herman, etc., > > > >In his "Buddhist Dictionary," Nyanatiloka defines "kusala" > >as: "'karmically wholesome' or 'profitable', salutary, morally good, > >(skilful). Connotations of the term, according to Com. (Asl), are: of > >good health, blameless, productive of favourable karma-result, > >skilful. It should be noted that Com. excludes the meaning 'skilful' > >when the term is applied to states of consciousness." > > > >Atthasalini indeed explicitly excludes the sense of 'skilful' when > >applied to dhammas: "...in the phrase 'moral states' [kusala dhamma], > >either 'wholesome,' or 'faultless,' or 'productive of happy results' > >is a suitable meaning." The sense of "skilful" is reserved for > >contexts such as "You are kusala at the different parts of a > >chariot," and "Graceful women who have been trained and are kusala in > >singing and dancing." > > > >Why on earth would Asl. make such a careful distinction and not > >apply 'skilful' to mental states? One obvious possibility is > >that 'skilful' could just as easily be applied to the abilities of > >accomplished murderers, butchers, misers, theives, mechanics, cooks, > >etc., which have nothing to do with the sense of 'kusala' of > >kusalacittani. Thus, the use of 'skilful' in reference to states of > >consciousness tends to blur the critical moral distinction between > >kusala and akusala. When applied to mental states, kusala is > >not "something well done" as opposed to the akusala "something poorly > >done," but this is precisely the sense given by skilful/unskilful. > >I'm going to stick with wholesome/unwholesome or faultless/faulty to > >help keep the moral distinction clear. After all, proper discernment > >of kusala vs. akusala is pivotal in the development of samma ditthi. > > > >Dan 11097 From: onco111 Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 6:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] glossing kusala Thanks for the extra two cents, Sarah. "Skilful" still seems to carry a lot of "skill" baggage with it and blurs the distinction between the real root of the issue, i.e. greed, hatred, delusion vs. non- greed, non-hatred, non-delusion. The former three can certainly be wielded quite skillfully, but they are not at all kusala. Dan 11098 From: frank kuan Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 8:26am Subject: another vote for skillful - Re: [dsg] glossing kusala --- onco111 wrote: > Thanks for the extra two cents, Sarah. "Skilful" > still seems to carry > a lot of "skill" baggage with it and blurs the > distinction between > the real root of the issue, i.e. greed, hatred, > delusion vs. non- > greed, non-hatred, non-delusion. The former three > can certainly be > wielded quite skillfully, but they are not at all > kusala. > > Dan Hi Dan, that's a good point. Choosing the appropriate word (skillful or wholesome for kusala) boils down to pick your poison. 1) wholesome has the baggage of morality, implied divine justice and completely arbitrary divine laws by arbitrary deity (laws that are often akusala!), sin, which takes the focus off of conditionality. 2) skillful as you skillfully point out, has it's own baggage. For example, Microsoft is skillful at heaps of money, but certainly not kusala or wholesome. So given these two choices, which sucks less? I would still vote for skillful. Skillful has an upgrade path. People can evolve and see that skillfully robbing a bank, skillfully killing people, skillfully running microsoft to blackmail billions of people, is skillful with respect to short term gains, and unclear goals. I believe it's easier for people to see the limitations and grow out of misconceptions of "skillfulnes" than it is to escape the huge baggage of fuzzy morality imposed by major organized religions. It's hard to escape the grasp of something like the code of morals offered by the church because: 1) it is 75% pretty useful or correct 2) people think, how can a rich thousand year old tradition offer a wrong view of morality? It's easier to evolve out of thinking that Microsoft is skillful. Or one would hope. Ultimately, skillful, kusala, wholesome, are just letters on a piece of paper, pointing to a concept. It's up to people to deepen their understanding of the concept, which is why right effort is one of my favorite limbs of the 8fold path. In the evolution of one's own cultivation, as long as we're continuously trying to : 1) prevent unskillful qualities from arising 2) elminate current unskillful qualities 3) arouse unarisen skillful qualities 4) maintain and nurture arisen skullful qualities Even if our initial understanding of "skillful" is incomplete or erroneous, as long as the attention and vigilance for right effort is there, eventually it will get ironed out. -fk 11099 From: frank kuan Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 8:34am Subject: Re: 4 hallucinations/perversions Re: [dsg] Vipallasa's Thanks Herman. Even a coreless heap of aggregates with less clinging than average doesn't mind being showered with love :-) -fk --- egberdina wrote: > Dear Frank, > > I loves you, baby :-) I'm sorry, this is the best I > can do. I know > nothing at all about the topic at hand. I just want > you to know I do > read your posts, and I always enjoy your style of > writing. > > Alll the best > > > Herman > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "fcckuan" > wrote: > > Hello! Anyone out there? I checked and indeed this > message actually > > did get posted. I did some research on my own > questions, and made a > > little progress (I'll share below). But I still > need some hints > from > > you guys on how the sanna (perception aggregate) > works as memory. > > Scriptural references would help, although I'm > guessing it's > probably > > later stuff like Abidhamma and commentaries, since > it would have > made > > an impression on me if I read anything in Samyutta > and Majjhima > > describing memory and perception. Surely someone > here can help me > > out. Show me some love. > > > > I looked up subha, asubha, in reference to the 4th > vipallasa > > (perversion), and it refers not to mundane right > views/wrong views, > > but with the loathsomeness of the body (along the > lines of > > contemplation of impurity). In other words, Purity > means we should > > see this our body as loathsome. I'd like to hear > what you guys > think > > about this, and I'll describe my opinion in more > detail later > maybe, > > but in short, I don't think this 4th vipallasa > belongs in the > exalted > > company of the other 3. > > > > > > -fk > > 11100 From: frank kuan Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 8:44am Subject: Re: 4 hallucinations/perversions Re: [dsg] Vipallasa's [Sarah]: p.s now it's your turn to show us some love and find a photo [fk]: I own no camera, I have no photos. Rupa, anicca. Sanna, anicca, so why bother? :-) Thanks for the tips on vipallasa. I will search the archives. 11101 From: frank kuan Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 8:59am Subject: RE: 4 hallucinations/perversions Re: [dsg] Vipallasa's Hi Kom, thanks for the tips, and I'll return to the discussion after I spend a day or two researching perception. Quick comment: --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > I think of subha as beautiful, and asubha as > not-beautiful. [fk]: Even if we soften the understanding of 4th vipallasa (seeing impure as pure), I still don't see how it justifies this 4th vipallasa being in the exalted company of the other 3. Why are the first 3 exalted? They are the exact opposite of reality: 1) impermanence 2) dukkha 3) anatta The impurity/purity aspect is a more mundane aspect, whereas the first 3 have both mundane and supramundane levels. That 4th vipallasa just doesn't seem to belong. In one of the anguttaras, the buddha says: (my memory, my paraphrase) "Dudes, whether a buddha arises or not, and goes around educating you ignorant peoples, this natural law of reality is going to keep operating: All conditioned things are impermanent. ...this natural law of reality is going to keep operating: all conditioned things are dukkha. ...this natural law of reality is going to keep operating: all things are anatta. (end of sutta). Note the absence of asubha/subha. Just doesn't belong. Now, I happen to be one of the big proponents of the contemplation of impurities, and seeing the body as loathsome. I think it's a big mistake for modern westerners to neglect this aspect of practice because it doesn't accord with their more delicate sensibilities. However, I don't think that 4th vipallasa belongs in the company of the other 3. -fk 11102 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 10:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] memories from Sri Lanka op 30-01-2002 22:25 schreef michael newton op newtonmichael@h...: .I met you and Khun Sujin way back in 1976 in Sri Lanka. > I was a monk then(rev.Alokananda)I know Ven.Dhammadaro too.Sorry to hear > that he has passed away. Dear Michael, How nice to hear from you after all these years. I remember that we had a dana and there was some confusion about one foreign monk who thought he was not invited, and I wonder were you this monk? We felt so sorry and I think Sarah went back to fetch him. Now about Phra Dhammadaro, you know, on the website of Rob K.: (sorry it is not blue) there is : , talks by him that I edited. You can also use this link for the webside: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/links It is very nice, you will like it. Yes, I often think of him, he was so inspiring. Also a real support to me in my writing. Recently when I was in India I remembered him very much, I spoke about him with Jonothan. I was in India several times when he was there too. I hope you will post often with reactions etc. Let me know how you like this article. Jack Tippayachan has a very good Dhamma group in the Bay area, and if you would like to contact them you could ask Kom who you will see often in this forum. Best wishes from Nina. 11103 From: zipdrive14850 Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 2:45pm Subject: another vote for skillful [Hmmm...] The distinction between kusala/akusala is a moral one and not so much a difference in skill level. Yeah, yeah, I know. Some people who talk about "moral" issues also spout a lot of nonsense about divine justice, arbitrary laws, and the like, and even get quite hostile and hateful toward other people who don't share their views. The eel-wriggler in the Brahmajala sutta even refuses to take a position on the moral distinction between kusala/akusala because he doesn't want to be a combative moralizer! I don't really blame him for that. Not seeing clearly the distinction between kusala/akusala, he assumed that those combative moralizers he encountered got that morality stuff right. If they really did, then it would indeed be good to steer clear of moral distinctions such as wholesome/unwholesome or to make the distinction between kusala/akusala one of skill rather than morals. It would be hard for anyone to argue that that nonsense beginning with divine justice and moving into combative moralizing is wholesome, but some of the spouters of the nonsense are really quite skillful indeed! Is "understanding" skillful? Of course it is! And so are dancing (well, not when I do it), lying, cheating, stealing, killing, etc. at times. "Skillful" doesn't seem like a very skillful gloss for "kusala." Dan > > Thanks for the extra two cents, Sarah. "Skilful" > > still seems to carry > > a lot of "skill" baggage with it and blurs the > > distinction between > > the real root of the issue, i.e. greed, hatred, > > delusion vs. non- > > greed, non-hatred, non-delusion. The former three > > can certainly be > > wielded quite skillfully, but they are not at all > > kusala. > > > > Dan > > Hi Dan, that's a good point. Choosing the appropriate > word (skillful or wholesome for kusala) boils down to > pick your poison. > > 1) wholesome has the baggage of morality, implied > divine justice and completely arbitrary divine laws by > arbitrary deity (laws that are often akusala!), sin, > which takes the focus off of conditionality. > 2) skillful as you skillfully point out, has it's own > baggage. For example, Microsoft is skillful at heaps > of money, but certainly not kusala or wholesome. > > So given these two choices, which sucks less? I would > still vote for skillful. Skillful has an upgrade path. > People can evolve and see that skillfully robbing a > bank, skillfully killing people, skillfully running > microsoft to blackmail billions of people, is skillful > with respect to short term gains, and unclear goals. > > I believe it's easier for people to see the > limitations and grow out of misconceptions of > "skillfulnes" than it is to escape the huge baggage of > fuzzy morality imposed by major organized religions. > It's hard to escape the grasp of something like the > code of morals offered by the church because: > 1) it is 75% pretty useful or correct > 2) people think, how can a rich thousand year old > tradition offer a wrong view of > morality? > It's easier to evolve out of thinking that Microsoft > is skillful. Or one would hope. > > Ultimately, skillful, kusala, wholesome, are just > letters on a piece of paper, pointing to a concept. > It's up to people to deepen their understanding of the > concept, which is why right effort is one of my > favorite limbs of the 8fold path. In the evolution of > one's own cultivation, as long as we're continuously > trying to : > 1) prevent unskillful qualities from arising > 2) elminate current unskillful qualities > 3) arouse unarisen skillful qualities > 4) maintain and nurture arisen skullful qualities > > Even if our initial understanding of "skillful" is > incomplete or erroneous, as long as the attention and > vigilance for right effort is there, eventually it > will get ironed out. > > -fk > > 11104 From: michael newton Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 3:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] memories from Sri Lanka Hello!Nina; No,that monk was not me that thought he was uninvited.It was so long ago,I almost draw a blank.It could have been this Rev.Santa(another American Monk)he was sort of on this complicated raw foods diet and wondered iif this was something as he was eating all raw foods cause of health problems,but he later changed to regular diet.Not sure about this,maybe I'll ask him,as he is in asenior center nearby.He's about 70 I think,nearley 10 years older than me.YOURS IN DHAMMA WITH METTA, MICHAEL >From: Nina van Gorkom >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: >Subject: Re: [dsg] memories from Sri Lanka >Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 19:01:20 +0100 > >op 30-01-2002 22:25 schreef michael newton op newtonmichael@h...: > >.I met you and Khun Sujin way back in 1976 in Sri Lanka. > > I was a monk then(rev.Alokananda)I know Ven.Dhammadaro too.Sorry to hear > > that he has passed away. > >Dear Michael, How nice to hear from you after all these years. I remember >that we had a dana and there was some confusion about one foreign monk who >thought he was not invited, and I wonder were you this monk? We felt so >sorry and I think Sarah went back to fetch him. Now about Phra Dhammadaro, >you know, on the website of Rob K.: (sorry it >is >not blue) there is : , talks by him that I edited. You can >also >use this link for the webside: >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/links >It is very nice, you will like it. Yes, I often think of him, he was so >inspiring. Also a real support to me in my writing. Recently when I was in >India I remembered him very much, I spoke about him with Jonothan. I was in >India several times when he was there too. >I hope you will post often with reactions etc. Let me know how you like >this >article. >Jack Tippayachan has a very good Dhamma group in the Bay area, and if you >would like to contact them you could ask Kom who you will see often in this >forum. >Best wishes from Nina. 11105 From: michael newton Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 4:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] glossing kusala Hello!Ranil; Judgeing by your name,means that you must be from Sri Lanka.I lived as a novice monk there in the70's.Sri Lanka is a special place to me, are you there now?Or elsewhere?I recently joined the dhamma study group so decided to reply to this.I was there when Khun Sujin and Nina van Gorhom were there in 76.YOURS IN DHAMMA WITH METTA,MICHAEL 11106 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 7:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (cont.) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > The conditions for the arising of such panna (at whatever level has > been > > developed to date) are both extremely subtle and extremely complex. > But > > they are there in the suttas to be read, pondered and realised. > ----------------------------- > Howard: > What are they? And what brings them forward? Luck? Accumulations? We > all have accumulations. Calling oneself a Buddhist doesn't create the > conditions, does it? It seems to me that one has to "walk the walk". > ------------------------------ I'm sure we're agreed on the point you make here, that actual development does not come by thinking or theorising about the teachings. But what does "walking the walk" involve as far as the teaching is concerned? The truly unique aspect of the Buddha's teaching is the insight (to use your preferred translation) into things as they really are. Insight is something that accrues or builds up only by developing insight(!). It is quite different from, say, acquiring knowledge, which can be done by following a programme of study. Almost by definition, insight cannot be acquired by practising a technique or carrying out a form of practice. There are suttas in which the Buddha talks about the *factors that must be developed* if the insight leading to enlightenment is to be gained. These are not to be confused with suttas that *describe the attributes (factors) of developed insight*. Among the latter I would include the 37 bodhi-pakkhiya dhamma (‘factors of enlightenment’), which are factors that are indeed developed (built up, increased) as insight itself develops, but which in my view should not be seen as *things to be practised*. They are factors *of* enlightenment, rather than the factors *for* enlightenment in the sense that my earlier post and yours (above) are talking about. I have pasted below the sutta 'Sariputta' from Samyutta Nikaya - SN 55, 5 Sotapatti-samyutta, Sariputta sutta. (This sutta is actually an exchange between the Buddha and Sariputta, but I have taken the liberty of reducing it to its simplest narrative form,) This sutta gives 4 factors (anga) that need to be developed if stream entry is to be gained. These factors are the sota-patti-anga – ‘factors for stream entry’, as follows -- 1/. Association with superior persons 2/. Hearing the true Dhamma 3/. Careful attention 4/. Practice in accordance with the Dhamma Elsewhere these same 4 factors are also given as things which, "when developed and cultivated, lead to the obtaining … , growth … and expansion of wisdom, … to greatness of wisdom" SN 55, 59-62] There is I'm sure a significance to the order in which the factors are given. Only through association with a superior person (one who understands the dhamma and is able to share their understanding with us) can we hear the true Dhamma (explained in the particular way we need to hear it on that particular occasion); only having heard the true Dhamma appropriately explained can it receive the careful consideration that gives rise to wise attention and so awareness and insight. Having given the factors for stream-entry, the sutta then explains what is meant by ‘the stream’ that is to be ‘entered’. That stream is "This Noble Eightfold Path …; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration." I find interesting the relationship that the sutta brings out between the *factors for growth of insight leading to stream-entry* and the *Noble Eightfold Path as the 'stream' to be thus entered*. To my mind this clearly supports the view that the Noble Eightfold Path is descriptive of the moment of enlightenment rather than an explanation of how to get there, and that the expanded descriptions of the 8 path-factors so often read about should be understood in that context. So my brief answers to your specific questions above would be as follows– > What are they? J: They are the 4 factors starting with meeting the right person (all of which are as applicable to the person on the verge of enlightenment as they are to the beginner). > And what brings them forward? Luck? Accumulations? J: Meeting the right person and hearing the true dhamma in a given lifetime is a matter of vipaka (result of kamma). There isn’t much we can do about that for this lifetime(!), but if we appreciate that the study of, reflection on and ‘careful consideration’ of the dhamma at this moment gives us the best chance of practice that is truly ‘in accordance with’ the dhamma, then this will in turn bring those factors forward again in future lifetimes. > We all have accumulations. Calling oneself a Buddhist doesn't create the > conditions, does it? J: Absolutely. > It seems to me that one has to "walk the walk". J: This is how we naturally tend to see things. But is it something likely to be understood in a way that is truly ‘in accordance with’ the texts (except as a reminder that mere theorising is not the development of the path)? There is no point in starting the walk with wrong view -- I say this because of the frequently-met assertion that insight is developed by undertaking a formal practice even though there is inevitably an idea of self involved in doing so ‘at the initial stages’. A form of practice that is done with a wrong view of self at the initial stages, followed by the apparent experiencing of the *right results*, simply leads to a strengthening of the wrong view of self. Jon SN 55 (Sotapatti-samyutta), 5. ‘Sariputta’ "What is a factor for stream-entry? Association with superior persons is a factor for stream-entry. Hearing the true Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry. Careful attention is a factor for stream-entry. Practice in accordance with the Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry. “What is the stream? This Noble Eightfold Path is the stream; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, fright mindfulness, right concentration. “What is a stream-enterer? One who possesses this Noble Eightfold Path is a stream-enterer: this venerable one of such a name and clan.” 11107 From: Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 3:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (cont.) Hi, Jon - Thank you for a very useful post. Much appreciated! The part most illuminating to me is the following: "This sutta gives 4 factors (anga) that need to be developed if stream entry is to be gained. These factors are the sota-patti-anga – ‘factors for stream entry’, as follows -- 1/. Association with superior persons 2/. Hearing the true Dhamma 3/. Careful attention 4/. Practice in accordance with the Dhamma" With regard to these, I see us as having the opportunity for exercising some volition with regard to all four. With respect to what you ask, I would say that items 3 and 4 constitute what I called "walking the walk". One more comment: I think you make a good point in saying that this sutta supports your interpretation of the noble 8-fold path. (Your post is copied below without further comment.) With much metta, Howard In a message dated 2/1/02 10:46:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > > > > The conditions for the arising of such panna (at whatever level has > > been > > > developed to date) are both extremely subtle and extremely complex. > > But > > > they are there in the suttas to be read, pondered and realised. > > ----------------------------- > > Howard: > > What are they? And what brings them forward? Luck? Accumulations? We > > all have accumulations. Calling oneself a Buddhist doesn't create the > > conditions, does it? It seems to me that one has to "walk the walk". > > ------------------------------ > > I'm sure we're agreed on the point you make here, that actual development > does not come by thinking or theorising about the teachings. But what > does "walking the walk" involve as far as the teaching is concerned? > > The truly unique aspect of the Buddha's teaching is the insight (to use > your preferred translation) into things as they really are. Insight is > something that accrues or builds up only by developing insight(!). It is > quite different from, say, acquiring knowledge, which can be done by > following a programme of study. Almost by definition, insight cannot be > acquired by practising a technique or carrying out a form of practice. > > There are suttas in which the Buddha talks about the *factors that must be > developed* if the insight leading to enlightenment is to be gained. These > are not to be confused with suttas that *describe the attributes (factors) > of developed insight*. Among the latter I would include the 37 > bodhi-pakkhiya dhamma (‘factors of enlightenment’), which are factors that > are indeed developed (built up, increased) as insight itself develops, but > which in my view should not be seen as *things to be practised*. They are > factors *of* enlightenment, rather than the factors *for* enlightenment in > the sense that my earlier post and yours (above) are talking about. > > I have pasted below the sutta 'Sariputta' from Samyutta Nikaya - SN 55, 5 > Sotapatti-samyutta, Sariputta sutta. (This sutta is actually an exchange > between the Buddha and Sariputta, but I have taken the liberty of reducing > it to its simplest narrative form,) > > This sutta gives 4 factors (anga) that need to be developed if stream > entry is to be gained. These factors are the sota-patti-anga – ‘factors > for stream entry’, as follows -- > 1/. Association with superior persons > 2/. Hearing the true Dhamma > 3/. Careful attention > 4/. Practice in accordance with the Dhamma > > Elsewhere these same 4 factors are also given as things which, "when > developed and cultivated, lead to the obtaining … , growth … and expansion > of wisdom, … to greatness of wisdom" SN 55, 59-62] > > There is I'm sure a significance to the order in which the factors are > given. Only through association with a superior person (one who > understands the dhamma and is able to share their understanding with us) > can we hear the true Dhamma (explained in the particular way we need to > hear it on that particular occasion); only having heard the true Dhamma > appropriately explained can it receive the careful consideration that > gives rise to wise attention and so awareness and insight. > > Having given the factors for stream-entry, the sutta then explains what is > meant by ‘the stream’ that is to be ‘entered’. That stream is "This > Noble > Eightfold Path …; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, > right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right > concentration." > > I find interesting the relationship that the sutta brings out between the > *factors for growth of insight leading to stream-entry* and the *Noble > Eightfold Path as the 'stream' to be thus entered*. To my mind this > clearly supports the view that the Noble Eightfold Path is descriptive of > the moment of enlightenment rather than an explanation of how to get > there, and that the expanded descriptions of the 8 path-factors so often > read about should be understood in that context. > > So my brief answers to your specific questions above would be as follows– > > > What are they? > J: They are the 4 factors starting with meeting the right person (all of > which are as applicable to the person on the verge of enlightenment as > they are to the beginner). > > > And what brings them forward? Luck? Accumulations? > J: Meeting the right person and hearing the true dhamma in a given > lifetime is a matter of vipaka (result of kamma). There isn’t much we can > do about that for this lifetime(!), but if we appreciate that the study > of, reflection on and ‘careful consideration’ of the dhamma at this moment > gives us the best chance of practice that is truly ‘in accordance with’ > the dhamma, then this will in turn bring those factors forward again in > future lifetimes. > > > We all have accumulations. Calling oneself a Buddhist doesn't create the > > conditions, does it? > J: Absolutely. > > > It seems to me that one has to "walk the walk". > J: This is how we naturally tend to see things. But is it something > likely to be understood in a way that is truly ‘in accordance with’ the > texts (except as a reminder that mere theorising is not the development of > the path)? There is no point in starting the walk with wrong view -- I > say this because of the frequently-met assertion that insight is developed > by undertaking a formal practice even though there is inevitably an idea > of self involved in doing so ‘at the initial stages’. A form of practice > that is done with a wrong view of self at the initial stages, followed by > the apparent experiencing of the *right results*, simply leads to a > strengthening of the wrong view of self. > > Jon > > SN 55 (Sotapatti-samyutta), 5. ‘Sariputta’ > > "What is a factor for stream-entry? > Association with superior persons is a factor for stream-entry. Hearing > the true Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry. Careful attention is a > factor for stream-entry. Practice in accordance with the Dhamma is a > factor for stream-entry. > > “What is the stream? > This Noble Eightfold Path is the stream; that is, right view, right > intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, > fright mindfulness, right concentration. > > “What is a stream-enterer? > One who possesses this Noble Eightfold Path is a stream-enterer: this > venerable one of such a name and clan.â€? > > /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) 11108 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 10:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Thanks for your efforts, Sarah. I think the main point I'm trying to communicate here is obviously not clear, at least in the way I'm putting it. Perhaps you could clarify what is meant by the 'actual' rupa. If that is not meant to denote an actual object in the 'real' world, but simply a present reality for perception, then the problem may not be there. What I have been trying to say is that a 'reality' may be true as a perceptual experience, but if one says 'hardness' or some other rupa is 'actual', it seems to imply that it exists in the 'real world' outside of perception. If nothing beyond the act of perception is spoken of, then I can see rupa being actual and accurate as a perceptual object, but not as an object that can be said to really exist. If that is any clearer, great. If not, I'll let it go for now. : ) Best, Robert Ep. ================ --- Sarah wrote: > 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 > ====================================================== 11109 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 10:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] one limb of 8 fold path more important --- anders_honore wrote: > 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'. Well, Anders, we're pretty close on this. But still have a familiar problem with eliminating samsara in order to have a pure experience of emptiness, nibbana, or other enlightened qualities. If you say that emptiness is 'full' or 'partial' depending on whether phenomena arise or not, you're turning it into a thing or quantity. I don't think this is just a semantic problem, I think it's a conceptual one, one of holding up an absolute concept of emptiness instead of just seeing that everything is empty. Emptiness not being a thing unto itself has not completeness or partial-ness. It is a quality understood by panna through clear discernment. I don't think emptiness means anything in the absence of phenomena. To me, rather than looking for some absolute condition in which emptiness can be 'pure', I see both emptiness and samsara as co-arising, and therefore neither separable nor the same, but two sides of the same coin. You have a pre-requisite that perception must be eliminated in order to have pure enlightened knowledge or experience. I think that's holding onto a set of pure or absolute objects that can be separated from samsara. Robert Ep. 11110 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 11:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Thank you Herman, for these clear and insightful comments. I agree that it is seeing that selects visible object, not the other way around. To say visible object impinges on the eye door makes it into a 'real object', the opposite of a momentary quality, such as hardness. One doesn't really think that 'hardness' exists all by itself. Hardness appears as 'hard substance' of some kind, even if it is not conceptually defined as chair or car. There is not a 'hard nothing', a 'hardness' floating in space without something that is hard. And is 'hard metal' the same as 'hard wood'? Are these both the rupa of hardness without any further qualifications in the moment that 'hardness' is perceived? It is said that a 'hard and cold piece of steel' is actually experienced as separate sequential qualities, first hard, then cold, then shiny, then smooth, etc. Is there then no hard/cold experience? I presume it would be said that this is an accumulation of a number of sequential cittas. Best, Robert Ep. ====== --- egberdina wrote: > Dear Sarah, Robert et al, > > Just when you thought you were going to take a break on this :-) > > > I believe some of the confusion that arises from the rupa / nama > division is caused by the way the process of cognition is described. > It is said that visible object impinges on the eye sense and seeing > nama arises to know the object. The problem with this statement is > that the cart is before the horse. The object does not become visible > object until after it has been seen. Before it is seen (nama) it is > not visible object, just object, and unknown at that, but there > nonetheless. The objects that are discerned through the five sense > doors impinge on all sense doors alike, and everything else within > reach as well. > > Some rupas impinge meaningfully on more than one sense base and cause > namas of more than one type. Sound, for example, can be heard but is > also palpable as body sense. This way a deaf man is capable of tuning > a musical instrument, based on the vibrations felt in the body. Sound > can be felt. Do we identify two rupas in this case or one? > > Taste and smell are also deeply intertwined. > > What is the difference between a visible object rupa and a visible > object arammana > > All the best > > > Herman 11111 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 11:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas -ANDERS --- anders_honore wrote: > I read a sutta just last night, where the Buddha refuted an > annihilationist view, consisting of just the cessation of a living > being upon Parinnibbana. Not the cessation of self, but the cessation > of a living being (which must be defined as the khandas, I'd reckon), > and that is all there is to it. It seems the Buddha disagrees with > that one, though I don't know if that negates your view of things too. Anders, Can you identify that sutta please? Perhaps quote it as well? Robert Ep. 11112 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 11:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (cont.) Howard Thanks for your comments --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > Thank you for a very useful post. Much appreciated! The part most > > illuminating to me is the following: > > "This sutta gives 4 factors (anga) that need to be developed if stream > entry is to be gained. These factors are the sota-patti-anga – > ‘factors > for stream entry’, as follows -- > 1/. Association with superior persons > 2/. Hearing the true Dhamma > 3/. Careful attention > 4/. Practice in accordance with the Dhamma" > > With regard to these, I see us as having the opportunity for > exercising some volition with regard to all four. Yes, I have never meant to suggest there is not something we call 'volitional effort' (it does indeed play a big part in our lives). But the point we are trying to resolve is whether right effort is to be equated with this volitional effort. In this respect, I think the absence of any reference to effort among these factors (the real sine qua non of development) is significant. > With respect to what you > ask, I would say that items 3 and 4 constitute what I called "walking > the walk". Fair enough. These 2 items are of course heavily (and continuously) dependent on items 1 and 2 which, as I have tried to indicate, are not a matter of simply listening to/reading someone's ideas about the practice. > One more comment: I think you make a good point in saying that > this > sutta supports your interpretation of the noble 8-fold path. (Your post > is > copied below without further comment.) > > With much metta, > Howard Anumodana Jon 11113 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 11:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Rob Ep In this and your original post, aren't you addressing the issue from a point of view that implies the reification of the external object (the rock)? Doesn't any reference to an external object, as opposed to the rupa being experienced at the sense-door at the moment of contact with consciousness involve a reification? Just something to consider. Jon --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > I really appreciate your interacting with my overwhelming tome. I would > only try > to clarify one point, which I guess is hard to express properly: that > there is no > such thing as direct perception of a rupa. The only way we experience > hardness or > visible object is through an act of perception. In what way is that act > of > perception ever pure? Even if it is completely devoid of any concept, > it is still > being transmitted by a perceptual organ [eye] which is picking it up and > forming > an image of it in order to bring it to the brain through the optical > cortex. To > what extent are these organs which transmit the image pure? And to what > extent > does the 'image' which does not exist three-dimensionally which the > brain actually > gets to 'see' corrrespond with the 'real rupa'. > > Now if you say there is no 'real rupa' because a rupa is not different > than the > act of perception that selects it, then you once again have a framed and > interpreted object which is the product of the organs of sense and of > the brain > that interprets the image thus created, not an 'actual rupa'. When the > optical > cortex gets the image from the eyes, it is upside down, because of the > mechanics > of the inverted lenses that reflect off of the optical mechanism in the > brain. > The brain through an act of translation has to turn the image right side > up. So > this is all a manipulation/translation/correction of a selected aspect > of > 'reality' that is being produced by mental processes. How does this > represent any > sort of 'absolute object'? It seems to me that it merely represents the > mind's > version of object, and a selected aspect at that. > > There is no getting around the fact that we get all of our experiences > through > mental mechanics. They are as 'pure' as a camera or a tv set. Get a > more > expensive HDTV and the image thus created is totally different than the > cheaper > variety. > > Now, Jonathan said to me a while back, and helped me quite a bit, that a > 'rupa' > need not be perfect in some external sense, because one is only getting > the > perceptions that one is karmically and conditionally ordained to get > anyway. The > main thing is that one gets the experiences that are appropriate for > oneself as an > individual. In other words, even having the eyes you have, if you are > color > blind, comes from a karmic or conditional cause, and so if you get a > 'rupa' that > is in black and white, because you don't register colors, well, that is > the > perfect karmic rupa for you, and so it's still a 'paramatha dhamma' > because it is > *your* absolute object for your current state of evolution/causation. > > I can accept that as an explanation of what you get being appropriate > for you, but > on the more basic level of the human condition of being in a body with > built in > cameras [eyes], sensors [skin] etc., it does not seem that this > explanation is > satisfactory enough. It does not account for the fact that the human > body and > mind themselves are inherently subjective, since they only really record > images, > not the objects themselves. Images may be objects in their own right, > and I could > accept the idea that images are the real objects of human existence, > which is what > I think is the case until one has extra-sensory access to objects. But > I cannot > accept that we get the 'actual' object through our senses. Senses are a > particular way of getting at an object, it is not an 'accurate' way. > Smell only > gives us a certain view of object, it doesn't really give us a 'real' > view. It is > limited and biased by its own equippage. Same with all the senses, > which all form > images according to their, not the object's, nature. > > Is my problem any clearer with all this explanation? I hope so, and > that it may > have some form of resolution, for I can't see it. This idea leaves me > personally > with the disposition to look at the mind and its processes [namas] > rather than to > think that I am actually seeing rupas. In looking at the way the mind > processes > information, one can get at the reality of being human, but not by > positing > external objects that are 'real' and whose descriptions we think are > accurate. > > Best, > Robert Ep. > > ========================== > > --- Sarah wrote: > > 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 > > ====================================================== > > > > 11114 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 2, 2002 0:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Winnie the Pooh (was Re: samma samadhi) Herman --- 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. Yes, choice is a good word to use (but then, choice was a good word for Hobson's situation, too). And I wouldn't argue with what you say below. The fact is, though, if Pooh had a real choice about it, he would choose not to at all. But he innately knows there's no use contemplating anything remotely along those lines, so he goes along happy with the degree of choice he sees himself as having. Another aspect worth considering is likes and dislikes. Some things we like (or dislike) we would willingly choose to not to like (or dislike) if that was at all possible. (In fact, life would be easier without either.) Yes, we do have a degree of choice in a sense. But if we put aside the conventional limitations for a moment (ie. what it is realistic to choose or not choose), that degree of choice would seem so limited as to be 'no choice'. Jon > 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 11115 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 2, 2002 1:03am Subject: Re: 4 hallucinations/perversions Re: [dsg] Vipallasa's Azita Good to hear from you. I trust you have managed to get your internet access problems sorted out. Must feel good to be pulling out the dhamma books again. We hope to hear from you more frequently. Jon PS Are you in touch with Richard Giles or Sundharo at all? Does either of them have an email address? Anyone else from Wat Phleng days? --- azita gill wrote: > --- , > > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "fcckuan" > > wrote: > > > ). But I still > > need some hints > > from > > > you guys on how the sanna (perception aggregate) > > works as memory. > > > Scriptural references would help, although I'm > > guessing it's > > probably > > > later stuff like Abidhamma and commentaries, since > > it would have > > made > > > an impression on me if I read anything in Samyutta > > and Majjhima > > > describing memory and perception. Surely someone > > here can help me > > > out. Show me some love. > > hello, my name's Azita and have been a dsg-er for > along time, however new to cyber dsg. I have found > something on memory. From a little book i found in my > bookcase called Abhidhamma Studies, researches in > Buddhist Psychology by Nyanaponika Thera. > M Memory as we usually understand it is not > mentioned as a separate component of a moment of > consciousness(citta)becasuse it is not a single mental > factor but a complex process. > T The mental factor which is most important for > the arising of memory is > perception(sanna=sanjanana)being that kind of > elementary cognition(janana)which proceeds by way of > taking up, making and remembering i.e. identifying, > marks. A Apart > from that what, in common usage, is called > "remembering", the reminiscent function of perception > in general operates also (a) in the imperceptibly > brief phases of a complete perceptual process, the > sequence of which is based on the connecting function > of "grasping the past phases" (b)in any > consecutive train of thought where this "grasping of > the past"is so habitual, and refers to an event so > close to the present, that in normal parlance it is > not called "memory", though it is not essentially > different from it. S > Sorry, Frank, I forgot to address this to you > personally, before I launched into writing the above, > as it was you who asked the question. I hope it is > of some use to you. > from Azita, in very hot Cairns, Australia. 11116 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Feb 2, 2002 2:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Papanca?/Erik Hi Erik, and All, Thank you for your Post - direct, and unsettling, as always. I appreciate the points you have made.....there is much I will continue to think over. You touch on a number of subjects that have given difficulty, and that are part of the difference between 'how I was' and 'how I am now'. These are in the areas of meditation practice, study, teachers and time-frames. I know that on this List there are some who have formal periods of practice and consider this beneficial and even essential. I know that there are also some who don't think of practice in this way. I used to sit weekly with a group who followed the Mahasi tradition, I had a respected Dhamma teacher, I went to retreats, and faithfully practiced an hour a day, sometimes longer when I lost a sense of time passing. Within the daily practice, I experienced many periods of deep calm. Moderately addictive. Within the retreats, I found mainly intensified unrelieved suffering, and consciousness of universal suffering, and after the retreats I found restlessness for weeks. The teacher moved interstate after a year, and I continued with the group and daily practice for another six months before realising it was the Dhamma - not the meditation - that held me. Felt I wished to remain within the Theravadin tradition. Face to face teaching is difficult to find where I live. At least, so far, I have been unable to find a teacher. So - it is books, tapes and the Internet, and then there is a judgment call on quality and content. Not a certainty for beginners. Read and reflect on a book or sutta, have a question, and then enter the lottery of posting to some e-group and hope someone with correct knowledge replies - and no way to 'control' this. So, after trying eight or ten Lists, I found some were mainly for meditators, some were more Social Clubs or for 'buddhists-as-a-hobby', some were aggressive or competitive..... Which is fine for people seeking those things, but I wanted to learn and understand Dhamma. And that, for me, narrowed the focus to d-l and dsg. It was on dsg that I found people who studied Dhamma, the present moment, realities, and didn't feel it was compulsory to do, or not to do, formal meditation - but who valued and encouraged Dhamma study, reflection, and life as practice flowing from that. Perhaps it is Accumulations, who knows, but I am happy here, and get support, and feel there is and will continue to be spiritual benefit and growth for me. With regard to time-frames - the Mahasi tradition values highly the idea of enlightenment 'In this very Life' .... U Pandita has written a well-known book with this title which was one of my first buddhist books....personally I simply find that if the Buddha took "four uncalculably long periods plus one hundred thousand aeons" (one aeon is billions and billions of years) to become the Buddha" even those whose aspirations don't include becoming a Buddha, are going to take some considerable time. Unless, of course, one is already highly advanced. Thanks for the link to 'Wings to Awakening'. Probably be a little while before I can get to it....have just started Abhidhamma in Daily Life. I couldn't find much via Google on Kamalasila "Bhavana Krama"........ just one article 'Gradual enlightenment, sudden enlightenment and empiricism' by Ivan Strenski, Philosophy East and West Vol 30, no. 1 1980 January p.3-20. University Press of Hawaii. http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ivan.htm Looks interesting, and short enough to read this weekend....... I appreciate your kind remarks, advice and support Erik, always value and continue to consider and reflect on your words..... metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rikpa21" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" > > Hi Christine, > > > I wonder how can we ever be sure whether we have made any real > > progress? Couldn't constant questioning and doubt as to what is > > genuine lead to discouragement? > > Yes. Discouragement is one of the worst enemies of practice. > > > always doubting? > > Yes. And doubt (of the skeptical variety, vicikicca) is one of the > five hindrances to effective medition and enlightenment. > > > always suspecting we are fooling ourselves? > > Yes. This is particularly nasty for those who tend to over- > intellectualizing. Always analyzing this & that, missing the forest > for the trees. > > This is one of the most dangerous traps of all to fall into > regarding the Dharma--that it becomes a mere intellectual exercise, > and not a vehicle leading to liberation. > > The Dharma as explained by the Buddha DOES work, and doesn't require > years of textual study to master. Only basic instruction at first, > and then the careful study of our own minds, with the constant > emphasis on continued development, including study and meditative > practice. > > The key point is that we need to PRACTICE the instructions on > meditation taught by the Buddha in addition to the minimal study > needed to set us on the right course (learning what is to be given > up and what is to be taken up). And patience. Development takes time > and effort. There are ups and down. Three steps forward, and two > back. Again and again. Don't worry. Be happy! :) > > And seriously, I have found no equal to meditative practice > involving exertion, will, effort--at least one hour per day of > concerted mindfulness PRACTICE (as I say hypocritically at the > moment!). > > It does work, Christine, it really, really does! To heck > with being terorized by fears of "self view" and the like when there > are far bigger fish to fry. > > Self-view's there until we realize the Dharma directly for the first > time anyway, so we have to work with it--skillfully. The Buddha > certainly did in his instructions to his disciples. Altbhough as an > arahabnt, he did so without misapprehending it. The rest of us will > have to content ourselevs with "I, me, mine" at some level, and deal > with it as skillfully as possible, and not get worried > over "ohmigosh, self view!" Surprise! That's the human condition! :) > > Just a comment: your obvious yoniso manasikara (wise attention to > the appropriate objects, like anatta, etc.) bode VERY well for your > progress on the path. You ask all the right questions, and I want to > share with you how encouraging I find this. > > Speaking only for myself, I have found the best strategy is to stick > with teachers who give clear, concise explanations on our points of > doubt, follow their instructions with the utmost diligence, and > above all, serve them. And others. I believe, no matter what, > cultivating ANY kind of kusala is GOOD! Why worry about things > like "near enemies" of kusala like a little lobha when we already > have such coarse, vile enemies to deal with, for example? We have to > begin where we are. And where we are is (for most of us) nowhere > near having to worry about "near enemies" and all the other subtle > stuff, but about things at a far more mundane level. > > Just to reiterate my understanding: the Dharma is utterly simple. > Too simple to grasp. And yet so difficult at the same time, for this > very reason. > > But never let anyone's explanations or actions discourage you on > your path, never let any interpretation serve as a cause for doubt > about your ability to master and overcome your defilements IN THIS > LIFETIME. > > When the fruit it ripe, it will drop all by itself--no need for > effort at this point! There is nothing you can do to stop it, except > NOT putting into practice the Holy Dharma taught by Lord Buddha, > combining basic study of points of doubt combined with daily > meditation--for some, Satipatthana. For me, Master > Kamalasila's "Bhavana Krama" on cultivating jhana and the union of > samatha & vipassana. That fruit needs all the requisite conditions > to grow and ripen to the point of dropping, however, so it is > critical, like a good farmer, to understand all the conditions > needed for it to grow and eventually ripen. > > Thsis is best summarized by the 37 Bodhipakkiya Dhammas, the > 37 "Wings to Awakening." This summarizes all the key points of the > Budha's teachings on the path to enlightenment: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/wings/index.html > > May you realize the Noble Fruits of the path in this very > lifetime! :) 11117 From: frank kuan Date: Sun Feb 3, 2002 9:16am Subject: the church made me do it Something I read from a health food magazine on friday: Besides bringing back lots of gold after killing and exploiting lots of natives in America, Cortez also introduced Europe to the Indian's favorite drink, cocoa. The queen and Cortez's friends politely tried it out and pretended to enjoy it, but secretly they thought it tasted awful. If you've ever tried unsweetened chocolate then you know why. It's incredibly bitter. Someone came up with the idea of adding milk and sweetener to it one day, and it instantly became the hottest drink in Europe. The church saw everyone enjoying it so much, so they banned it, saying cocoa was the devil's drink, an aphrodisaic arousing the passions, etc. Immediately after reading this, I went to Trader Joes and bought a pound of chocolate. Over the past 2 days, I've consumed about 8 ounces, or half of the 1 pound bar, and so far I have not noticed an increase in lust or passion. What I did notice is that the normal erection that I have in morning right after I wake up MIGHT be stronger than usual, but lust and passion do not have to follow or accompany the arising of an erection. A great number of old men who aren't able to have erections have mental lust as strong as a teenager hitting puberty. Some of those old men are even high ranking members of some monotheistic traditions. The church didn't know what they were talking about back then, and they still don't know what they're talking about today. Monotheistic religions are doomed to failure because they never try to uproot the underlying cause of the root of suffering, but merely try to prevent or supress symptoms. Putting oneself in a sensory deprivation tank for example does not eliminate suffering, or even begin to help one understand the root of suffering. There's a line from the movie Space Balls, where Dark Helmet tells the hero: "Evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb." This statement is incredibly profound, if you see it in a certain light. The way I interpret it is: the kilesas (defilments) will always triumph over the views of monotheistic traditions because they are rooted in misguided views or misunderstandings that don't conform to the natural laws of reality. Those views only bind them to more equisite forms of suffering. There's something about the Church telling me not to eat chocolate that makes me want to go into the woods, listen to heavy metal music and dance naked while eating chocolate. -fk 11118 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 2, 2002 10:10am Subject: ayatanas, to Num Dear Num, I am glad you asked your aunt about the different classifications in Dispeller and in the Vis. about the ayatanas, 8 cittas less in Dispeller, but I thought also: the 8 may be the lokuttara cittas, and it depends in what heading this is classified. And yes: of three planes (of citta), thus the lokuttara plane is not included in this heading. You reacted so quickly, did you phone your aunt? Do I know her? She is a good source of info . Now I want to ask more, to you or your aunt. Rob. K. does not want to let go of the ayatanas, he wants more about the Co to the Sabbasutta, K. IV, First Fifty, Ch 3, the All. I have the Thai Co. This Co speaks about all ayatanas, but also about pathesa sabbe, and I could not make this out. It says this is five objects, but the word pathesabbe I could not find. What I shall do: I also have the romanized Pali, I shall study the Pali also, but I do not have the atthakatha in Pali of this. Thank you, and with appreciation to you and to your aunt, Nina. 11119 From: azita gill Date: Sun Feb 3, 2002 6:03pm Subject: Re: 4 hallucinations/perversions Re: [dsg] Vipallasa's --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Azita > > Good to hear from you. I trust you have managed to > get your internet > access problems sorted out. > > Must feel good to be pulling out the dhamma books > again. We hope to hear > from you more frequently. > > Jon > > PS Are you in touch with Richard Giles or Sundharo > at all? Does either > of them have an email address? Anyone else from Wat > Phleng days? > > hello Jon and others, > > > > upon inspecting my "bookcase" I 've discovered some wonderful dhamma literature which I've had for ages but-you know, conditions weren't right for me to pull it out and study-I'm really glad to have the opportunity to study again and have so appreciated this group. Sundara and I have regular contact. He is now in Oz and I have encouraged him to join and I'm sure he will. have lost contact with Richard altho. think I know where he is. Laurence Mills, used to be Khantipalo, lives in Cairns, runs a Buddhist centre which I've attended, however its very Tibetan in style and - well i don't go very often. I'm aware that the above info. probably won't interest other people, so more private "goss" I'll send directly to you, Jon. May all beings be happy, and may we all have lots of Sati. Cheers, Azita. > > > 11120 From: Seylan Bank - DBD (Sumane Ratnasuriya) Date: Sat Feb 2, 2002 10:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Winnie the Pooh (was Re: samma samadhi) Dear All, Contributing after a long lapse, with what I can. Fictitious all right, but the idea of reading in the toilet, better not be propagated unless with a course of exercises to stimulate the rectal veins (Yoga) & facilitate blood circulation. Half a minute for the 'go' & another one & a half to clean-up would/should not allow more than a glance at toiletry ads on packaging etc.(meaning nothing brought from outside to read) Health problems, especially painful ones are deterrent at meditation, primarily & at all other activity, mental & physical. Therefore best avoided, when possible. A lot of roughage & a lot of water ( and those controls) help leave the seat in 2 minutes! Thank you all for the many concept analyses received by me, a born Buddhist. With Mettha, Sumane Rathnasuriya ----- Original Message ----- > > --- egberdina wrote: > Dear Christine, > > > > I hope ............. > > > > 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. > > > > 11121 From: Lucy Date: Sun Feb 3, 2002 8:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kukkucca ?=regret From: "Sarah" Thank for your comments Sarah ! (says Lucy coming back to >200 messages after a few days off-line) > > For sure, whenever there is > kukkucca, there is restlessness. When there is remorse, there is a 'state > of bondage'. Isn't this true? > Very true. This is a good way of distinguishing 'kukkucca' from hiri / ottappa (which do not involve those states of restlessness & bondage) > 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. > As I'm learning from this study of cetasikas. Funny how looking at a few in detail helps also to become aware of the others as they appear in 'real life' situations - funny too that they loose their strength the moment one spots them! > 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;-) I must be VERY reticent because I haven't had a photograph taken in years! But as it's so nice to see other people's pics in the album I'll have to make the effort - though it might take some time to get it organised! Lucy 11122 From: Lucy Date: Sun Feb 3, 2002 8:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kukkucca ?=regret Dear Nina Thank you for your comments and explanations. Having shunned Abhidhamma for a very long time, being introduced to it by way of the cetasikas is very encouraging. Instead of being something purely intellectual and technical, it becomes dynamic and practical. And thank you for your books (they're very clear) and for so generously making them available ! Lucy 11123 From: Lucy Date: Sun Feb 3, 2002 9:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kukkucca ?=regret Hello Kenneth > 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. Absolutely! This week I looked into hiri / ottappa [moral shame / fear of blame], the Guardians of the World, as the Buddha called them. They are the wholesome aspect of 'regret' and, as the texts say, the basis for the development of sila (morality). Thanks for the useful pointer. Lucy 11124 From: egberdina Date: Sun Feb 3, 2002 6:45pm Subject: Testing This is a test only. Herman 11125 From: Sarah Date: Sun Feb 3, 2002 10:09pm Subject: yahoo glitch -serious test of patience for me Hi All, I'm a little overcome with joy and emotion right now as I look at the messages from Selamat, Lucy and others that have just come through to my in box after the yahoo glitch (which started after Christine's message on Saturday). I still can't access the yahoo webpage, but at least there are signs that progress is being made to fix whatever problem it was. It has not been easy to even report the problem because one is just send in a never ending circle ('the new system'). Anyway, hopefully it's all history now. Many thanks to all those with support and suggestions off-list. Before we go away on Chinese New Year hol at the weekend, I want to devote my free time to making copies of all the Useful Posts(no simple, quick way I know of) and with Kom's help, backing up everything we can onto another list (dsg2) we now have ready in case of any serious breakdown in future. If anyone has suggestions on any of this, pls let us know off-list. Also if anyone knows a contact person at yahoo for future reference, pls give us the details off-list too;-) Thanks for your patience and support and look f/w to reading any dhamma messages you send. pls make up for lost time;-) Sarah (& Jon) begin to smile again;-) ============================== 11126 From: Date: Sun Feb 3, 2002 7:54pm Subject: delusion (moha) Greetings DSG, I hope someone is still out there. The message archives have been down all weekend. Two questions: Would it be correct to say delusion of self and concept of self are two different phenomena? If so, what are the distinguishing characteristics of delusion of self? I'm not talking about self delusion (telling oneself a lie), rather a "belief" in a self that doesn't involve concepts. Also, as a sub-question, what is belief? I assume that both concepts and delusions can be believed. thanks, Larry 11127 From: egberdina Date: Sun Feb 3, 2002 6:45pm Subject: test test 11128 From: Date: Sun Feb 3, 2002 5:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Testing Hi, Herman - In a message dated 2/4/02 1:07:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@d... writes: > This is a test only. > > Herman =========================== You passed the test! 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) 11129 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Feb 2, 2002 11:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Highest Bliss --- egberdina wrote: > Dear Robert, > > I may end up needing to (take it on the road). The company I work for > is on the precipice , and leaning towards the abyss. The thing worth > mentioning about this is that I am not loosing my "peace". I'm happy to hear that. To me, that is a real tangible attainment. Robert Ep. ================== > Wishing you well, as always > > > Herman > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > --- egberdina wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Herman, > > You're very sharp lately. Ever think of taking this on the road? > > > > Robert > > > 11130 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 0:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > In this and your original post, aren't you addressing the issue from a > point of view that implies the reification of the external object (the > rock)? Doesn't any reference to an external object, as opposed to the > rupa being experienced at the sense-door at the moment of contact with > consciousness involve a reification? > > Just something to consider. > > Jon Jon, I totally agree. That's my problem. I don't understand how the rupa can be seen as the separate object of a nama, rather than a nama itself, without implicating a 'real object' being apprehended by perception in the sense door. Am I confused about what a rupa is? This keeps coming back to haunt me. If the rupa is a physical object, it implies a reification. If it is purely a sensory/mental object, why isn't it included as one of the namas? Robert Ep. ========================= 11131 From: egberdina Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 1:39am Subject: Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Dear Robert, This one has jumped the queue a bit, but it is only the second one I read since connectivity has been restored. I am with you 182% on this, you have expressed the dilemma crystal clearly. All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Rob Ep > > > > In this and your original post, aren't you addressing the issue from a > > point of view that implies the reification of the external object (the > > rock)? Doesn't any reference to an external object, as opposed to the > > rupa being experienced at the sense-door at the moment of contact with > > consciousness involve a reification? > > > > Just something to consider. > > > > Jon > > Jon, > I totally agree. That's my problem. I don't understand how the rupa can be seen > as the separate object of a nama, rather than a nama itself, without implicating a > 'real object' being apprehended by perception in the sense door. Am I confused > about what a rupa is? This keeps coming back to haunt me. If the rupa is a > physical object, it implies a reification. If it is purely a sensory/mental > object, why isn't it included as one of the namas? > > Robert Ep. > > ========================= > > 11132 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 5:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] yahoo glitch -serious test of patience for me Dear All, There are still a few glitches - I've noticed a few messages didn't come through to this account when I checked the website and several didn't get through to escribe. So I suggest those following escribe or individual mails, check the website too. Hopefully, it'll be back to normal very soon. I also notice the files are still not accessible, but everything else seems to be OK. Many thanks to those who've continued posting as normal. Keep it up! Sarah 11133 From: Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 9:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] ayatanas Dear Nina, > I am glad you asked your aunt about the different classifications > in Dispeller and in the Vis. about the ayatanas, 8 cittas less in > Dispeller, > but I thought also: the 8 may be the lokuttara cittas, and it depends in > what heading this is classified. And yes: of three planes (of citta), thus > the lokuttara plane is not included in this heading. You reacted so > quickly, > did you phone your aunt? Do I know her? Yes, I called her. She said that in atthakatha there are two major styles of writing, implicit and explicit manners. If the sutta is very clear, the writer sometimes wrote in implicit manner and if in the sutta said something implicitly, then the atthakatha then was written in a more explicit manner. Thanks to Kom and K.Amara, both pointed it out to me that I should learn from my aunt. I used to talk to her about twice a year and we never talked about dhamma !! I saw the tipitaka on a shelf in my grandfather reading room since I was a kid. I think I did not even ever touch it, seriously. I can say that I regret that I never even tried to read tipitaka. And I used to have an impression that the student of abhidhamma is a bookworm and does not live in real world!!. Well, I have learned that I better not to say, "I don't like it, because I have never tried it". Now at least, I have some idea of what is real and what is not. My impression is also changed, I feel that both suttanta and abhidhamma keep talking the same things, dhamma which is appearing here and now in daily life (e.g. ayatana). I guess you probably met my aunt, K.Krisana. She went to Sri Lanka and India with A.Sujin when I was younger, I kind of faintly recalled. She mentioned that she's helping someone translated your book into Thai, she is helping with looking up the reference in VisDM and Com. She is a good source of info . Now I > > want to ask more, to you or your aunt. Rob. K. does not want to let go of > the ayatanas, he wants more about the Co to the Sabbasutta, K. IV, First > Fifty, Ch 3, the All. I have the Thai Co. This Co speaks about all > ayatanas, > but also about pathesa sabbe, and I could not make this out. It says this > is > five objects, but the word pathesabbe I could not find. What I shall do: I > also have the romanized Pali, I shall study the Pali also, but I do not > have > the atthakatha in Pali of this Do you mean sabbepadesa? There is a Pali pali, atthakatha and tika online by VRI. The sabbasuttavannana is at : http://www.tipitaka.org/tipitaka/s0304t/s0304t-frm.html I now talk to my aunt once a week, I will try to ask her next time I talk to her. I noted that in Vibhanga the last pair called manayatana and dhammayatana. Dhammayatana is including sannakhandha, vedanakhandha, sankarakhandha, anitassana-apatiga(invisible- uncontactable) rupa and asankata-dhatu. In Sabbasutta, the pair is mano and dhamma in Pali and in Thai translation is mano and dhammaramana. My question is pannatti is not asankata-dhatu but can be listed as dhammaramana. My understanding is every citta can be called manayatana, but can we call pannatti as external ayatana or dhammayatana in a manodvara-vitthi which has pannati as an aramana? I think dhammaramana has a broader meaning than dhammayatana. I was surprised that even all cetasika are called as external ayatana. Thanks for bringing up the sutta. Appreciate. Num 11134 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 6:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas -ANDERS Dear Dan and Sarah, The view that the kandhas reach cessation in parinibbana may not be a view of annihilation of a self that never existed, but it is still an annihilationist view from the point of view of sentience. If sentience is said to cease in parinibbana, then the one property that is not a convenient fiction but actually takes place is said to be annihilated. There must be a distinction between awakening and cessation. While certain things cease in parinibbana, does it make sense for the awakening to cease as well? In that view, the awake state of nibbana also ceases upon death, and that makes nibbana dependent on physical existence, a strange contradiction in terms. Best, Robert Ep. ======================== --- onco111 wrote: > Dear Sarah, > You wrote a finished a wonderful post to Anders with: > > > In summary, I don't find any support for the idea that the > cessation of > > > all formations (i.e all phenomena including any experiencing of > nibbana) > > > at parinibbana has anything to do with an annihilation view > > Clearly this is true, but if we cling to a notion of an enduring > self, the "cessation of all formations" most certainly LOOKS like an > annihilation view. According to ditthi the self is in the aggregates > or contains the aggregates or IS the aggregates. With parinibbana, > those aggregates cease, so ditthi cannot help but see an implicit > annihilation in parinibbana: "Where did the self go?" But if 'self' > is viewed strictly as a convenient fiction, then there is no anxiety > about "cessation of all formations," and parinibbana simply cannot > appear to be an annihilationist view because there is no self to be > annihilated. > > As always, wonderful post, Sarah. > > I hope to check in again in a month or two. > > Dan 11135 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 8:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Papanca?/Erik Hi Christine, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > > Hi Erik, and All, > > Thank you for your Post - direct, and unsettling, as always. I have an idea that Erik will take this as a compliment;-) I appreciated the rest of your post and found it very sincere and interesting. You give some good reminders on time frames too, though I can see why the 'all in this lifetime' approach is more popular;-) I hope others add further comments and thank you for sharing. Sarah > appreciate the points you have made.....there is much I will > continue to think over. You touch on a number of subjects that have > given difficulty, and that are part of the difference between 'how I > was' and 'how I am now'. These are in the areas of meditation > practice, study, teachers and time-frames. > I know that on this List there are some who have formal periods of > practice and consider this beneficial and even essential. I know > that there are also some who don't think of practice in this way. I > used to sit weekly with a group who followed the Mahasi tradition, I > had a respected Dhamma teacher, I went to retreats, and faithfully > practiced an hour a day, sometimes longer when I lost a sense of time > passing. Within the daily practice, I experienced many periods of > deep calm. Moderately addictive. Within the retreats, I found mainly > intensified unrelieved suffering, and consciousness of universal > suffering, and after the retreats I found restlessness for weeks. > The teacher moved interstate after a year, and I continued with the > group and daily practice for another six months before realising it > was the Dhamma - not the meditation - that held me. > Felt I wished to remain within the Theravadin tradition. Face to > face teaching is difficult to find where I live. At least, so far, > I have been unable to find a teacher. So - it is books, tapes and > the Internet, and then there is a judgment call on quality and > content. Not a certainty for beginners. Read and reflect on a book > or sutta, have a question, and then enter the lottery of posting to > some e-group and hope someone with correct knowledge replies - and no > way to 'control' this. So, after trying eight or ten Lists, I found > some were mainly for meditators, some were more Social Clubs or > for 'buddhists-as-a-hobby', some were aggressive or competitive..... > Which is fine for people seeking those things, but I wanted to learn > and understand Dhamma. And that, for me, narrowed the focus to d-l > and dsg. It was on dsg that I found people who studied Dhamma, the > present moment, realities, and didn't feel it was compulsory to do, > or not to do, formal meditation - but who valued and encouraged > Dhamma study, reflection, and life as practice flowing from that. > Perhaps it is Accumulations, who knows, but I am happy here, and get > support, and feel there is and will continue to be spiritual benefit > and growth for me. > With regard to time-frames - the Mahasi tradition values highly the > idea of enlightenment 'In this very Life' .... U Pandita has written > a well-known book with this title which was one of my first buddhist > books....personally I simply find that if the Buddha took "four > uncalculably long periods plus one hundred thousand aeons" (one aeon > is billions and billions of years) to become the Buddha" even those > whose aspirations don't include becoming a Buddha, are going to take > some considerable time. Unless, of course, one is already highly > advanced. > Thanks for the link to 'Wings to Awakening'. Probably be a little > while before I can get to it....have just started Abhidhamma in Daily > Life. > I couldn't find much via Google on Kamalasila "Bhavana Krama"........ > just one article 'Gradual enlightenment, sudden enlightenment and > empiricism' by Ivan Strenski, Philosophy East and West Vol 30, no. 1 > 1980 January p.3-20. University Press of Hawaii. > http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ivan.htm > Looks interesting, and short enough to read this weekend....... > > I appreciate your kind remarks, advice and support Erik, always value > and continue to consider and reflect on your words..... > > metta, > Christine 11136 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 8:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kukkucca ?=regret Dear Lucy, --- Lucy wrote: > > Thank for your comments Sarah ! > (says Lucy coming back to >200 messages after a few days off-line) Well, you may have been quite glad for the weekend glitch in posts to give you a chance to catch up;-) > > For sure, whenever there is > > kukkucca, there is restlessness. When there is remorse, there is a > 'state > > of bondage'. Isn't this true? > > > > Very true. This is a good way of distinguishing 'kukkucca' from hiri / > ottappa (which do not involve those states of restlessness & bondage) Exactly so. > As I'm learning from this study of cetasikas. Funny how looking at a few > in > detail helps also to become aware of the others as they appear in 'real > life' situations - funny too that they loose their strength the moment > one > spots them! Yes and I think this is the test; i.e to be aware of them naturally as they arise in daily life without any special effort or watching.....for me, there were many, many moments with kukucca (regret) and useless proliferations during the 'yahoo glitch' and I was so glad we'd all been reminding each other about these so recently. It doesn't mean that with the reminders that they're not going to arise, but a little awareness and less kidding oneself they are justifiable, excusable or even at times worthy, can help a lot;-) > > 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;-) > > I must be VERY reticent because I haven't had a photograph taken in > years! > But as it's so nice to see other people's pics in the album I'll have to > make the effort - though it might take some time to get it organised! you could always join us for a weekend in Bangkok..that way you wouldn't be able to avoid Sukin's camera lens and your place in the album;-) Otherwise, take your time and we look f/w to it. As I just told Kom , we have our ways and means of helping those with good excuses. I was so glad to read your posts, Lucy. Great timing;-) Sarah =========================================== 11137 From: Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 8:51pm Subject: Re: delusion (moha) Thought I would throw some ideas at this question since I'm not sure what I'm asking anyway. -------------- >Two questions: Would it be correct to say delusion of self and concept of self are two different phenomena? If so, what are the distinguishing characteristics of delusion of self? I'm not talking about self delusion (telling oneself a lie), rather a "belief" in a self that doesn't involve concepts. ________________ Delusion is basically wrong understanding. So does understanding (panna) understand only concept, or does it also understand reality? According to Nyanatiloka"s Buddhist Dictionary there are 3 kinds of knowledge. Knowledge based on thinking, learning, and mental development. Thinking and learning seem to be purely conceptual. Mental development (bhavana-maya-panna) "is that knowledge which one has acquired through mental development in this or that way, and which has reached the stage of full concentration" (appana) (Vis. XIV). So reality is understood, and apparently misunderstood, even though it is seemingly meaningless. There are two kinds of concepts, meaning concepts and naming concepts. Meaning concepts "become objects of consciousness in the form of shadows of (ultimate) things" p.326 "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma". Does this mean reality is meaningless? Probably not. Well this didn't lead where I thought it would lead. I was trying to get to two truths, conceptual and real. I had the idea that conceptual truth was based on a credible representation of reality (credibility being based on conceptual conventions) and real truth being based somehow on values (kusala/akusala) which are realities, not sure what that means. Still pretty mixed up, need more study, Larry 11138 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 8:53pm Subject: Re: 4 hallucinations/perversions Re: [dsg] Vipallasa's Hi Frank, --- frank kuan wrote: > [Sarah]: > p.s now it's your turn to show us some love and find a > photo > > [fk]: > I own no camera, I have no photos. Rupa, anicca. > Sanna, anicca, so why bother? :-) Couldn't we say this about the computer and many other objects? Anyway, no need to add to your possessions (I know you like the simple life);-) all you have to do is ask a friend who is less enlightened to help (preferably on a day you've put on those rupa anicca clothes;-) > Thanks for the tips on vipallasa. I will search the > archives. Hope to hear back after your weekend's study. Sarah =================================== 11139 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 9:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Hi Herman, Rumour has it that you were missing us all at the weekend too;-) --- egberdina wrote: > Dear Sarah, Robert et al, > > Just when you thought you were going to take a break on this :-) > > > I believe some of the confusion that arises from the rupa / nama > division is caused by the way the process of cognition is described. > It is said that visible object impinges on the eye sense and seeing > nama arises to know the object. The problem with this statement is > that the cart is before the horse. The object does not become visible > object until after it has been seen. I understand your point. I would say it is visible object WHEN it is seen. In other words, if we close our eyes or fall into asleep now, no visible object appears and therefore there is no seeing. So visible object is one essential condition for seeing. When the visible object appears, it conditions the seeing and vice versa. The eye base is another essential condition and the mental factors arising with seeing also condition it and vice versa again. If there hadn't been a moment of consciousness immediately prior to the seeing, there also would be no seeing. Without previous kamma, there'd be no seeing. So the conditions for this moment of seeing are very complex and also for the visible object that is seen at this moment. >Before it is seen (nama) it is > not visible object, just object, and unknown at that, but there > nonetheless. I'm not at all sure we can say this. The particular visible object which is seen now (quite different from what was seen an instant ago) is not the same rupa that has ever been experienced before and we cannot say it is there if there is no seeing of it now. >The objects that are discerned through the five sense > doors impinge on all sense doors alike, and everything else within > reach as well. It may seem that we see 'vibration' or smell 'softness', but in reality, seeing only sees visible object and so on. The sense door processes folow each other very rapidly and the sanna (perception,memory) marks the objects to condition different ways of thinking and processing of the information. For most blind or deaf people, I believe there are still visible objects and sounds being experienced, even though they are so 'blurry' and the indiviudal has to depend on many other experiences to manage. However 'blurry', awareness can be mindful of the rupa if there are the right conditins. > > Some rupas impinge meaningfully on more than one sense base and cause > namas of more than one type. Sound, for example, can be heard but is > also palpable as body sense. This way a deaf man is capable of tuning > a musical instrument, based on the vibrations felt in the body. Sound > can be felt. Do we identify two rupas in this case or one? I think I jumped ahead. It may seem that sound can be felt, but isn't it the combination of the 'blurry' sound and experience of vibrations through the bodysense? Good areas to consider, I think. So many different namas and rupas arising all the time. It will depend on many factors as to which will be the objects of awareness. > Taste and smell are also deeply intertwined. It's very true and it's this intertwining of different experiences and different rupas without awareness that gives rise to the ideas of wholes and selves. > What is the difference between a visible object rupa and a visible > object arammana They sound the same to me. Visible object is always a rupa and always arammana. > > All the best Excellent points and questions. Sorry for the delay....Pls let me know if it isn't clear or sounds too much like a regurgitated commentary;-) I think these points about rupa and the distinction between it and nama are at the real heart of the Teachings. I hope Jon also helps clarify your other points where you and Rob Ep are 162%(?) in agreement;-) Sarah ========= 11140 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 10:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Dear Rob Ep, I'm a little behind with replies to you too, but will catch up soon;-) --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > I really appreciate your interacting with my overwhelming tome. I would > only try > to clarify one point, which I guess is hard to express properly: that > there is no > such thing as direct perception of a rupa. The only way we experience > hardness or > visible object is through an act of perception. In what way is that act > of > perception ever pure? Even if it is completely devoid of any concept, > it is still > being transmitted by a perceptual organ [eye] which is picking it up and > forming > an image of it in order to bring it to the brain through the optical > cortex. When we start thinking of brain and optical cortex and so on, these are concepts. When there is awareness which is aware of hardness or visible object there is no idea of concept at all. We can think and think about how this may logically be possible, but in reality (that word again), at a moment of being aware of one of these rupas, just its nature or characteristic appears without any thinking. So it's quite different from scientific theory or psychological processes. Whether seeing or awareness can be called 'pure' is debatable. From a dhamma perspective, sanna is the mental factor which perceives or marks the object at every moment. On account of sanna, there is thinking and clinging to these objects and so on. So sanna or perception plays a crucial role. It also has a 'nature' whch can be known, but it is quite different from scientific or psychological perception. >To > what extent are these organs which transmit the image pure? And to what > extent > does the 'image' which does not exist three-dimensionally which the > brain actually > gets to 'see' corrrespond with the 'real rupa'. I think these are conceptual or scientific questions. > Now if you say there is no 'real rupa' because a rupa is not different > than the > act of perception that selects it, Sorry but this doesn't sound like anything I'd say...;-) > then you once again have a framed and > interpreted object which is the product of the organs of sense and of > the brain > that interprets the image thus created, not an 'actual rupa'. When the > optical > cortex gets the image from the eyes, it is upside down, because of the > mechanics > of the inverted lenses that reflect off of the optical mechanism in the > brain. > The brain through an act of translation has to turn the image right side > up. So > this is all a manipulation/translation/correction of a selected aspect > of > 'reality' that is being produced by mental processes. How does this > represent any > sort of 'absolute object'? It seems to me that it merely represents the > mind's > version of object, and a selected aspect at that. These are theories or conceptual truths about processes which are not based on the experience of paramattha or absolute dhammas, as I understand. > There is no getting around the fact that we get all of our experiences > through > mental mechanics. They are as 'pure' as a camera or a tv set. Get a > more > expensive HDTV and the image thus created is totally different than the > cheaper > variety. > > Now, Jonathan said to me a while back, and helped me quite a bit, that a > 'rupa' > need not be perfect in some external sense, because one is only getting > the > perceptions that one is karmically and conditionally ordained to get > anyway. As I just suggested to Herman, when we talk about the development of awareness, it makes no difference how good our eyesight or hearing is, for example. Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether we're smart with good memories in a conventional sense or are energetic or healthy. Namas and rupas appearing are just as 'real' for us all and the awareness arising will depend on the accumulated insight and the other vital conditions rather than these other traits. This is the reason that the Teachings are true for all, in the Buddha's day or now. >The > main thing is that one gets the experiences that are appropriate for > oneself as an > individual. In other words, even having the eyes you have, if you are > color > blind, comes from a karmic or conditional cause, and so if you get a > 'rupa' that > is in black and white, because you don't register colors, well, that is > the > perfect karmic rupa for you, and so it's still a 'paramatha dhamma' > because it is > *your* absolute object for your current state of evolution/causation. I'm not sure about it being 'perfect karmic rupa', but it is the rupa which appears and is paramattha as you say. Just as we can say that painful bodily feeling may not be as 'perfect' as pleasant bodily feeling, but they are both conditioned anyway and so from the point of view of developing sati, it doesn't matter what the vipaka (result of kamma) is. This also applies to the accumulations; regardless of whether it is attachment or metta arising now, they can both equally be objects of awareness and this is why the only real hindrance to the development of satipatthana is ignorance (or wrong view). > I can accept that as an explanation of what you get being appropriate > for you, but > on the more basic level of the human condition of being in a body with > built in > cameras [eyes], sensors [skin] etc., it does not seem that this > explanation is > satisfactory enough. It does not account for the fact that the human > body and > mind themselves are inherently subjective, since they only really record > images, > not the objects themselves. Images may be objects in their own right, > and I could > accept the idea that images are the real objects of human existence, > which is what > I think is the case until one has extra-sensory access to objects. But > I cannot > accept that we get the 'actual' object through our senses. Senses are a > particular way of getting at an object, it is not an 'accurate' way. > Smell only > gives us a certain view of object, it doesn't really give us a 'real' > view. It is > limited and biased by its own equippage. Same with all the senses, > which all form > images according to their, not the object's, nature. Awareness is only aware of just that dhamma which is experienced. It may seem that the smell experienced or the sound heard is not a perfect or accurate smell or sound, but it is that particular one that 'appears' to awareness. At the moment of appearing, there is no doubt about its nature and no thought about how it isn't really accurate. Furthermore, the object is never the same as at any other time. If there is thinking about it now, or trying to work it out, then the reality which can be known is thinking. At a moment of awareness of thinking, there are no stories or idea of accuracy. > Is my problem any clearer with all this explanation? I hope so, and > that it may > have some form of resolution, for I can't see it. This idea leaves me > personally > with the disposition to look at the mind and its processes [namas] > rather than to > think that I am actually seeing rupas. In looking at the way the mind > processes > information, one can get at the reality of being human, but not by > positing > external objects that are 'real' and whose descriptions we think are > accurate. I understand exactly what you're saying. As I've mentioned before, I was trained as a (scientific) psychologist and was used to theorising about perceptual processes. I think the real difficulty is when we take the concepts for being realities rather than understanding and being aware of what actually appears now. It's not easy at all and I'm aware that I'm not expressing myself well. I'll do my best with your other posts but also hope that Jon or someone else will be able to clarify further. I really apprciate your keen interest and recognition of the importance of understanding these different phenomena. Sarah ==================================== 11141 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 10:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas -ANDERS --- Sarah wrote: > Dan, > > Thanks and very helpful additional comments (in my mind anyway). Can't you > stay a little to help any posts that come in which don't share these > sentiments?? I guess that would be me! > Always good to know you're around and thanks again for the colourful > pixs.....I'll mark a month or two down in my diary;-) By then it will be too late! Anders, are you with me or against me? (never can tell ) Best Regards, Robert Ep. 11142 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 10:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas -ANDERS Hi Rob, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Sarah wrote: > > Dan, > > > > Thanks and very helpful additional comments (in my mind anyway). Can't > you > > stay a little to help any posts that come in which don't share these > > sentiments?? > > I guess that would be me! No 1 Trouble-maker, of course;-) > > Always good to know you're around and thanks again for the colourful > > pixs.....I'll mark a month or two down in my diary;-) > > By then it will be too late! Why, what do you plan for a month of two down the track? I'm sure we'll all still be needing Dan's inspiring words then;-) > Anders, are you with me or against me? (never can tell ) Anders is not easy to 'pin' down at all.... > Hmm... doesn't sound too 'wholesome' (that was for Dan) to me..... In the meantime, look forward to hearing your comments on Dan's sentiments and reminding me of what they were;-) Sarah p.s pls address them to Dan so that we add them to his queue;-) ================================================== 11143 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 10:19pm Subject: Re: another vote for skillful - Re: [dsg] glossing kusala I agree with you Frank, regarding skillful rather than wholesome, and I would add that skillful is not being used in a general sense, but with regard to suffering. Something that is 'unskillful' in Buddhism is something that leads to more suffering. In that sense, 'skillful' and 'wholesome' have the same intent, and eithe one will do the job, but I agree that wholesome seems to have a moral judgment implicit in it. Best, Robert Ep. P.S. Sarah, Dan has indeed left you holding the bag, as all of the 'skillful' [or unskillful] arguers leap out of the woodwork. ============== --- frank kuan wrote: > > --- onco111 wrote: > > Thanks for the extra two cents, Sarah. "Skilful" > > still seems to carry > > a lot of "skill" baggage with it and blurs the > > distinction between > > the real root of the issue, i.e. greed, hatred, > > delusion vs. non- > > greed, non-hatred, non-delusion. The former three > > can certainly be > > wielded quite skillfully, but they are not at all > > kusala. > > > > Dan > > Hi Dan, that's a good point. Choosing the appropriate > word (skillful or wholesome for kusala) boils down to > pick your poison. > > 1) wholesome has the baggage of morality, implied > divine justice and completely arbitrary divine laws by > arbitrary deity (laws that are often akusala!), sin, > which takes the focus off of conditionality. > 2) skillful as you skillfully point out, has it's own > baggage. For example, Microsoft is skillful at heaps > of money, but certainly not kusala or wholesome. > > So given these two choices, which sucks less? I would > still vote for skillful. Skillful has an upgrade path. > People can evolve and see that skillfully robbing a > bank, skillfully killing people, skillfully running > microsoft to blackmail billions of people, is skillful > with respect to short term gains, and unclear goals. > > I believe it's easier for people to see the > limitations and grow out of misconceptions of > "skillfulnes" than it is to escape the huge baggage of > fuzzy morality imposed by major organized religions. > It's hard to escape the grasp of something like the > code of morals offered by the church because: > 1) it is 75% pretty useful or correct > 2) people think, how can a rich thousand year old > tradition offer a wrong view of > morality? > It's easier to evolve out of thinking that Microsoft > is skillful. Or one would hope. > > Ultimately, skillful, kusala, wholesome, are just > letters on a piece of paper, pointing to a concept. > It's up to people to deepen their understanding of the > concept, which is why right effort is one of my > favorite limbs of the 8fold path. In the evolution of > one's own cultivation, as long as we're continuously > trying to : > 1) prevent unskillful qualities from arising > 2) elminate current unskillful qualities > 3) arouse unarisen skillful qualities > 4) maintain and nurture arisen skullful qualities > > Even if our initial understanding of "skillful" is > incomplete or erroneous, as long as the attention and > vigilance for right effort is there, eventually it > will get ironed out. > > -fk 11144 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 10:21pm Subject: Re: 4 hallucinations/perversions Re: [dsg] Vipallasa's --- frank kuan wrote: > [Sarah]: > p.s now it's your turn to show us some love and find a > photo > > [fk]: > I own no camera, I have no photos. Rupa, anicca. > Sanna, anicca, so why bother? :-) Hmmnn....but you do own a computer. I find this kind of suspicious. Why don't you buy a small digital camera just for our benefit? They are quite reasonable these days! Best Regards, Robert Ep. ============ > Thanks for the tips on vipallasa. I will search the > archives. 11145 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 10:25pm Subject: RE: 4 hallucinations/perversions Re: [dsg] Vipallasa's Dear Frank, Perhaps the 4th vipallasa is in there with the other three for the exact reason that you value it so much: it is a very effective and concrete way of experiencing the other three. One that I have been avoiding by the way. Best, Robert Ep. ====================== --- frank kuan wrote: > Hi Kom, thanks for the tips, and I'll return to the > discussion after I spend a day or two researching > perception. Quick comment: > > --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > > > I think of subha as beautiful, and asubha as > > not-beautiful. > > [fk]: > Even if we soften the understanding of 4th vipallasa > (seeing impure as pure), I still don't see how it > justifies this 4th vipallasa being in the exalted > company of the other 3. Why are the first 3 exalted? > They are the exact opposite of reality: > 1) impermanence > 2) dukkha > 3) anatta > > The impurity/purity aspect is a more mundane aspect, > whereas the first 3 have both mundane and supramundane > levels. That 4th vipallasa just doesn't seem to > belong. > In one of the anguttaras, the buddha says: > > (my memory, my paraphrase) > "Dudes, whether a buddha arises or not, and goes > around educating you ignorant peoples, this natural > law of reality is going to keep operating: All > conditioned things are impermanent. > > ...this natural law of reality is going to keep > operating: all conditioned things are dukkha. > > ...this natural law of reality is going to keep > operating: all things are anatta. > > (end of sutta). > > Note the absence of asubha/subha. Just doesn't belong. > > > Now, I happen to be one of the big proponents of the > contemplation of impurities, and seeing the body as > loathsome. I think it's a big mistake for modern > westerners to neglect this aspect of practice because > it doesn't accord with their more delicate > sensibilities. However, I don't think that 4th > vipallasa belongs in the company of the other 3. > > -fk 11146 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 10:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] another vote for skillful [Hmmm...] > Is "understanding" skillful? Of course it is! And so are dancing > (well, not when I do it), lying, cheating, stealing, killing, etc. at > times. "Skillful" doesn't seem like a very skillful gloss for > "kusala." > > Dan Dear Dan, Just want to reiterate that lying cheating and stealing are not skillful in terms of Buddhism, and so there is no problem with mixing up moral skillfulness and immoral skillfulness. The skill being referred to is the skill at ending suffering, not skill in general. The above categories lead directly to more and intensified suffering so in Buddhist terms they are unskillful indeed. Best, Robert Ep. 11147 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 10:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (cont.) Dear Jon, Your post here is very well stated. I want to suggest one possibility, which is the absurd notion which I none-the-less believe, that wrong view with right practice can lead to the right result. The reason I believe this, and I am ready to be challenged, is that it is the nature of insight that it is an interruption of one's view. Therefore any practice that leads to true insight will lead to right view, even in a practitioner who has the wrong view of self. What a correct practice means to me is that it is a skillful enough technique that it is 'view-proof'. It will interrupt wrong view even if the practitioner's current view of self would fight against it. Insight is a surprise occurence. It can be cultivated but not planned. The practice of mindfulness does, I believe, lead to insight, and then wrong view is gradually replaced by discernment. In my opinion, it is concentrated and repeated practice in mindfulness that leads to discernment of the actual nature of the moment. If one can do this in daily life, no one would argue with this, because that means that the person practicing this is engaged in meditation, even while going about their normal activities. But to think that correct practice of meditation does not increase one's skill at practicing mindfulness does not make sense to me. It seems that practice of attention to the moment with the least amount of distraction does lead to increased skill at developing a mindful state, which leads to insight. Rather than getting tainted fruit because of the wrong view of self, it is this kind of skill in the moment that eventually transcends and corrects wrong view. I am speaking as one who is still in a cloudy state of murky self-concept, I am sure, so I speak of this while bumping into the furniture in the dark, but never-the-less, I present it for your consideration. Best, Robert Ep. ============================ --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > > > > The conditions for the arising of such panna (at whatever level has > > been > > > developed to date) are both extremely subtle and extremely complex. > > But > > > they are there in the suttas to be read, pondered and realised. > > ----------------------------- > > Howard: > > What are they? And what brings them forward? Luck? Accumulations? We > > all have accumulations. Calling oneself a Buddhist doesn't create the > > conditions, does it? It seems to me that one has to "walk the walk". > > ------------------------------ > > I'm sure we're agreed on the point you make here, that actual development > does not come by thinking or theorising about the teachings. But what > does "walking the walk" involve as far as the teaching is concerned? > > The truly unique aspect of the Buddha's teaching is the insight (to use > your preferred translation) into things as they really are. Insight is > something that accrues or builds up only by developing insight(!). It is > quite different from, say, acquiring knowledge, which can be done by > following a programme of study. Almost by definition, insight cannot be > acquired by practising a technique or carrying out a form of practice. > > There are suttas in which the Buddha talks about the *factors that must be > developed* if the insight leading to enlightenment is to be gained. These > are not to be confused with suttas that *describe the attributes (factors) > of developed insight*. Among the latter I would include the 37 > bodhi-pakkhiya dhamma (‘factors of enlightenment’), which are factors that > are indeed developed (built up, increased) as insight itself develops, but > which in my view should not be seen as *things to be practised*. They are > factors *of* enlightenment, rather than the factors *for* enlightenment in > the sense that my earlier post and yours (above) are talking about. > > I have pasted below the sutta 'Sariputta' from Samyutta Nikaya - SN 55, 5 > Sotapatti-samyutta, Sariputta sutta. (This sutta is actually an exchange > between the Buddha and Sariputta, but I have taken the liberty of reducing > it to its simplest narrative form,) > > This sutta gives 4 factors (anga) that need to be developed if stream > entry is to be gained. These factors are the sota-patti-anga – ‘factors > for stream entry’, as follows -- > 1/. Association with superior persons > 2/. Hearing the true Dhamma > 3/. Careful attention > 4/. Practice in accordance with the Dhamma > > Elsewhere these same 4 factors are also given as things which, "when > developed and cultivated, lead to the obtaining … , growth … and expansion > of wisdom, … to greatness of wisdom" SN 55, 59-62] > > There is I'm sure a significance to the order in which the factors are > given. Only through association with a superior person (one who > understands the dhamma and is able to share their understanding with us) > can we hear the true Dhamma (explained in the particular way we need to > hear it on that particular occasion); only having heard the true Dhamma > appropriately explained can it receive the careful consideration that > gives rise to wise attention and so awareness and insight. > > Having given the factors for stream-entry, the sutta then explains what is > meant by ‘the stream’ that is to be ‘entered’. That stream is "This Noble > Eightfold Path …; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, > right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right > concentration." > > I find interesting the relationship that the sutta brings out between the > *factors for growth of insight leading to stream-entry* and the *Noble > Eightfold Path as the 'stream' to be thus entered*. To my mind this > clearly supports the view that the Noble Eightfold Path is descriptive of > the moment of enlightenment rather than an explanation of how to get > there, and that the expanded descriptions of the 8 path-factors so often > read about should be understood in that context. > > So my brief answers to your specific questions above would be as follows– > > > What are they? > J: They are the 4 factors starting with meeting the right person (all of > which are as applicable to the person on the verge of enlightenment as > they are to the beginner). > > > And what brings them forward? Luck? Accumulations? > J: Meeting the right person and hearing the true dhamma in a given > lifetime is a matter of vipaka (result of kamma). There isn’t much we can > do about that for this lifetime(!), but if we appreciate that the study > of, reflection on and ‘careful consideration’ of the dhamma at this moment > gives us the best chance of practice that is truly ‘in accordance with’ > the dhamma, then this will in turn bring those factors forward again in > future lifetimes. > > > We all have accumulations. Calling oneself a Buddhist doesn't create the > > conditions, does it? > J: Absolutely. > > > It seems to me that one has to "walk the walk". > J: This is how we naturally tend to see things. But is it something > likely to be understood in a way that is truly ‘in accordance with’ the > texts (except as a reminder that mere theorising is not the development of > the path)? There is no point in starting the walk with wrong view -- I > say this because of the frequently-met assertion that insight is developed > by undertaking a formal practice even though there is inevitably an idea > of self involved in doing so ‘at the initial stages’. A form of practice > that is done with a wrong view of self at the initial stages, followed by > the apparent experiencing of the *right results*, simply leads to a > strengthening of the wrong view of self. > > Jon > > SN 55 (Sotapatti-samyutta), 5. ‘Sariputta’ > > "What is a factor for stream-entry? > Association with superior persons is a factor for stream-entry. Hearing > the true Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry. Careful attention is a > factor for stream-entry. Practice in accordance with the Dhamma is a > factor for stream-entry. > > “What is the stream? > This Noble Eightfold Path is the stream; that is, right view, right > intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, > fright mindfulness, right concentration. > > “What is a stream-enterer? > One who possesses this Noble Eightfold Path is a stream-enterer: this > venerable one of such a name and clan.” 11148 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 11:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Dear Sarah, Thanks for your efforts to clarify this topic. There is a little light getting in each time the idea of the rupa is clarified. I want to read this a few more times, and I will see if I have anything intelligent or intelligible to add. Thanks again, Robert Ep. ===================== --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob Ep, > > I'm a little behind with replies to you too, but will catch up soon;-) > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > I really appreciate your interacting with my overwhelming tome. I would > > only try > > to clarify one point, which I guess is hard to express properly: that > > there is no > > such thing as direct perception of a rupa. The only way we experience > > hardness or > > visible object is through an act of perception. In what way is that act > > of > > perception ever pure? Even if it is completely devoid of any concept, > > it is still > > being transmitted by a perceptual organ [eye] which is picking it up and > > forming > > an image of it in order to bring it to the brain through the optical > > cortex. > > When we start thinking of brain and optical cortex and so on, these are > concepts. When there is awareness which is aware of hardness or visible > object there is no idea of concept at all. We can think and think about > how this may logically be possible, but in reality (that word again), at a > moment of being aware of one of these rupas, just its nature or > characteristic appears without any thinking. > > So it's quite different from scientific theory or psychological processes. > Whether seeing or awareness can be called 'pure' is debatable. From a > dhamma perspective, sanna is the mental factor which perceives or marks > the object at every moment. On account of sanna, there is thinking and > clinging to these objects and so on. So sanna or perception plays a > crucial role. It also has a 'nature' whch can be known, but it is quite > different from scientific or psychological perception. > > >To > > what extent are these organs which transmit the image pure? And to what > > extent > > does the 'image' which does not exist three-dimensionally which the > > brain actually > > gets to 'see' corrrespond with the 'real rupa'. > > I think these are conceptual or scientific questions. > > > Now if you say there is no 'real rupa' because a rupa is not different > > than the > > act of perception that selects it, > > Sorry but this doesn't sound like anything I'd say...;-) > > > then you once again have a framed and > > interpreted object which is the product of the organs of sense and of > > the brain > > that interprets the image thus created, not an 'actual rupa'. When the > > optical > > cortex gets the image from the eyes, it is upside down, because of the > > mechanics > > of the inverted lenses that reflect off of the optical mechanism in the > > brain. > > The brain through an act of translation has to turn the image right side > > up. So > > this is all a manipulation/translation/correction of a selected aspect > > of > > 'reality' that is being produced by mental processes. How does this > > represent any > > sort of 'absolute object'? It seems to me that it merely represents the > > mind's > > version of object, and a selected aspect at that. > > These are theories or conceptual truths about processes which are not > based on the experience of paramattha or absolute dhammas, as I > understand. > > > There is no getting around the fact that we get all of our experiences > > through > > mental mechanics. They are as 'pure' as a camera or a tv set. Get a > > more > > expensive HDTV and the image thus created is totally different than the > > cheaper > > variety. > > > > Now, Jonathan said to me a while back, and helped me quite a bit, that a > > 'rupa' > > need not be perfect in some external sense, because one is only getting > > the > > perceptions that one is karmically and conditionally ordained to get > > anyway. > > As I just suggested to Herman, when we talk about the development of > awareness, it makes no difference how good our eyesight or hearing is, for > example. Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether we're smart with good > memories in a conventional sense or are energetic or healthy. Namas and > rupas appearing are just as 'real' for us all and the awareness arising > will depend on the accumulated insight and the other vital conditions > rather than these other traits. This is the reason that the Teachings are > true for all, in the Buddha's day or now. > > >The > > main thing is that one gets the experiences that are appropriate for > > oneself as an > > individual. In other words, even having the eyes you have, if you are > > color > > blind, comes from a karmic or conditional cause, and so if you get a > > 'rupa' that > > is in black and white, because you don't register colors, well, that is > > the > > perfect karmic rupa for you, and so it's still a 'paramatha dhamma' > > because it is > > *your* absolute object for your current state of evolution/causation. > > I'm not sure about it being 'perfect karmic rupa', but it is the rupa > which appears and is paramattha as you say. Just as we can say that > painful bodily feeling may not be as 'perfect' as pleasant bodily feeling, > but they are both conditioned anyway and so from the point of view of > developing sati, it doesn't matter what the vipaka (result of kamma) is. > This also applies to the accumulations; regardless of whether it is > attachment or metta arising now, they can both equally be objects of > awareness and this is why the only real hindrance to the development of > satipatthana is ignorance (or wrong view). > > > I can accept that as an explanation of what you get being appropriate > > for you, but > > on the more basic level of the human condition of being in a body with > > built in > > cameras [eyes], sensors [skin] etc., it does not seem that this > > explanation is > > satisfactory enough. It does not account for the fact that the human > > body and > > mind themselves are inherently subjective, since they only really record > > images, > > not the objects themselves. Images may be objects in their own right, > > and I could > > accept the idea that images are the real objects of human existence, > > which is what > > I think is the case until one has extra-sensory access to objects. But > > I cannot > > accept that we get the 'actual' object through our senses. Senses are a > > particular way of getting at an object, it is not an 'accurate' way. > > Smell only > > gives us a certain view of object, it doesn't really give us a 'real' > > view. It is > > limited and biased by its own equippage. Same with all the senses, > > which all form > > images according to their, not the object's, nature. > > Awareness is only aware of just that dhamma which is experienced. It may > seem that the smell experienced or the sound heard is not a perfect or > accurate smell or sound, but it is that particular one that 'appears' to > awareness. At the moment of appearing, there is no doubt about its nature > and no thought about how it isn't really accurate. Furthermore, the object > is never the same as at any other time. > > If there is thinking about it now, or trying to work it out, then the > reality which can be known is thinking. At a moment of awareness of > thinking, there are no stories or idea of accuracy. > > > Is my problem any clearer with all this explanation? I hope so, and > > that it may > > have some form of resolution, for I can't see it. This idea leaves me > > personally > > with the disposition to look at the mind and its processes [namas] > > rather than to > > think that I am actually seeing rupas. In looking at the way the mind > > processes > > information, one can get at the reality of being human, but not by > > positing > > external objects that are 'real' and whose descriptions we think are > > accurate. > > I understand exactly what you're saying. As I've mentioned before, I was > trained as a (scientific) psychologist and was used to theorising about > perceptual processes. I think the real difficulty is when we take the > concepts for being realities rather than understanding and being aware of > what actually appears now. It's not easy at all and I'm aware that I'm not > expressing myself well. I'll do my best with your other posts but also > hope that Jon or someone else will be able to clarify further. > > I really apprciate your keen interest and recognition of the importance of > understanding these different phenomena. > > Sarah > ==================================== > > 11149 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Feb 4, 2002 11:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas -ANDERS --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Rob, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > --- Sarah wrote: > > > Dan, > > > > > > Thanks and very helpful additional comments (in my mind anyway). Can't > > you > > > stay a little to help any posts that come in which don't share these > > > sentiments?? > > > > I guess that would be me! > > No 1 Trouble-maker, of course;-) > > > > Always good to know you're around and thanks again for the colourful > > > pixs.....I'll mark a month or two down in my diary;-) > > > > By then it will be too late! > > Why, what do you plan for a month of two down the track? I'm sure we'll > all still be needing Dan's inspiring words then;-) > > > Anders, are you with me or against me? (never can tell ) > > Anders is not easy to 'pin' down at all.... > > > > > Hmm... doesn't sound too 'wholesome' (that was for Dan) to me..... > > In the meantime, look forward to hearing your comments on Dan's sentiments > and reminding me of what they were;-) > Sarah > > p.s pls address them to Dan so that we add them to his queue;-) > ================================================== whoops, not sure if I addressed these issues to Dan or not......it was a few minutes ago, so I can no longer remember..... : ) Best, Robert Ep. 11150 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Tue Feb 5, 2002 4:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Attn Michael, Sujin, Nina and Sarah Dear Sir - michael, I feel so nice to have your mail. And ofcourse with a lot of questions. The first is, is my salutation - I was not sure whether I should put Venerable or not. so I addressed you as Sir - michael. So... yes I am from Sri Lanka and live in Sri Lanka. And how did you come to Sri Lanka? And it is wonderful news to me that nina and sujin were here too. Was Sarah here too? How about nina and sujin, like to know how they were in Sri Lanka too. And you said Sri Lanka was a special place to you. How? And where are you located now? 1976 - mmm... I have been a very very small boy at that time. Sorry for taking long to reply... I had a long weekend - over here is was independence day on Monday. Thank you very much to your mail... Please write to me, with much meththa.... Ranil >From: "michael newton" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [dsg] glossing kusala >Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 16:29:03 -0800 > >Hello!Ranil; >Judgeing by your name,means that you must be from Sri Lanka.I lived >as a novice monk there in the70's.Sri Lanka is a special place to me, >are you there now?Or elsewhere?I recently joined the dhamma study group >so decided to reply to this.I was there when Khun Sujin and Nina van >Gorhom were there in 76.YOURS IN DHAMMA WITH METTA,MICHAEL > 11151 From: anders_honore Date: Tue Feb 5, 2002 4:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] one limb of 8 fold path more important --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- anders_honore wrote: > > > 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'. > > Well, Anders, we're pretty close on this. But still have a familiar problem with > eliminating samsara in order to have a pure experience of emptiness, nibbana, or > other enlightened qualities. If you say that emptiness is 'full' or 'partial' > depending on whether phenomena arise or not, I am not talking about the seeing of emptiness in dependence on the absence of phenomena or not, but in dependence on the absence of ignorance. 11152 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Feb 5, 2002 5:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Watching experiences vs. Right Effort (was, Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical?) Lucy --- Lucy wrote: > Hi Jon … > Now, the question from a relative beginner is: isn't this > practice of watching experiences at the conceptual level part of the > Right > Effort from which the conditions will eventually arise (as well as from > application of the other 7)? Although not real awareness, the > 'intentional, > conceptual watching' seems to be very necessary, at least to 'my' > conditions. I once practised with a school that goes with panna alone, > but > that kept me feeling lost (not knowing what to do when not sitting in > meditation - or even during meditation!) and eventually regressing. In > the > end, had to admit that it wasn't the right path for 'my' conditions and > that more effort at the conceptual level was needed - even though that > way > of practice seems to fit other people like a glove! To my understanding, Lucy, and also as a relative beginner, Right Effort is quite a different thing from the practice of watching experiences (which, as you say, is at the conceptual level). Firstly, Right Effort is the effort that is associated with a particular level of kusala (wholesomeness/skilfulness) only, namely, the kusala of the moment of awareness of a characteristic of a reality (satipatthana). So it is not associated with all kusala mind-states. Secondly, Right Effort is in fact the effort that is embodied in the kusala consciousness at those moments. It is the effort *of* a moment of satipatthana, not the effort *to have* a moment of satipatthana. In a recent post to Howard that you may have seen I discussed a sutta that sets out the factors that need to be developed if insight/satipatthana is to be developed (they are, association with 'superior persons', hearing the true Dhamma, careful attention, practice in accordance with the Dhamma.). From this sutta and elsewhere in the texts and commentaries, I think it is clear that it is these 4 factors, and not any 'intentional watching', or anything involving 'effort' of the conventional kind, that can lead to the arising of awareness. That awareness will then be accompanied by the factor of right effort. So whether we follow a practice that places importance on 'intentional watching' or on 'panna alone', we should bear in mind that in either case any idea of the need for or value of volitional effort will probably be indicative of a latent wrong view (not to mention, of course, attachment to achieving results). > It's very true that there is only the conditions that are arising now, > everything else is like a varnish that we fabricate. And we can get into > a > real mess if we don't recognise that (been there, done that!). But > within > those conditions isn't there a slot for Right Effort, viriya ? Please > correct me if this is silly, every moment 'we' create the conditions > that > will arise 'later' and modify existing tendencies, habits, etc., so, > even > if the effort isn't the 'real thing', isn't it part of the path? My thoughts on this would be that if there is an idea that we need or ought to be doing something to create the right conditions (present or future), then there is again the same mistaken idea about volitional effort. > The other question that comes to mind is, what to do when there's an > inner > urge to do more? I know this can be false, but could it also be true > aspiration? Part of the conditions? I've been concerned with this > question > for a while now, not knowing whether to take it seriously or dismiss it. > My > reaction varies from wanting to shave my head at once to 'if I ignore > it, > it'll go away' - would you or anyone have a 'Middle Way' to suggest? > > Duh!, I'm sure this has been discussed before - better go and read old > messages in the archive to find out. I think the middle way would be to see any 'inner urge' as it is, for what it is (and this is indeed the function of insight/satipatthana/vipassana). I know that that's a lot easier said than done, but just to realise at an intellectual level that this is indeed the middle way, and why that should be so, is a good start. It still doesn't stop us wanting to 'deal with' it by one means or another, but then such notions are accumulated and deeply rooted in all of us. Only the stream-enterer no longer has wrong view. > About watching TV..... … > > And if you follow this through I think you will find it let's you off > the > > hook when it comes to watching TV vs. thinking you should be doing any > > 'practice'! > Oh, no! It DOESN'T --- and I was going to watch Liverpool vs. Arsenal > next. > Well, perhaps I'll watch just this once and try to develop equanimity :) (Not by any chance a slightly more subtle way of trying to 'deal with' a particular tendency? ;-)) ) Happy viewing (with kusala!) Jon 11153 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Feb 5, 2002 5:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'No control' vs the 4 padhanas (was, samma samadhi) Christine I enjoyed your post and the story about wartime interrogation techniques based on class sensibilities. And I think I agree with your sentiments on control when you say: > 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'. Yes, all or nothing is right, in the sense that anything less than total control is really no 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). The 4 padhana's are in fact a description of the function(s) of Right Effort. You may have noticed how some realities were 'packaged' differently by the Buddha in different contexts. In this way they can be considered and understood from different angles. Right Effort is probably the most frequently mentioned of the bodhi-pakkhiya dhammas or 'factors of enlightenment' (lit. 'things pertaining to enlightenment'). It is counted a number of times in the factors, including as a factor of the Noble Eightfold Path and as the 4 padhana's. Now for reasons that I've explained in recent posts to Howard and (just now) to Lucy, the bodhi-pakkhiya dhammas (including the padhanas and Right Effort of the Noble Eightfold Path) are factors that are descriptive of the insight/enlightenment process. They are factors that are developed as insight is developed, rather than being factors *to be developed* in their own right. So the passage you quote above should in my view be seen as a description of what is actually happening at, and within, a single moment of insight. Hope this makes sense. Jon 11154 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Feb 5, 2002 7:44am Subject: RE: [dsg] delusion (moha) Greetings Larry, Some thoughts, and hopefully others will contribute more. > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > Two questions: Would it be correct to say > delusion of self and concept > of self are two different phenomena? I would think so. The buddha had no delusion about self, but he had a concept of self (otherwise, he wouldn't be able to express it in words). > If so, what > are the distinguishing > characteristics of delusion of self? I'm not > talking about self delusion > (telling oneself a lie), rather a "belief" in a > self that doesn't > involve concepts. You may be talking about two different realities: moha and micha-ditthi. The delusion (moha) prevents its associated states to see the realities as they really are (as non-self). From Cetasikas: The Atthasåliní (II, Part IX, Chapter I, 249) gives the following definition of moha: “Delusion” has the characteristic of blindness or opposition to knowledge; the essence of non-penetration, or the function of covering the intrinsic nature of the object; the manifestation of being opposed to right practice or causing blindness; the proximate cause of unwise attention; and should be regarded as the root of all immoralities. Dhammasangaùi (A Buddhist Manual of Psychological Ethics, §390) about moha, here translated as dullness: What on that occasion is dullness? The lack of knowledge, of vision, which is there on that occasion; the lack of coordination, of judgement, of enlightenment, of penetration; the inability to comprehend, to grasp thoroughly; the inability to compare, to consider, to demonstrate; the folly, the childishness, the lack of intelligence; the dullness that is vagueness, obfuscation, ignorance, the Flood (ogha) of ignorance, the Bond (yoga) of ignorance, the bias of ignorance, the obsession of ignorance, the barrier of ignorance; the dullness that is the root of badness— this is the dullness that there then is. Also from Cetasikas: The Atthasåliní (II, Part IX, Chapter I, 248) gives the following definition of wrong view, diììhi: … It has unwise conviction as characteristic; perversion as function; wrong conviction as manifestation; the desire not to see the ariyans as proximate cause. It should be regarded as the highest fault. I think when moha arises, one is deluded regardless of whether the object is a reality or a concept. If both Moha and ditthi arises, one is not only deluded, but one takes the object of delusion as being true representation of realities as a conviction. > > Also, as a sub-question, what is belief? I assume > that both concepts and > delusions can be believed. I think belief is a very complex set of mental phenomena that can be either kusala or akusala. Wrong views (like the eternalist view that we persist forever) obviously arise with delusion. Thinking about the right concepts may be just decision (athimoka) without panna, or may arise with panna. kom 11155 From: Date: Tue Feb 5, 2002 4:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really lon... Hi, Sarah (and Herman) - Reading this post of yours, Sarah, has confirmed my growing realization that Abhidhamma, more even than the Sutta Pitaka, has an overwhelmingly phenomenalist slant, which, of course, appeals to me as I am a rather radical phenomenalist myself. I make the following association with this phenomenalist slant of Abhidhamma: It is interesting to me that a co-father of the Vijnanavada/Yogacara school of Mahayana was Vasubandhu, originally an Abhidharmist for the Sarvastivadin school who wrote the work Treasury of Abhidharma. (Sarvastivada was a sister school to Theravada with some definite deficiencies in the form of eternalist, substantialist doctrine.) For anyone interested, a biography of Vasubandhu can be found at the following web site: http://www.human.toyogakuen-u.ac.jp/~acmuller/yogacara/thinkers/vasubandhu-bio -asc.htm With metta, Howard In a message dated 2/5/02 12:25:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Hi Herman, > > Rumour has it that you were missing us all at the weekend too;-) > > --- egberdina wrote: > Dear Sarah, Robert et > al, > > > > Just when you thought you were going to take a break on this :-) > > > > > > I believe some of the confusion that arises from the rupa / nama > > division is caused by the way the process of cognition is described. > > It is said that visible object impinges on the eye sense and seeing > > nama arises to know the object. The problem with this statement is > > that the cart is before the horse. The object does not become visible > > object until after it has been seen. > > I understand your point. I would say it is visible object WHEN it is seen. > In other words, if we close our eyes or fall into asleep now, no visible > object appears and therefore there is no seeing. So visible object is one > essential condition for seeing. When the visible object appears, it > conditions the seeing and vice versa. The eye base is another essential > condition and the mental factors arising with seeing also condition it and > vice versa again. If there hadn't been a moment of consciousness > immediately prior to the seeing, there also would be no seeing. Without > previous kamma, there'd be no seeing. So the conditions for this moment of > seeing are very complex and also for the visible object that is seen at > this moment. > > >Before it is seen (nama) it is > > not visible object, just object, and unknown at that, but there > > nonetheless. > > I'm not at all sure we can say this. The particular visible object which > is seen now (quite different from what was seen an instant ago) is not the > same rupa that has ever been experienced before and we cannot say it is > there if there is no seeing of it now. > > >The objects that are discerned through the five sense > > doors impinge on all sense doors alike, and everything else within > > reach as well. > > It may seem that we see 'vibration' or smell 'softness', but in reality, > seeing only sees visible object and so on. The sense door processes folow > each other very rapidly and the sanna (perception,memory) marks the > objects to condition different ways of thinking and processing of the > information. For most blind or deaf people, I believe there are still > visible objects and sounds being experienced, even though they are so > 'blurry' and the indiviudal has to depend on many other experiences to > manage. However 'blurry', awareness can be mindful of the rupa if there > are the right conditins. > > > > Some rupas impinge meaningfully on more than one sense base and cause > > namas of more than one type. Sound, for example, can be heard but is > > also palpable as body sense. This way a deaf man is capable of tuning > > a musical instrument, based on the vibrations felt in the body. Sound > > can be felt. Do we identify two rupas in this case or one? > > I think I jumped ahead. It may seem that sound can be felt, but isn't it > the combination of the 'blurry' sound and experience of vibrations through > the bodysense? Good areas to consider, I think. So many different namas > and rupas arising all the time. It will depend on many factors as to which > will be the objects of awareness. > > > Taste and smell are also deeply intertwined. > > It's very true and it's this intertwining of different experiences and > different rupas without awareness that gives rise to the ideas of wholes > and selves. > > > What is the difference between a visible object rupa and a visible > > object arammana > > They sound the same to me. Visible object is always a rupa and always > arammana. > > > > All the best > > Excellent points and questions. Sorry for the delay....Pls let me know if > it isn't clear or sounds too much like a regurgitated commentary;-) I > think these points about rupa and the distinction between it and nama are > at the real heart of the Teachings. I hope Jon also helps clarify your > other points where you and Rob Ep are 162%(?) in agreement;-) > > Sarah > ============================== /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) 11156 From: Lucy Date: Tue Feb 5, 2002 11:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really lon... Hi Howard Maybe that's why Abhidhamma appeals to me too : ) You may be interested in this article "Vijnaptimatrata and the Abhidharma context of early Yogacara" byRichard King, Asian Philosophy. Vol. 8 No. 1 Mar.1998 http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/richard.htm Best wishes Lucy ----- Original Message ----- From: > Reading this post of yours, Sarah, has confirmed my growing > realization that Abhidhamma, more even than the Sutta Pitaka, has an > overwhelmingly phenomenalist slant, which, of course, appeals to me as I am a > rather radical phenomenalist myself. > I make the following association with this phenomenalist slant of > Abhidhamma: It is interesting to me that a co-father of the > Vijnanavada/Yogacara school of Mahayana was Vasubandhu, originally an > Abhidharmist for the Sarvastivadin school who wrote the work Treasury of > Abhidharma. (Sarvastivada was a sister school to Theravada with some definite > deficiencies in the form of eternalist, substantialist doctrine.) For anyone > interested, a biography of Vasubandhu can be found at the following web site: > > http://www.human.toyogakuen-u.ac.jp/~acmuller/yogacara/thinkers/vasubandhu- bio > > -asc.htm > > With metta, > Howard > 11157 From: Date: Tue Feb 5, 2002 8:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really lon... Hi, Lucy - In a message dated 2/5/02 1:59:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, selene@c... writes: > > Hi Howard > > Maybe that's why Abhidhamma appeals to me too : ) > > You may be interested in this article > "Vijnaptimatrata and the Abhidharma context of early Yogacara" > byRichard King, Asian Philosophy. Vol. 8 No. 1 Mar.1998 > http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/richard.htm > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you! This certainly sounds like it will be of considerable interest to me! --------------------------------------------------- > > Best wishes > Lucy > ========================== 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) 11158 From: frank kuan Date: Tue Feb 5, 2002 2:01pm Subject: photos - was Re: 4 hallucinations/perversions I seem to be getting a lot of peer pressure to submit a photo to dsg. No guarantees, but I'll look around. You may have to settle for my driver license photo. If there is one picture I wish I kept, it's the one of my mug shot holding a number with a big grin on my face while I was at the police station when I turned myself in on my own recognizance. My mom was pretty scared when she got a call from the cops saying there was an outstanding warrant out for my arrest. I was a poor college student at the time, and I had the option to pay a large fine or stay in prison for 30 days. I almost chose the second option. Don't mess with me, I'm dangerous :-) -fk 11159 From: azita gill Date: Tue Feb 5, 2002 7:54pm Subject: Re.namas and rupas > > > > > > > > > > > > --- egberdina wrote: > > Dear Sarah, Robert et > > > al, > > > > > > > > Just when you thought you were going to take a > break on this :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe some of the confusion that arises > from the rupa / nama > > > > division is caused by the way the process of > cognition is described. > > > > It is said that visible object impinges on the > eye sense and seeing > > > > nama arises to know the object. The problem > with this statement is > > > > that the cart is before the horse. The object > does not become visible > > > > object until after it has been seen. > > > > > > I understand your point. I would say it is > visible object WHEN it is > seen. > > > In other words, if we close our eyes or fall > into asleep now, no > visible > > > object appears and therefore there is no seeing. > So visible object is > one > > > essential condition for seeing. When the visible > object appears, it > > > conditions the seeing and vice versa. The eye > base is another essential > > > condition and the mental factors arising with > seeing also condition it > and > > > vice versa again. If there hadn't been a moment > of consciousness > > > immediately prior to the seeing, there also > would be no seeing. Without > > > previous kamma, there'd be no seeing. So the > conditions for this moment > of > > > seeing are very complex and also for the visible > object that is seen at > > > this moment. > > > > > > >Before it is seen (nama) it is > > > > not visible object, just object, and unknown > at that, but there > > > > nonetheless. > > > > > > I'm not at all sure we can say this. The > particular visible object > which > > > is seen now (quite different from what was seen > an instant ago) is not > the > > > same rupa that has ever been experienced before > and we cannot say it is > > > there if there is no seeing of it now. > > > > > > >The objects that are discerned through the five > sense > > > > doors impinge on all sense doors alike, and > everything else within > > > > reach as well. > > > > > > It may seem that we see 'vibration' or smell > 'softness', but in > reality, > > > seeing only sees visible object and so on. The > sense door processes > folow > > > each other very rapidly and the sanna > (perception,memory) marks the > > > objects to condition different ways of thinking > and processing of the > > > information. For most blind or deaf people, I > believe there are still > > > visible objects and sounds being experienced, > even though they are so > > > 'blurry' and the indiviudal has to depend on > many other experiences to > > > manage. However 'blurry', awareness can be > mindful of the rupa if > there > > > are the right conditins. > > > > > > > > Some rupas impinge meaningfully on more than > one sense base and > cause > > > > namas of more than one type. Sound, for > example, can be heard but is > > > > also palpable as body sense. This way a deaf > man is capable of tuning > > > > a musical instrument, based on the vibrations > felt in the body. Sound > > > > can be felt. Do we identify two rupas in this > case or one? > > > > > > I think I jumped ahead. It may seem that sound > can be felt, but isn't > it > > > the combination of the 'blurry' sound and > experience of vibrations > through > > > the bodysense? Good areas to consider, I think. > So many different namas > > > and rupas arising all the time. It will depend > on many factors as to > which > > > will be the objects of awareness. > > > > > > > Taste and smell are also deeply intertwined. > > > > > > It's very true and it's this intertwining of > different experiences and > > > different rupas without awareness that gives > rise to the ideas of > wholes > > > and selves. > > > > > > > What is the difference between a visible > object rupa and a visible > > > > object arammana > > > > > > They sound the same to me. Visible object is > always a rupa and always > > > arammana. > > > > > > > > All the best > > > > > > Hello egberdina - who is really Herman, yes? I haven't quite nutted out the Who's who, yet. my 2 cents worth on the above. i understand rupas to be arising and falling away continuously whether "we" experience them or not. we learn about the 28 rupas [i think its 28]in Abhidhamma. These rupas are part of the conditions that get "us" here. We like some, we hate some. e.g. attachment arises when the air is pleasantly cool[i would love some pleasantly cool air right now]. Maybe Dosa [aversion] arises when smelling smells a bad odour. There are these 5 sense doorways,which are here predominately bce of Kamma, which are the bases for citta to experience an object, be it tactile e.g. hardness/softness, hot/cold, motion/pressure.; be it sound, smell, taste or visibleobject. Maybe its me that's missing something in this, but I find it easy to think of n. & r. and theoretically know one from the other. But to really KNOW nama from rupa - uh.uhh. Cheers Azita. 11160 From: Date: Tue Feb 5, 2002 9:03pm Subject: RE: [dsg] delusion (moha) Thanks Kom for sorting this out. I did have moha mistakenly identified. What kind of mistake is "self"? Is it purely conceptual? I was thinking that perhaps what passes for psychological self, if not ideal self, is actually attachment and aversion (lobha/dosa). Larry 11161 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Feb 5, 2002 10:17pm Subject: RE: [dsg] delusion (moha) Dear Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > What kind of mistake is "self"? Is it purely > conceptual? If you are asking if the object that is taken as self is purely conceptual, I don't think so. We take the 5 kandhas as self, and therefore, the objects taken as selves are realities. > I was thinking > that perhaps what passes for psychological self, > if not ideal self, is > actually attachment and aversion (lobha/dosa). Taking something as self is necessarily moha, and can also be lobha, mana, and dithi. Whether or not taking something as self can also be aversion, I am not sure. kom 11162 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 6, 2002 0:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Dear Rob Ep, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Thanks for your efforts, Sarah. > I think the main point I'm trying to communicate here is obviously not > clear, at > least in the way I'm putting it. > > Perhaps you could clarify what is meant by the 'actual' rupa. That was a polite way of saying that perhaps I went off the track in a reply;-) I think you would find it useful to read Nina’s very useful (and recently revised, I believe) booklet on rupas. In particular, I recommend the introduction at this stage (very short;-): http://www.dhammastudy.com/Rupas1.html Let me quote a little from it: ***** “As regards physical phenomena or rupa, there are twentyeight kinds of rupa in all. Rupas are not merely textbook terms, they are realities which can be directly experienced. Rupas do not know or experience anything; they can be known by nama. Rupa arises and falls away, but it does not fall away as quickly as nama. When a characteristic of rupa such as hardness impinges on the bodysense it can be experienced through the bodysense by several cittas arising in succession within a process. But even though rupa lasts longer than citta, it falls away again, it is impermanent.” ***** > If that > is not > meant to denote an actual object in the 'real' world, but simply a > present reality > for perception, then the problem may not be there. I think this depends on whether we are discussing what is being experienced now (and therefore what can be directly known) or whether we are discussing the rupas which arise and fall regardless of any experience of them. Again I quote from Nina: ***** “There are not only rupas of the body, there are also rupas which are the material phenomena outside the body. What we take for rocks, plants or houses are rupas and these originate from temperature. We may wonder whether there are no other factors apart from the element of heat which contribute to the growth of plants, such as soil, light and moisture. It is true that these factors are the right conditions which have to be present so that a plant can grow. But what we call soil, light and moisture are, when we are more precise, different compositions of rupas and none of these could arise without the element of heat or temperature which is the producing factor. Rupas which are outside the body are only produced by temperature, not by kamma, citta or nutrition.” ***** > What I have been > trying to say > is that a 'reality' may be true as a perceptual experience, but if one > says > 'hardness' or some other rupa is 'actual', it seems to imply that it > exists in the > 'real world' outside of perception. If nothing beyond the act of > perception is > spoken of, then I can see rupa being actual and accurate as a perceptual > object, > but not as an object that can be said to really exist. > > If that is any clearer, great. If not, I'll let it go for now. : ) I see your point (I think;-) and I understand the confusion. In terms of what is important for the development of understanding, only phenomena being directly experienced can ever be ‘known’. So hardness is being experienced now every time there is touching of the keyboard. There may, therefore, be conditions for its charactristic to be the object of awareness at this moment. As understanding of its nature develops and as it becomes more and more apparent that it is a rupa and not self, it becomes clear that this is the characteristic of hardness regardless of whether it is being directly known at this moment . This is how it must be for others too. By inference also, it becomes apparent that external objects that had been taken for ‘things’ such as trees and computers are in fact only collections of rupas, but if there is no touching or seeing them, it is only thinking (wisely, hopefully) about them. Gradually, with more direct understanding of those phenomena being directly experienced, there is more confidence in the other intricate details which the Buddha described about rupas which is purely intellectual at this stage. Even if direct insight develops to very high enlightened levels, some thinking or understanding of phenomena will continue to be at the intellectual level only. No one could directly understand all the intricate details as the Buddha did. Nina summarises the purpose of studying rupas here: ***** “Rupas perform their functions, no matter one dresses oneself, eats, digests one’s food, moves about, gesticulates, talks to others, in short, during all one’s activities. If we do not study rupas we may not notice their characteristics which appear all the time in daily life. We will continue to be deluded by the outward appearance of things instead of knowing realities as they are. We should remember that the rupa which is the “earth-element” or solidity can appear as hardness or softness. Hardness impinges time and again on the bodysense, no matter what we are doing. When hardness appears it can be known as only a kind of rupa, be it hardness of the body or hardness of an external object. In the ultimate sense it is only a kind of rupa. The detailed study of nama and rupa will help us to see that there isn’t anything which is “mine” or self. The goal of the study of the Abhidhamma is the development of wisdom which leads to the eradication of all defilements.” ***** I hope a little more light has got in this time too;-) Sarah ====================================================== 11163 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 6, 2002 0:50am Subject: Re: another vote for skillful - Re: [dsg] glossing kusala Hi Rob Ep again, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > P.S. Sarah, Dan has indeed left you holding the bag, as all of the > 'skillful' [or > unskillful] arguers leap out of the woodwork. > > ============== I know.... panic attack;-) Still I have an idea that you, Frank and I are on the same 'skilful side' - Dan didn't get too many 'wholesome' votes, though I'm a bit of a 'blow with the breeze' on this issue.....desperate for an easy life;-) We're also very much on the same side when it comes to the photo album.....I think we'll have to gratefully accept Frank's driving licence photo as it's such a major concession, even though the convict one would have added a little more variety to the album. (You don't think he 'owns' a car as well as a computer, do you?;-)) Sarah p.s more good news..Kom's photo is on its way to the album....slowly due to technical probs;-) ====================================================== 11164 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 6, 2002 1:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Attn Michael, Sujin, Nina and Sarah Dear Ranil, i'm sure Michael will reply for himself, so I'll leave the questions you've addressed to him. --- ranil gunawardena wrote: > And > it > is wonderful news to me that nina and sujin were here too. Was Sarah > here > too? Actually I think the visit when Michael was present was in April 1977. I'm just looking at Nina' s account of the visit which was published as "Pilgrimage in Sri Lanka', but I don't think it's on any website as yet.* She reminds me in the first chapter that she and I joined K.Sujin and another Thai friend for 5 weeks as guests in Colombo, Anuradhapura and Kandy. "The sessions were held nightly in the way of discussions. During the day we met with our Singhalese friends in their homes and discussed dhamma in a more personal way. All through those five weks we spent in Sri lanka we enjoyed the wonderful hospitality of the Singhalese while we stayed a guests in their house and were entertained at delicious curry luncheons and dinners..." Mmmmm- wonderful memories and proliferations with plenty of lobha as I day-dream a little. Actually I had stayed in a Forest Temple in Sri lanka for 7mths previously in 1975 when I'd been a serious meditator with plenty of wrong view. > How about nina and sujin, like to know how they were in Sri Lanka too. They were invited both this time and 2yrs later (when in fact I met Jon in Sri Lanka for the first time) by Capt Perera of the Buddhist Information Centre. He organised the talks and discussions which were attended by large numbers of Singhalese and many monks including Michael. I have an old photo of a group of foreign monks in Kandy which I hope to have scanned and send him in due course. A youthful B.Bodhi is also present in it. For me, these were very, very special times. I remember having to give up a good job to make this trip in '77 and use my last savings for the fare. My family thought it was madness at the time, but I've always been very glad and grateful for the opportunity. The highlight (for me) was our stay in Anuraddhapura where we were guests of a judge in the old city, just round the corner from the Bo tree. I shared a room w/Nina and K.Sujin and learnt so much from their everyday kindness, help and explanations. I remember the judge asked me how someone so 'young, mischievous and from a foreign country' could be so interested in the Teachings. We can see here on this list, that the dhamma is as applicable to us all. Hope to meet you in Sri Lanka sometime too, Ranil. Gayan kindly posted his photo, it would be nice to see any more of our friends here from this wonderful country;-) Sarah ====================================================== *there may still be some copies of Pilg in Sri Lanka at the Foundation in Bkk (free). If you, Michael (or anyone) is interested to receive a copy, pls send an email to Sukin or Unoop - addresses under 'Free Books...' in Useful Posts: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts 11165 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 6, 2002 1:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas -ANDERS Dear Rob Ep, After a nostalgia post full of lobha to Ranil, let me get back on the parinibbana track here:-) --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Dan and Sarah, > The view that the kandhas reach cessation in parinibbana may not be a > view of > annihilation of a self that never existed, but it is still an > annihilationist view > from the point of view of sentience. Well I think that as the quotes I’ve given before have shown clearly, when the Buddha refers to annihilationist views, they are concerned with self view and ignorance of the khandhas which are all that exist in actuality. If you like, you can refer to the cessation of the khandhas at parinibbana or even to the cessation of the khandhas now on a moment to moment basis as annihilation of sentience. However, I don’t beleive this would accord with the Buddha’s use of the term which is very specific and detailed in Suttas like the Brahmajala Suttas as well as in commentaries and other parts of the Tipitaka.. > If sentience is said to cease in > parinibbana, then the one property that is not a convenient fiction but > actually > takes place is said to be annihilated. I think, with respect, this is your definition of annihilation;-). > There must be a distinction between awakening and cessation. While > certain things > cease in parinibbana, does it make sense for the awakening to cease as > well? In > that view, the awake state of nibbana also ceases upon death, and that > makes > nibbana dependent on physical existence, a strange contradiction in > terms. I take it that by awakening you mean the experience of nibbana, either at each stage of enlightenment or just at arahantship. Of course, this ‘awakening’ is quite different to parinibbana and the cessation of the khandhas. As we have discussed at length, the enlightened consciousness and wisdom which expereince nibbana are also momentary. There is no lasting experience, no lasting nama and no lasting rupa. We don’t say that nibbana is conditioned or depends on ‘physical existence’ or anything else, but the namas which experience it do. Without the experiencing of a reality, can we say it exists, except conceptually, as just discussed with regard to rupas? Hope this clarifies a little. I have to run like Num;-) Always good to hear from you, Rob, Sarah ======================== 11166 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Wed Feb 6, 2002 4:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Attn Michael, Sujin, Nina and Sarah Dear Sarah, It is really nice to hear that so many of you have been to Sri Lanka and had had a chance to visit these anciant cities. As you had enjoyed your visit over here there had been many visitors to this island who had enjoyed their visit. One was Ven. Buddhagosha who wrote the book "Visuddhi Magga". And that was in Anuradha pura. Those days it was called Anuradha pura "Maha Viharaha" - large temple. And that was an era where buddhism was living in this country. But now this country is swimming against the tide. Now they are working on to put up a machine which can kill 250 cattle per day in the capital - Colombo... with insults to the people who oppose the idea. Now, for one of the leading news papers called "Sunday Observer" the Tooth Relic of the Buddha is a false one. To the same paper the LTTE tamil terrorist attack to the temple of the Tooth relic is a nee jerk thing...when the whole world thinks against terrorism, banning the terrorists was a mistake done by the previous government to the current government... now the temples are being converted to hindu kovils - some, by Buddhist monks itself. When the whole world learns history and gives importance to it, here it is removed from the syllabus purposely... you know why - they think that history creates racism (because our history is having a beautiful strong Sinhaliese cultural background more than 2500 years old). This country is going from bad to worse and worse..... Well, I guess that is nature... but it is really difficult to have feelings of "uppekka" for all these things... So! anyway... when these things are out of your control what can you do....other than just have sympathy to all the people. Because swimming against the tide is always short. I guess having to observe these things too are a part and parcel of sansara... Well, this letter might have turned to a mail which should not appear in a Dhamma list. But might as well appear just to know the status of this so called Buddhist Country. ~with much meththa Ranil 11167 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Wed Feb 6, 2002 6:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Attn Michael, Sujin, Nina and Sarah --- Dear Ranil, I liked your post. I was in Sri Lanka in 1989 for a month. At that time the Tamil tiger problem had diminished and the government were in a fierce battle with the JVP. I have read the Mahavamsa and Culavamsa many times and your letter reminds me of the halcyon days when arahants walked Sri lanka even in the hundreds of thousands. The Mahavihara, that you mention, kept the Theravada tradition pristine; even when threatened by hostile kings. They had such compassion for future generations and would rather die than change the doctrine. robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., "ranil gunawardena" wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > It is really nice to hear that so many of you have been to Sri Lanka and had > had a chance to visit these anciant cities. As you had enjoyed your visit > over here there had been many visitors to this island who had enjoyed their > visit. One was Ven. Buddhagosha who wrote the book "Visuddhi Magga". And > that was in Anuradha pura. Those days it was called Anuradha pura "Maha > Viharaha" - large temple. And that was an era where buddhism was living in > this country. But now this country is swimming against the tide. Now they > are working on to put up a machine which can kill 250 cattle per day in the > capital - Colombo... with insults to the people who oppose the idea. Now, > for one of the leading news papers called "Sunday Observer" the Tooth Relic > of the Buddha is a false one. To the same paper the LTTE tamil terrorist > attack to the temple of the Tooth relic is a nee jerk thing...when the whole > world thinks against terrorism, banning the terrorists was a mistake done by > the previous government to the current government... now the temples are > being converted to hindu kovils - some, by Buddhist monks itself. When the > whole world learns history and gives importance to it, here it is removed > from the syllabus purposely... you know why - they think that history > creates racism (because our history is having a beautiful strong Sinhaliese > cultural background more than 2500 years old). This country is going from > bad to worse and worse..... > > Well, I guess that is nature... but it is really difficult to have feelings > of "uppekka" for all these things... > So! anyway... when these things are out of your control what can you > do....other than just have sympathy to all the people. Because swimming > against the tide is always short. I guess having to observe these things too > are a part and parcel of sansara... > > Well, this letter might have turned to a mail which should not appear in a > Dhamma list. But might as well appear just to know the status of this so > called Buddhist Country. > > ~with much meththa > Ranil > 11168 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Wed Feb 6, 2002 6:51am Subject: Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 1 --- This is from a discussion I had on d-l: I picked up a copy of Paticcasamuppada - Practical Dependent Origination by Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (of Thailand)after some prior discussions about it. In these discussions it was suggested that the Buddha did not teach rebirth and that this was a wrong idea that had come into the teachings. This book was cited as a source and guide. I had read the book many years ago and have now reread it. I think it has many useful points and I certainly appreciate any book on this most profound teaching of Paticcasamuppada. However, I remain convinced that the Buddha taught rebirth and that it is indeed a necessary corrollary of anatta and conditionality. I'd like to begin with these comments from the venerable Buddhadasa's book. He writes that p6 "therefore teaching Paticcasamupada in such a way that there is a self persisting over a series of lives is contrary to the principle of dependent origination." This is, of course, evident to anyone who has had even a cursory look at the Tipitaka; anatta is really the bedrock of Dhamma. However, in the next sentence he says that "dependent origination is on no way concerned with morality which must depend upon a theory of Eternalism". This I don't follow. Kamma is simply a conditioned phenomenon - and it is just natural law that certain types of action lead to certain results. We can think of this as a moral law without evoking any self. In the following paragraph p.6 he says that an incorrectly explained theory has been taught for a thousand years. On p8 he explains with regard to this that the "during the time the commentaries were composed there arose a widespread tendency to explain matters of ultimate truths in terms of the Eternalist theory." He lays the blame for all this on Buddhaghosa (ancient composer of the Visuddhimagga and many important commentaries) p8."the same person who collected all the commentaries together so that total blind acceptance..will allow only one voice to be heard." He is not sure how this wrongview arose but he speculates that it either happened because of lack of insight OR he thinks that it was a deliberate plot to destroy Buddhism for Brahmins who believed in atta (self)see page 51-52. He notes that there is no written evidence before the time of the Visuddhimagga [written by Buddhaghosa]where Paticcasamupada was explained wrongly. And that at the time of the third council (long before Buddhaghosa ) if one had "said there was a self that spun around in the cycle of birth and death and rebirth as in the case of Bhikkhu Sati he was held to be holding wrong views in the sense of Eternalism and was made to leave the order" . He equates such wrong views with the Visuddhimagga. He does kindly note that Buddhaghosa p60 "is a man of great knowledge." He then says ."BUT I don't agree with him at all regarding Dependent Origination because he spoke of it in terms of a soul and so it became Brahministic." And he carries on (p63) to note that he "is not going to defile of defame or villify Buddhaghosa..I only want to make some observations. Buddhaghosa was born a Brahmin..and he completed a study of the three vedas like any other Brahmin. His spirit was that of a Brahmin..if he later came to explain the Buddhist theory of Dependent Origination as a form of Brahminism it is most reasonable to supsect that he was careless and forgetful so that he cannot be considered to be an Arahat."" So to sum up venerable Buddhadasa is suggesting that Buddhaghosa taught an Eternalistic (self, atta) version of the Paticcasamuppada. Is that true? I think it is best to let the ancient texts speak for themselves. From the relevant section of the Visuddhimagga Chapter XV11 Dependent origination 113 "but how does a man who is confused about these things perform these three kinds of formations? Firstly, when he is confused about death, instead of taking death thus 'death in every case is break up of aggregates(khandas, not-self)' he figures that it is lasting being's transmigration to another incarnation and so on". 115 "when he is confused about the round of rebirths, instead of taking the round of rebirths as pictured thus: 'an endless chain of aggregates(khandas) of elements(dhatus) bases(ayatanas) that carries on unbrokenly is what is called 'the round or rebirths' he figures that it is a lasting being that goes from this world to another world, that comes from another world to this world"endquote 117"when he is cofused about independently-arisen states, instead of taking the occurence of formations to be due to ignorance etc., he figures that it is a self that knows or does not know, that acts and causes action..." 161 "a mere state that has got its conditions ushers in the ensuing existence; While it does not migrate from the past, with no cause in the past it is not. So a mere material and immaterial state, arisen when it has obtained its conditions, that is spoken of, saying that it comes into the next becoming; it is not a lasting being, not a soul. And it has neither transmigrated from the past nor yet is it manifested here without cause from that"....... " 273 "Becomings wheel reveals no known beginning; no maker, no experiencer there; Void with a twelvefold voidness,"" 313 "one who sees this rightly abandons the self view by understanding the absence of a maker. One who sees it wrongly clings to the moral -inefficacy of action view because he does not perceive that the causative function of ignorance etc us established as a law.." 314 "[and so] let a wise man with mindfulness so practice that he may begin to find a footing in the deeps of the dependent origination" Now another point about the book. On page 62 Venerable Buddhadasa says that by explaining Paticcasamuppada as happening over several lives and suggesting that "kamma in this life gives rise to results in some far off future life it as if there are no kammic results(vipaka) at all which we receive in the birth in which the deed was done.....to suggest that defilements and kamma from a past life become effective in this, a later life, is impossible"" Firstly, I'd like to say that truly there is no one who receives results but that results arise by conditions (just to be pedantic). From the Visuddhimagga 172"Experiencer is a convention for mere arising of fruit (vipaka);" Secondly he doesn't acknowledge that the commentaries (and tipitaka) say that the results of kamma can indeed arise in this life,..(or at the time of death or in future lives). They say it is pretty much unpredictable (except to the Buddha) when the results will arise because of the many other conditions that support or impede kamma. Here is a quote from the Tipitaka: " Threefold, however, is the fruit of karma: ripening during the life-time (dittha-dhamma-vedaníya-kamma), ripening in the next birth (upapajja-vedaníya-kamma), ripening in later births (aparápariya-vedaníya kamma) ...." (A.VI, 63). I think this is enough for one post. I want to add some more later about how the Paticcasamupada is a very practical teaching here and now - as shown by the Visuddhimagga. robert . --- End forwarded message --- 11169 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 6, 2002 10:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sri Lanka op 05-02-2002 12:04 schreef ranil gunawardena op dearranil@h...: And how did you come to Sri Lanka? And it > is wonderful news to me that nina and sujin were here too. Was Sarah here > too? > > How about nina and sujin, like to know how they were in Sri Lanka too. Dear Ranil, yes, I was twice in Sri Lanka on Dhamma trip with Khun Sujin, Sarah and Jonothan, and the second time was I believe in 1979 . The first time the great captain Pereira organized the sessions in the Buddhist Information Center, Colombo. Ven. Bodhi was there too. And the Nayaka, the Patriarch, who passed away a few years ago. We went around talking to different people and groups. I was very impressed by people's interest and their knowledge of Pali. Their hospitality was extraordinary, we stayed in their houses and they entertained us every day, cooked wonderful meals. They took us to the places that the Buddha is said to have visited. We went to the place Sangamitta halted with her company, after having taken a shoot of the Bo tree in India. And we visited Anuradhapura. One night there was a sea of white lotusses around the Bodhitree and we went around, following Ven. Dhammadharo and other monks. The very kind monk who had arranged for the lotusses passed away a few years ago. We stayed in the house of the judge who also passed away. My tale has become a marana sati. We also visited the late ven. Nyanaponika and the late ven. Narada. I wrote , this is printed in Thai and English, but I do not know whether it is available in Thailand. I also wrote but this may be later on a website, I do not know. I did not type it on computer. Best wishes from Nina. 11170 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 6, 2002 10:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] ayatanas op 04-02-2002 23:09 schreef srnsk@a... op srnsk@a...: . My aunt mentioned > that she's helping someone translated your book into Thai, she is helping > with looking up the reference in VisDM and Com. I noted that in Vibhanga the last pair called manayatana and > dhammayatana. Dhammayatana is including sannakhandha, vedanakhandha, > sankarakhandha, anitassana-apatiga(invisible- uncontactable) rupa and > asankata-dhatu. In Sabbasutta, the pair is mano and dhamma in Pali and in > Thai translation is mano and dhammaramana. My question is pannatti is not > asankata-dhatu but can be listed as dhammaramana. My understanding is every > citta can be called manayatana, but can we call pannatti as external ayatana > or dhammayatana in a manodvara-vitthi which has pannati as an aramana? I > think dhammaramana has a broader meaning than dhammayatana. I was surprised > that even all cetasika are called as external ayatana. >Dear Num, Which book your aunt is helping to translate? I think that under the heading of ayatanas only paramattha dhammas have been classified: they associate, meet each other. Cetasikas are external ayatanas. When I first heard this I was also surprised. The Atthasalini (I, Part IV, Ch II, 141) explains that citta is birth-place, meeting- place and reason. .... The cetasikas could not arise without citta, citta is their reason or cause. Just as the eye is a base for the experience of visible object, so is citta the base or foundation for cetasikas which are external ayatanas. This was also studied in the Board meeting in Bgk (Sunday afternoon). All the Pali experts are there, it will be interesting for you after June when you live there. You could report to us directly then. Jim was so kind to send me the co. and subco. of the sabbasutta, most helpful. Now I can study these. Thai script Pathesa is padesa in Pali. Best wishes from Nina. > > 11171 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 6, 2002 10:06am Subject: self, self. op 05-02-2002 16:44 schreef Kom Tukovinit op tikmok@y...: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] >> >> Two questions: Would it be correct to say >> delusion of self and concept >> of self are two different phenomena? > Kom: I would think so. The buddha had no delusion about self, > but he had a concept of self (otherwise, he wouldn't be able > to express it in words). > L: If so, what >> are the distinguishing >> characteristics of delusion of self? I'm not >> talking about self delusion >> (telling oneself a lie), rather a "belief" in a >> self that doesn't >> involve concepts. > > You may be talking about two different realities: moha and > micha-ditthi. > > The delusion (moha) prevents its associated states to see > the realities as they really are (as non-self). From > Cetasikas: > > The Atthasåliní (II, Part IX, Chapter I, 249) gives the > following > definition of moha: > “Delusion” has the characteristic of blindness or opposition > to > knowledge; the essence of non-penetration, or the function > of covering > the intrinsic nature of the object; the manifestation of > being opposed > to right practice or causing blindness; the proximate cause > of unwise > attention; and should be regarded as the root of all > immoralities. > > Dhammasangaùi (A Buddhist Manual of Psychological Ethics, > §390) > about moha, here translated as dullness: > What on that occasion is dullness? > The lack of knowledge, of vision, which is there on that > occasion; > the lack of coordination, of judgement, of enlightenment, of > penetration; the inability to comprehend, to grasp > thoroughly; the > inability to compare, to consider, to demonstrate; the > folly, the > childishness, the lack of intelligence; the dullness that is > vagueness, > obfuscation, ignorance, the Flood (ogha) of ignorance, the > Bond (yoga) > of ignorance, the bias of ignorance, the obsession of > ignorance, > the barrier of ignorance; the dullness that is the root of > badness— > this is the dullness that there then is. > > Also from Cetasikas: > > The Atthasåliní (II, Part IX, Chapter I, 248) gives the > following > definition of wrong view, diììhi: > … It has unwise conviction as characteristic; perversion as > function; > wrong conviction as manifestation; the desire not to see the > ariyans as > proximate cause. It should be regarded as the highest fault. > > I think when moha arises, one is deluded regardless of > whether the object is a reality or a concept. If both > Moha and ditthi arises, one is not only deluded, but one > takes the object of delusion as being true representation of > realities as a conviction. Dear Larry, I just like to join Kom with a remark. Definitions can help to some extent, but it is important to check ourselves when there is a sense of "I, I, I", for example now, when reading or thinking. Acharn Sujin reminded us all the time of this. When seeing, is there an idea of I see? when thinking, is there an idea of I think? We have accumulated the wrong view of self, it is a latent tendency that can condition time and again akusala citta that clings to self. We do not only cling to self with wrong view, but also with conceit and with attachment that is without wrong view. Thus, there is not wrong view the whole day. How many moments a day we find self important, then there is conceit. This reminds me of another point. Christine was discussing lobha, attachment, masquerading as sati, and the way how we can be deluded about this. When someone finds sati so great, so peaceful, one can ask oneself: That is the way to check ourselves at this moment. When we listen to the Dhamma it is a condition for considering different moments, but even when we consider the moments of clinging to self, this considering can also be done with a notion of self. But all this is very natural, it is normal, we have accumulated the notion of self. It is good to know about this. We can learn that it is a nama, mental phenomenon that is conditioned, non-self. Best wishes from Nina. 11172 From: frank kuan Date: Wed Feb 6, 2002 1:02pm Subject: photos - sarah's lucky day --- Sarah wrote: .I think we'll have to gratefully accept > Frank's driving licence > photo as it's such a major concession, even though > the convict one would > have added a little more variety to the album. (You > don't think he 'owns' > a car as well as a computer, do you?;-)) > After checking my inventory, which does include a car, pc (just returned from parinibbana), scanner, dhamma books, 4 requisites of living, and 3 photos - drivers id, passport, and a photo which I just uploaded to dsg. I had forgotten about it, but my friend took it last year and had some extra copies. -fk 11173 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Feb 6, 2002 1:51pm Subject: Re: photos - sarah's lucky day Hi Frank, For one brief moment, I thought you were wearing an Akubra on your head. Of course, that would have meant Ken, Herman, Azita and I (and any lurking members from Oz) would have had to adopt you. This may, or may not have been a good thing! However....on closer look, you seem to have escaped that fate. :-) Great to see you, metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., frank kuan wrote: > > --- Sarah wrote: > .I think we'll have to gratefully accept > > Frank's driving licence > > photo as it's such a major concession, even though > > the convict one would > > have added a little more variety to the album. (You > > don't think he 'owns' > > a car as well as a computer, do you?;-)) > > > > After checking my inventory, which does include a > car, pc (just returned from parinibbana), scanner, > dhamma books, 4 requisites of living, and 3 photos - > drivers id, passport, and a photo which I just > uploaded to dsg. I had forgotten about it, but my > friend took it last year and had some extra copies. > > -fk 11174 From: binh_anson Date: Wed Feb 6, 2002 2:28pm Subject: Unicode fonts for romanized Pali-Sanskrit G'day, Unicode fonts for romanized Pali-Sanskrit letters are available at: ==> http://zencomp.com/greatwisdom/fonts/ Metta, Binh 11175 From: michael newton Date: Wed Feb 6, 2002 5:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sri Lanka Hello!Nina; Guess I forgot to tell you when I met You and Khun Sujin,and Sarah, that I also knew Bodhi Bhikkhu cause he stayed at Balangoda where I was ordained.I also visited Ven.Nyanaponika there too in Kandy in that lovely forest.LOVE AND PEACE,MICHAEL >From: Nina van Gorkom >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: >Subject: Re: [dsg] Sri Lanka >Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:06:02 +0100 > >op 05-02-2002 12:04 schreef ranil gunawardena op dearranil@h...: > >And how did you come to Sri Lanka? And it > > is wonderful news to me that nina and sujin were here too. Was Sarah >here > > too? > > > > How about nina and sujin, like to know how they were in Sri Lanka too. > >Dear Ranil, yes, I was twice in Sri Lanka on Dhamma trip with Khun Sujin, >Sarah and Jonothan, and the second time was I believe in 1979 . The first >time the great captain Pereira organized the sessions in the Buddhist >Information Center, Colombo. Ven. Bodhi was there too. And the Nayaka, the >Patriarch, who passed away a few years ago. We went around talking to >different people and groups. I was very impressed by people's interest and >their knowledge of Pali. Their hospitality was extraordinary, we stayed in >their houses and they entertained us every day, cooked wonderful meals. >They >took us to the places that the Buddha is said to have visited. We went to >the place Sangamitta halted with her company, after having taken a shoot of >the Bo tree in India. And we visited Anuradhapura. One night there was a >sea >of white lotusses around the Bodhitree and we went around, following Ven. >Dhammadharo and other monks. The very kind monk who had arranged for the >lotusses passed away a few years ago. We stayed in the house of the judge >who also passed away. My tale has become a marana sati. We also visited the >late ven. Nyanaponika and the late ven. Narada. I wrote Lanka>, this is printed in Thai and English, but I do not know whether it >is >available in Thailand. I also wrote but this may be >later on a website, I do not know. I did not type it on computer. >Best wishes from Nina. 11176 From: Date: Wed Feb 6, 2002 1:50pm Subject: Abhidhamma and the Sutta Pitaka - a Discrepancy Hi, all - Let me preface my brief comment by saying that I have a growing respect for the Abhidhamma, a wonderful categorical synopsis of the Buddha's Dhamma. The discrepancy I would like to point out is that in the Abhidhamma, phassa (or contact) is defined to be a universal cetasika, a mental concomitant to every citta (or act of discernment). But at several places in the suttas, phassa is defined to be an event, namely the coming together of sense door, sense object, and the resulting sense consciousness. An event consisting of the coming together of these three does not seem to be the same as a cetasika. The definition of 'phassa' in the suttas seems to simply be a specification of a conventional term. But in the Abhidhamma the definition of 'phassa' is quite different it seems. Can someone explain how one might think about this in a way which harmonizes these different "takes"? 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) 11177 From: Date: Wed Feb 6, 2002 10:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] self, self. Hello Nina and Kom, I was wondering today how to solve this problem of self, or even where to find it. Sometimes it does seem, a little, to be a matter of mistaken identity; but not like the identity of a lamp. There is a quality to personal identity that is "personal". What's that? At other times it seems that the problem is just attachment and aversion. I wonder if maybe identity isn't really the issue, but rather attachment and aversion to identity is the problem. I don't see any identity issues in the paticcasamuppada, for example. Also, in looking for attachment what I find is feeling wearing a conceptual hat. Could either of you say something about the relationship between concept and reality as they manifest in attachment? I had been thinking that concept was the problem and reality was the solution, but now I'm more inclined to think that reality is the problem and concept could be either a help or hindrance in remedying the problem. If it's not possible to untangle these knots, just snip them off. thanks, Larry 11178 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 0:00am Subject: RE: [dsg] self, self. Dear Larry, I am not sure if this would help with the problem that you are interested in solving, but I can definitely add to your discussion! > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 10:01 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] self, self. > > > Hello Nina and Kom, > > I was wondering today how to solve this problem > of self, or even where > to find it. In truth, in realities as they are, there would be no self to find anywhere. > Sometimes it does seem, a little, to > be a matter of mistaken > identity; but not like the identity of a lamp. > There is a quality to > personal identity that is "personal". What's that? To me, the identification of self, of belonging to self, is personal from the standpoint that it happens constantly and incessantly. We naturally do this whether or not we like it. > > At other times it seems that the problem is just > attachment and > aversion. I wonder if maybe identity isn't really > the issue, but rather > attachment and aversion to identity is the > problem. I don't see any > identity issues in the paticcasamuppada, for example. If we have no moha (like an arahant), then there would never be a problem with identity, even when they think about the idea of self. > Also, in looking for attachment what I find is > feeling wearing a > conceptual hat. Could either of you say something > about the relationship > between concept and reality as they manifest in > attachment? I see a color. I like the color. The color happens to make up my hair. I really like my hair. There are attachments (at different moments) to both reality (color) and concept (hair). The attachment to the color is hardly ever noticeable as they don't appear to recur as much as the attachment to hair. The explanation is that the color, the reality that conditions the attachment, falls away rapidly. When the conditioning realities fall away, the conditioned realities fall away. The concept (the hair), on the other hand, doesn't exist (has no characteristics), doesn't rise, and doesn't fall, and can condition successive series of attachment (non-existing dhamma conditioning existing dhamma) for much longer than the realities themselves can. > > I had been thinking that concept was the problem > and reality was the > solution, but now I'm more inclined to think that > reality is the problem > and concept could be either a help or hindrance > in remedying the > problem. I think this is absolutely true. The buddha can think of the concepts of annihilism and eternalism without any delusion, can we? When we learn the wrong dhamma (concepts that are not representative of the truth), if our wisdom is light, we are likely to be misled for some times. On the other hand, if our wisdom is strong, then there is no problem. Sariputta had Sanjai as the teacher before he listened to V. Asashi, but was he misled that Sanjai was an arahant? No. Why? Accumulation of wisdom (and other paramis) for 1 aeon, 100,000 kappas. Do we have that kind of accumulation? The concept that is representative of the realities can help us a long long way. The wrong concept probably leads us in the bush, or at least beating around the bush, for a long time. kom 11179 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 1:04am Subject: National/group Kamma? Dear All, At work, some of my valued colleagues are Indigenous Australians. It is a matter of history that European settlement of the Australian continent has had disastrous consequences for this gentle People. In conversation with them, the question of why individuals are born in certain circumstances arose (yet again). And the discussion extended to ethnic and national groups......I had always thought that the experiencing of the results of previous intentional actions was an individual thing. "Beings are owners of their actions, heirs of their actions, born of their actions, related through their actions, and have their actions as their arbitrator. Action is what differentiates beings in terms of baseness & excellence." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn135.html But a friend recently wrote to me saying: "In the New Kadampa Tradition, the Tibetan tradition that I follow, it is taught that there is a National/group Karma as well as an individual Karma." Why would different traditions in Buddhism have different understandings of this most important matter? metta, Christine 11180 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 5:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Panna (was, Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical?) Victor --- Victor Yu wrote: > 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." To my understanding, Victor, only panna can ever see anything as 'not mine' etc. When you say that you see panna as 'not mine' etc, I think you are probably saying something different to this. If what you mean is that you accept the Buddha's teaching that panna and all other realities are not mine etc., that would probably be a kind of thinking about panna, rather than actually seeing it as it is. Or do you mean that it is something other than panna that sees things as they actually are? > 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. I still don't see where the self-denial comes in! Panna can see any reality as 'not mine' etc. > Panna is not something or someone that sees or knows or understands. Every dhamma has a function. Panna has the function of seeing dhammas as they are. It is panna that makes possible the seeing of things as they are. Are we any closer to sorting this out? ;-)) Jon 11181 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 5:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mindfulness of nama and rupa/Jon Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > 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. Some people have the idea that they can 'see' any dhamma/reality, such as consciousness, just by attending to it. However, dhammas can only be seen by developed panna (insight), so no amount of effort on our part will bring that achievement (unfortunatley, perhaps!). But by learning more about consciousness and all the other dhammas, initially at an intellectual level and then by more direct experience, we can lay the foundation for awareness and insight to arise. There is however no need to single out one particular dhamma to study or focus upon. That seems to suggest an idea that one dhamma is more worth knowing, or easier to know, than another, or that focusing our attention ('concentrating') on dhammas is a condition for the arising of insight, and I don’t think any of these ideas are found in the texts. > 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. It is possible to 'deconstruct' realities as you do here in the red hat example, but we should appreciate that this is just a kind of intellectual exercise. What is more useful, as I think you are suggesting, is to understand exactly what is meant by dhammas/realities, how they differ from concepts, and how different realties can be distinguished from each other. There is no quick or easy way to do this, that I know of, but more reading and discussion of the right kind certainly helps. Just a brief comment on the red hat scenario. Some moments of consciousness experience objects through the sense doors, other moments of consciousness think directly about what has been so experienced and yet other moments of consciousness think more generally about multiple sense-door experiences. It is a vastly complicated series of events that we should not expect to be able to 'unravel'. But little by little, ever so slowly, we can come to understand more about different realities and different moments. Patience and persistence are our allies, desire for results and the idea that we can make it happen the enemy! > 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. According to the Buddha's teaching, all dhammas have impermanence etc as their characteristic. The insight that begins to see realties as they are would also begin to see these characteristics of those realties, to some (limited) degree or another. But again, it's not a matter of thinking we should be trying to discern these characteristics. That's as I understand it, anyway, Larry. I hope some of what I've said make some sense for you. Jon 11182 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 5:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Highest Bliss Herman --- egberdina wrote: > 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. No guarantee, I'm afraid (like my map reading -- you could end up anywhere). If we think of the original audience as the ones most likely to be able to correctly 'follow the instructions', it becomes apparent that only a relative few have any real chance of experiencing the intended 'outcome'. > 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. My only comment on bliss (of the non-nibbanic kind, as here) is that it cannot be sustained forever. So even if one attains the highest level, sooner or later the state of bliss runs out and akusala kamma stored up from previous times will bring its unpleasant result in the form of experiences that make further development of bliss difficult if not impossible. Also, bliss in and of itself does nothing to eradicate latent defilements, so these also resurface at an appropriate time. > 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. [But your sense of humour is far wickeder than mine, Herman.] Jon 11183 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 5:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Rob Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > In this and your original post, aren't you addressing the issue from a > > point of view that implies the reification of the external object (the > > rock)? Doesn't any reference to an external object, as opposed to the > > rupa being experienced at the sense-door at the moment of contact with > > consciousness involve a reification? > Jon, > I totally agree. That's my problem. I don't understand how the rupa > can be seen > as the separate object of a nama, rather than a nama itself, without > implicating a > 'real object' being apprehended by perception in the sense door. Am I > confused > about what a rupa is? This keeps coming back to haunt me. If the rupa > is a > physical object, it implies a reification. If it is purely a > sensory/mental > object, why isn't it included as one of the namas? Rupas are neither namas nor physical objects. They are simply put, realties that do not experience an object. But I think that trying to understand intellectually what namas are and what rupas are can only proceed so far, because it is all conceptual. If however we are interested in knowing more about the reality of the present moment, by studying the present moment, then namas and rupas may have more meaning. Namas and rupas can only really be understood in the context of the present moment and the momentary experiences through the sense and mind doors. Jon 11184 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 8:41am Subject: RE: [dsg] 'No control' vs the 4 padhanas (was, samma samadhi) Dear Christine & Jonothan, > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonothan Abbott [mailto:jonoabb@y...] > > > 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'. > > Yes, all or nothing is right, in the sense that > anything less than total > control is really no control. > I would love it if you would explain in some more details why "anything less than total control" is really no control (maybe an example would suffice?). I think there were discussions revolving around this topics recently including Pooh. One camp asserts that partial control is possible, and the other says there is no such thing. kom 11185 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 8:51am Subject: RE: another vote for skillful - Re: [dsg] glossing kusala Dear Sarah, > -----Original Message----- > From: Sarah [mailto:sarahdhhk@y...] > p.s more good news..Kom's photo is on its way to > the album....slowly due > to technical probs;-) Uh... Good news!?!? Thinking about (my) photos reminds me of how the attachment to self (in this case, something quite remotely far away from self [I look like something in the photo, but not exactly...]) is so prevelant. kom 11186 From: Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 4:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] National/group Kamma? Hi, Christine - In a message dated 2/7/02 4:04:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > Dear All, > > At work, some of my valued colleagues are Indigenous Australians. It > is a matter of history that European settlement of the Australian > continent has had disastrous consequences for this gentle People. In > conversation with them, the question of why individuals are born in > certain circumstances arose (yet again). And the discussion extended > to ethnic and national groups......I had always thought that the > experiencing of the results of previous intentional actions was an > individual thing. > > "Beings are owners of their actions, heirs of their actions, born of > their actions, related through their actions, and have their actions > as their arbitrator. Action is what differentiates beings in terms of > baseness & excellence." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn135.html > > But a friend recently wrote to me saying: > "In the New Kadampa Tradition, the Tibetan tradition that I follow, > it is > taught that there is a National/group Karma as well as an individual > Karma." > > Why would different traditions in Buddhism have different > understandings of this most important matter? > > metta, > Christine > =============================== It's my understanding as well that kamma and kamma vipaka are an individual matter. However, beings with similar kamma are likely to have similar vipaka, including the realm and conditions of rebirth. One additional matter: Not all things that happen to beings are the fruition of those beings' kamma. Other beings can initiate willful action against beings which have consequences for those beings. Harm CAN be done to innocent beings. That would constitute quite serious kamma for the perpetrators. All things that happen to sentient beings happen, directly or indirectly, as the result of kamma, of volitional action, but not always as a result of their *own* action. I think, for example, that it is a gross oversimplification (and slander) to claim that the victims of the WTC atrocity, or of a famine in a nation, or of the holocaust were merely reaping what they had sown. (Some, of course, may have - but this is untraceable.) This is how I see the matter. 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) 11187 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 0:48pm Subject: Re: National/group Kamma? Hello Howard, abd All, Thanks, that was first suggestion I made to my friend also. Though if it is a tenet of a particular school of Buddhism, they would surely have considered that also. However, at the same time as the conversation at work occurred, I recalled reading (in Abhidhamma in Daily Life about akusala and kusala and the importance of not taking one for the other) one sentence which caught my attention - "when we hear unpleasant words, the moment of experiencing the sound (hearing-consciousness) is akusala vipaka, the result of an unwholesome deed we performed ourselves." Perhaps I am not understanding the sense of this, but there seems to be no question there as to whether the unpleasant sounds are the result of past intentional actions of our own (or is it the moment, that is? not what appears in the moment?). If anything is not the result of past actions, how can one tell what is? Somehow feel this relates to the 'no control' question as well...... I almost feel I shouldn't post this, and that I've missed a very basic point.....but can't think of any other way to find out. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Christine - > > In a message dated 2/7/02 4:04:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, > cforsyth@v... writes: > > > > Dear All, > > > > At work, some of my valued colleagues are Indigenous Australians. It > > is a matter of history that European settlement of the Australian > > continent has had disastrous consequences for this gentle People. In > > conversation with them, the question of why individuals are born in > > certain circumstances arose (yet again). And the discussion extended > > to ethnic and national groups......I had always thought that the > > experiencing of the results of previous intentional actions was an > > individual thing. > > > > "Beings are owners of their actions, heirs of their actions, born of > > their actions, related through their actions, and have their actions > > as their arbitrator. Action is what differentiates beings in terms of > > baseness & excellence." > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn135.html > > > > But a friend recently wrote to me saying: > > "In the New Kadampa Tradition, the Tibetan tradition that I follow, > > it is > > taught that there is a National/group Karma as well as an individual > > Karma." > > > > Why would different traditions in Buddhism have different > > understandings of this most important matter? > > > > metta, > > Christine > > > =============================== > It's my understanding as well that kamma and kamma vipaka are an > individual matter. However, beings with similar kamma are likely to have > similar vipaka, including the realm and conditions of rebirth. > One additional matter: Not all things that happen to beings are the > fruition of those beings' kamma. Other beings can initiate willful action > against beings which have consequences for those beings. Harm CAN be done to > innocent beings. That would constitute quite serious kamma for the > perpetrators. All things that happen to sentient beings happen, directly or > indirectly, as the result of kamma, of volitional action, but not always as a > result of their *own* action. I think, for example, that it is a gross > oversimplification (and slander) to claim that the victims of the WTC > atrocity, or of a famine in a nation, or of the holocaust were merely reaping > what they had sown. (Some, of course, may have - but this is untraceable.) > This is how I see the matter. > > With metta, > Howard 11188 From: Victor Yu Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 1:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Panna (was, Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical?) Hello Jon, Jon, thank you for taking the time to reply and thank you for sharing your view. Regards, Victor > Victor > > --- Victor Yu wrote: > 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." > > To my understanding, Victor, only panna can ever see anything as 'not > mine' etc. When you say that you see panna as 'not mine' etc, I think you > are probably saying something different to this. If what you mean is that > you accept the Buddha's teaching that panna and all other realities are > not mine etc., that would probably be a kind of thinking about panna, > rather than actually seeing it as it is. Or do you mean that it is > something other than panna that sees things as they actually are? > > > 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. > > I still don't see where the self-denial comes in! Panna can see any > reality as 'not mine' etc. > > > Panna is not something or someone that sees or knows or understands. > > Every dhamma has a function. Panna has the function of seeing dhammas as > they are. It is panna that makes possible the seeing of things as they > are. > > Are we any closer to sorting this out? ;-)) > > Jon 11189 From: Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 8:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: National/group Kamma? Hi, Christine - In a message dated 2/7/02 3:51:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > Hello Howard, abd All, > > Thanks, that was first suggestion I made to my friend also. Though > if it is a tenet of a particular school of Buddhism, they would > surely have considered that also. > However, at the same time as the conversation at work occurred, I > recalled reading (in Abhidhamma in Daily Life about akusala and > kusala and the importance of not taking one for the other) one > sentence which caught my attention - "when we hear unpleasant words, > the moment of experiencing the sound (hearing-consciousness) is > akusala vipaka, the result of an unwholesome deed we performed > ourselves." Perhaps I am not understanding the sense of this, but > there seems to be no question there as to whether the unpleasant > sounds are the result of past intentional actions of our own (or is > it the moment, that is? not what appears in the moment?). > --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: There is no doubt in my mind that what is being said there is that every unpleasant experience is the result of one's own kamma. But I do not buy that at all, nor do I believe that the Buddha did. In fact, in at least one sutta, the Buddha explicitly denied that, characterizing it as wrong view, a view of kammic determinism. (I regret that I don't have a reference for you. I hope that someone else can come up with it. In which case, I will bookmark it for when this issue arises again. I look forward to seing the reference. (I also have every expectation of seeing vehement disagreement with me on this issue! ;-)) What I can do right now is give an excerpt somewhat relevant to this (for example, with regard to the famine scenario I referred to) from Ven Narada's Buddhism in a Nutshell, well respected by Theravadins. The excerpt follows: ********************************** According to Buddhism, there are five orders or processes (Niyamas) which operate in the physical and mental realms: > i. Kamma Niyama, order of act and result, e.g., desirable and undesirable > acts produce corresponding good and bad results. ii. Utu Niyama, physical > (inorganic) order, e.g., seasonal phenomena of winds and rains. iii. Bija > Niyama, order of germs or seeds (physical organic order); e.g., rice > produced from rice-seed, sugary taste from sugar cane or honey etc. The > scientific theory of cells and genes and the physical similarity of twins > may be ascribed to this order. iv. Citta Niyama, order of mind or psychic > law, e.g., processes of consciousness (Citta vithi), power of mind etc. v. > Dhamma Niyama, order of the norm, e.g., the natural phenomena occurring at > the advent of a Bodhisatta in his last birth, gravitation, etc. Every mental or physical phenomenon could be explained by these all-embracing five orders or processes which are laws in themselves. Kamma is, therefore, only one of the five orders that prevail in the universe . ******************************************** > If anything is not the result of past actions, how can one tell what > is? ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I would say that it is generally not knowable to a worldling whether or how some event is one's kammic fruit. Sometimes it clearly is - one angrily punches someone and breaks one's little finger (instant and obvious kamma vipaka), but, as the Buddha said, the working out of kamma is far too complex for a worldling to grasp, and working too hard to do so can drive one nuts! (No relation to Ven Narada's Nutshell!) ----------------------------------------------------------- > Somehow feel this relates to the 'no control' question as > well...... > I almost feel I shouldn't post this, and that I've missed a very > basic point.....but can't think of any other way to find out. > > metta, > Christine > /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) 11190 From: frank kuan Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 2:12pm Subject: Buddhadasa and no rebirth Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 1 Hi Robert, I read one of his books, thought it was pretty good except I was puzzled about the no rebirth thing. I'm not sure what kind of alternative he proposes to avoid eternalism and nihilism. I suspect it would fall into the nihilism side. His claim of rebirth being eternalistic doesn't make any kind of sense. Ultimately, rebirth for most of us is an unproven hypothesis. Anyone can offer an opinion, and I don't care if they have a PHD, Geshe, Ajahn, or whatever next to their name. Just another unproven opinion. -fk --- "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > --- This is from a discussion I had on d-l: > I picked up a copy of Paticcasamuppada - Practical > Dependent Origination by Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (of > Thailand)after > some prior discussions about it. In these > discussions it > was suggested that the Buddha did not teach > rebirth and that this was a wrong idea that had come > into the teachings. This book was cited as a source > and guide. I had read the book many years ago and > have > now reread it. > I think it has many useful points and I certainly > appreciate any book on this most profound teaching > of > Paticcasamuppada. However, I remain convinced that > the > Buddha taught rebirth and that it is indeed a > necessary corrollary of anatta and conditionality. > > I'd like to begin with these comments from the > venerable Buddhadasa's book. He writes that p6 > "therefore teaching Paticcasamupada in such a way > that > there is a self persisting over a series of lives is > contrary to the principle of dependent origination." > This is, of course, evident to anyone who has had > even > a cursory look at the Tipitaka; anatta is really the > bedrock of Dhamma. > However, in the next sentence he says that > "dependent > origination is on no way concerned with morality > which > must depend upon a theory of Eternalism". This I > don't > follow. Kamma is simply a conditioned phenomenon - > and > it is just natural law that certain types of action > lead to certain results. We can think of this as a > moral law without evoking any self. > In the following paragraph p.6 he says that an > incorrectly explained theory has been taught for a > thousand years. On p8 he explains with regard to > this > that the "during the time the commentaries were > composed there arose a widespread tendency to > explain > matters of ultimate truths in terms of the > Eternalist > theory." He lays the blame for all this on > Buddhaghosa (ancient > composer of the Visuddhimagga and many important > commentaries) > p8."the same person who collected all the > commentaries > together so that total blind acceptance..will allow > only one voice to be heard." > > He is not sure how this wrongview arose but he > speculates that it either happened because of lack > of > insight OR he thinks that it was a deliberate plot > to > destroy Buddhism for Brahmins who believed in atta > (self)see page 51-52. He notes that there is no > written evidence before the time of the > Visuddhimagga > [written by Buddhaghosa]where Paticcasamupada was > explained wrongly. And that at the time of the third > council (long before Buddhaghosa ) if one had "said > there was a self that spun around in the cycle of > birth and death and rebirth as in the case of > Bhikkhu > Sati he was held to be holding wrong views in the > sense of Eternalism and was made to leave the order" > . > He equates such wrong views with the Visuddhimagga. > > He does kindly note that Buddhaghosa p60 "is a man > of > great knowledge." He then says ."BUT I don't agree > with him at all regarding Dependent Origination > because he spoke of it in terms of a soul and so it > became Brahministic." And he carries on (p63) to > note > that he "is not going to defile of defame or villify > Buddhaghosa..I only want to make some observations. > Buddhaghosa was born a Brahmin..and he completed a > study of the three vedas like any other Brahmin. His > spirit was that of a Brahmin..if he later came to > explain the Buddhist theory of Dependent Origination > as a form of Brahminism it is most reasonable to > supsect that he was careless and forgetful so that > he > cannot be considered to be an Arahat."" > > So to sum up venerable Buddhadasa is suggesting that > Buddhaghosa > taught an Eternalistic (self, atta) version of the > Paticcasamuppada. Is that true? I think it is best > to > let the ancient texts speak for themselves. > From the relevant section of the Visuddhimagga > Chapter > XV11 Dependent origination > 113 "but how does a man who is confused about these > things perform these three kinds of formations? > Firstly, when he is confused about death, instead of > taking death thus 'death in every case is break up > of > aggregates(khandas, not-self)' he figures that it is > lasting being's transmigration to another > incarnation > and so on". > 115 "when he is confused about the round of > rebirths, > instead of taking the round of rebirths as pictured > thus: 'an endless chain of aggregates(khandas) of > elements(dhatus) bases(ayatanas) that carries on > unbrokenly is what is called 'the round or rebirths' > he figures that it is a lasting being that goes from > this world to another world, that comes from another > world to this world"endquote > 117"when he is cofused about independently-arisen > states, instead of taking the occurence of > formations > to be due to ignorance etc., he figures that it is a > self that knows or does not know, that acts and > causes > action..." > 161 "a mere state that has got its conditions ushers > in the ensuing existence; While it does not migrate > from the past, with no cause in the past it is not. > > So a mere material and immaterial state, arisen when > it has obtained its conditions, that is spoken of, > saying that it comes into the next becoming; it is > not > a lasting being, not a soul. And it has neither > transmigrated from the past nor yet is it manifested > here without cause from that"....... " > 273 "Becomings wheel reveals no known beginning; no > maker, no experiencer there; Void with a twelvefold > voidness,"" > 313 "one who sees this rightly abandons the self > view > by understanding the absence of a maker. One who > sees > it wrongly clings to the moral -inefficacy of action > view because he does not perceive that the causative > function of ignorance etc us established as a law.." > 314 "[and so] let a wise man with mindfulness so > practice that he may begin to find a footing in the > deeps of the dependent origination" > > Now another point about the book. > On page 62 Venerable Buddhadasa says that by > explaining Paticcasamuppada as happening over > several > lives and suggesting that "kamma in this life gives > rise to results in some far off future life it as if > there are no kammic results(vipaka) at all which we > receive in the birth in which the deed was > done.....to > suggest that defilements and kamma from a past life > become effective in this, a later life, is > impossible"" > > Firstly, I'd like to say that truly there is no one > who receives results but that results arise by > conditions (just to be pedantic). From the > Visuddhimagga 172"Experiencer is a convention for > mere > arising of fruit (vipaka);" > Secondly he doesn't acknowledge that the > commentaries > (and tipitaka) say that the results of > kamma can indeed arise in this life,..(or at the > time > of death or in future lives). They say it is pretty > much unpredictable (except to the Buddha) when the > results will arise because of the many other > conditions that support or impede kamma. Here is a > quote from the Tipitaka: > " Threefold, however, is the fruit of karma: > ripening > during the life-time (dittha-dhamma-vedaníya-kamma), > ripening in the next birth > (upapajja-vedaníya-kamma), > ripening in later births (aparápariya-vedaníya > kamma) > ...." (A.VI, 63). > > I think this is enough for one post. I want to add > some more later about how the Paticcasamupada is a > very practical teaching here and now - as shown by > the > Visuddhimagga. > > robert . > === message truncated === 11191 From: Victor Yu Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 2:12pm Subject: Right Effort/samma vayamo Hello all, I find the following passage from Samyutta Nikaya XLV.8 Magga-vibhanga Sutta An Analysis of the Path Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu a good reminder. "And what, monks, is right effort? (i) There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. (ii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. (iii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. (iv) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." Regards, Victor 11192 From: Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 10:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and the Sutta Pitaka - a Discrepancy cc:Nina <<<< Let me preface my brief comment by saying that I have a growing respect for the Abhidhamma, a wonderful categorical synopsis of the Buddha's Dhamma. The discrepancy I would like to point out is that in the Abhidhamma, phassa (or contact) is defined to be a universal cetasika, a mental concomitant to every citta (or act of discernment). But at several places in the suttas, phassa is defined to be an event, namely the coming together of sense door, sense object, and the resulting sense consciousness. An event consisting of the coming together of these three does not seem to be the same as a cetasika. The definition of 'phassa' in the suttas seems to simply be a specification of a conventional term. But in the Abhidhamma the definition of 'phassa' is quite different it seems. Can someone explain how one might think about this in a way which harmonizes these different "takes"? >>>>>> Dear Howard, Nina and all, Let me put in my 2 cents observation. Have to inform you my frame of reference first: I have read some small parts of each suttanta and abhidhamma. So what I about to say is from what I have read so far. I am no expert in tipitaka. As I mentioned earlier that I myself feel that the two keep referring to the same things. To me both suttanta and abhidhamma are very conventional or conceptual in nature. The same things, as I understand, they refer to is reality (some call it dhamma, some call in paramatthadhamma. Name is just a name), what is reality, what is not real and its nature, anicca, dukkha and anatta. They both break down every mental process and physical phenomena into smallest single unit but at the same time showing relationship conditions and dependent origination of that unit. Another very important aspect in both is the time and chronology reference. When things are broken down in a smallest unit also in mutual, interdependent manner, they also do not last long. Now I am thinking of Ven.Sariputta. Ven. Assaji gave this Dhamma exposition to Sariputta the Wanderer and he became a sotapanna after finishing hearing this verse. << Whatever phenomena arise from cause: their cause and their cessation. Such is the teaching of the Tathagata. >> This is from Vinayapitaka-mahavagga. I thought how deep is this short verse. I can read this repeatedly over and over. I can understand every single word, conceptually and conventionally, in it. I wonder what did Ven.Sariputta see and understand at that moment. I agree with you that there are some differences in suttanta and abhidhamma, also in abhidhamma and its later commentaries. About phassa, I did not see the difference of this in suttanta and abhidhamma. In Dhammasagani, abhidhamma book I. Phenomena were classified, sliced and disintegrated. The same thing in Vibhanga, book II. In abhidhamma phassa was not directly categorized as universal cetasika but no matter how citta sliced or classified phassa is always there. In book I, phassa was also called phassahara (phassa as a nutrient). Without phassa, mental processes cannot arise. Phassa is kind of a gateway. In suttanta esp. in salayatana-vagga, phassa is a leading cause of feeling and then mental act. To me, I feel like they talk about the same thing in different manner. Phassa is a gateway or leading factor for processes of citta and other cetasika, in coordinating a meeting between sense door, object and sense conscious. The followings are some things I noted. 1) Bhavanga citta is not mentioned in suttanta but mentioned briefly in abhidhamma and much more in Com. 2) Level of jhana this is well aware that there are 4 fold in suttanta and 5 fold in abhidhamma. 3) Hadaya-vatthu, nothing mentioned about this even in abhidhamma but in Atthasalini, Com. to abhidhamma book I, mentioned 3 portions of the body and hatayavatthu said to be in the middle portion. 4) Nibbana is pretty much referred to in negated manner. There is no direct explanation of nibbana. 5) Writing style is different in suttanta-abhidhamma and commentaries. Repetition, slightly different slicing style is used in both suttanta and abhidhamma, more so in abhidhamma. I guess that is the way for oral transmission. The Com. which was written much later or somewhat more concise and somewhat more categorized. I think that is possible because of writing technology. I found that in Com. some new terms were introduced and things were organized somewhat differently. Should be some more. Let me close with what is, I think, vital to know. I like Malunkayaputta a lot. A man was wounded and bleeding by arrows but he refused anybody to help him if he could not know who shot the arrow, what he looked like, where was he from, what kind of the bow the arrow was shot from, what the arrow made from. He would soon die without getting any help or answers. When I read sutta or abhidhamma, it causes me some doubts. I remind myself the sutta. Reality here and now is vital and critical; nama-rupa, satipathana. I probably will be able or unable to know which one was written first suttanta or abhidhamma or which book in abhidhamma was written first. Reading the whole tipitaka without knowing reality here and now is also pretty much studying in a conceptual manner. So in summary I think both suttanata and abhidhamma is written in a conceptual or conventional manner. I think they are pointing to the same thing, dhamma here and now. Just my opinion. Best wishes and hope you enjoy studying abhidhamma. Num PS. Nina, may I ask for your input about this topic? Thanks for the books you recommended, I got some of them and still waiting for some more from the PTS. I will talk with my aunt Sunday morning and will ask her about what book she is helping someone translating. Appreciate. Num 11193 From: Lucy Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 3:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: National/group Kamma? Dear Howard, Christine I think this is the reference Howard mentioned: Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.21 Moliyasivaka Sutta To Sivaka Once the Blessed One dwelled at Rajagaha in the Bamboo-Grove Monastery, at the Squirrel's Feeding Place. There a wandering ascetic, Moliya Sivaka by name, called on the Blessed One, and after an exchange of courteous and friendly words, sat down at one side. Thus seated, he said: "There are, revered Gotama, some ascetics and brahmans who have this doctrine and view: 'Whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action.' Now, what does the revered Gotama say about this?" "Produced by (disorders of the) bile, there arise, Sivaka, certain kinds of feelings. That this happens, can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true. Produced by (disorders of the) phlegm... of wind... of (the three) combined... by change of climate... by adverse behavior... by injuries... by the results of Kamma -- (through all that), Sivaka, there arise certain kinds of feelings. That this happens can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true. "Now when these ascetics and brahmans have such a doctrine and view that 'whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action,' then they go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted as true by the world. Therefore, I say that this is wrong on the part of these ascetics and brahmans." When this was spoken, Moliya Sivaka, the wandering ascetic, said: "It is excellent, revered Gotama, it is excellent indeed!...May the revered Gotama regard me as a lay follower who, from today, has taken refuge in him as long as life lasts." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn36-021.html This is also worth a read with reference to determinism: Samyutta Nikaya XLII.8 Sankha Sutta The Conch Trumpet http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn42-008.html Best wishes Lucy ----- Original Message ----- From: > There is no doubt in my mind that what is being said there is that > every unpleasant experience is the result of one's own kamma. But I do not > buy that at all, nor do I believe that the Buddha did. In fact, in at least > one sutta, the Buddha explicitly denied that, characterizing it as wrong > view, a view of kammic determinism. (I regret that I don't have a reference > for you. I hope that someone else can come up with it. In which case, I will > bookmark it for when this issue arises again. I look forward to seing the > reference. (I also have every expectation of seeing vehement disagreement > with me on this issue! ;-)) 11194 From: Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 10:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: National/group Kamma? Hi again, Christine - Here is a reference for you. In his wonderful book Buddhadhamma, the renowned Thai scholar-monk, Phra Prayudh Payutto discusses this issue. He lists as the first of what the Buddha called "three heretical doctrines" the doctrine of "Pubbekatahetuvaada (past-action determinism) - believing that all sukha and dukkha are related to past kamma (or pubbekatavaada, for short)" Going into further detail on this, he quotes the Buddha from Dhammapada 276 as follows: "Truly, Sivaka, some sensations arise having goodness as their place of origin ... some arise from the fluctuation of the seasons ... some arise from a lack of consistent behavior ... some arise from being the victim of bad deeds ... some arise from the fruits of kamma....If any recluses and brahmins assert or believe that 'People have sensations - be they sukha or dukkha, non-sukha or non-dukkha - due to past kamma,' ... I can say that this is the fault of those recluses and brahmins themselves." I think this is rather clear, don't you? In particular, one can see the connection between the Buddha's statement that "some arise from being the victim of bad deeds" and my statement in my last post on this subject to the effect that "Other beings can initiate willful action against beings which have consequences for those beings. Harm CAN be done to innocent beings." I have based my position on what the Buddha said, not only on my own deductions. With metta, Howard In a message dated 2/7/02 4:52:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Hi, Christine - > > In a message dated 2/7/02 3:51:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, > cforsyth@v... writes: > > > > Hello Howard, abd All, > > > > Thanks, that was first suggestion I made to my friend also. Though > > if it is a tenet of a particular school of Buddhism, they would > > surely have considered that also. > > However, at the same time as the conversation at work occurred, I > > recalled reading (in Abhidhamma in Daily Life about akusala and > > kusala and the importance of not taking one for the other) one > > sentence which caught my attention - "when we hear unpleasant words, > > the moment of experiencing the sound (hearing-consciousness) is > > akusala vipaka, the result of an unwholesome deed we performed > > ourselves." Perhaps I am not understanding the sense of this, but > > there seems to be no question there as to whether the unpleasant > > sounds are the result of past intentional actions of our own (or is > > it the moment, that is? not what appears in the moment?). > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > There is no doubt in my mind that what is being said there is that > every unpleasant experience is the result of one's own kamma. But I do not > buy that at all, nor do I believe that the Buddha did. In fact, in at least > > one sutta, the Buddha explicitly denied that, characterizing it as wrong > view, a view of kammic determinism. (I regret that I don't have a reference > > for you. I hope that someone else can come up with it. In which case, I > will > bookmark it for when this issue arises again. I look forward to seing the > reference. (I also have every expectation of seeing vehement disagreement > with me on this issue! ;-)) > What I can do right now is give an excerpt somewhat relevant to this > > (for example, with regard to the famine scenario I referred to) from Ven > Narada's Buddhism in a Nutshell, well respected by Theravadins. The excerpt > > follows: > ********************************** > According to Buddhism, there are five orders or processes (Niyamas) which > operate in the physical and mental realms: > > i. Kamma Niyama, order of act and result, e.g., desirable and undesirable > > > acts produce corresponding good and bad results. ii. Utu Niyama, physical > > > (inorganic) order, e.g., seasonal phenomena of winds and rains. iii. Bija > > > Niyama, order of germs or seeds (physical organic order); e.g., rice > > produced from rice-seed, sugary taste from sugar cane or honey etc. The > > scientific theory of cells and genes and the physical similarity of twins > > > may be ascribed to this order. iv. Citta Niyama, order of mind or psychic > > > law, e.g., processes of consciousness (Citta vithi), power of mind etc. > v. > > Dhamma Niyama, order of the norm, e.g., the natural phenomena occurring > at > > the advent of a Bodhisatta in his last birth, gravitation, etc. > Every mental or physical phenomenon could be explained by these > all-embracing > five orders or processes which are laws in themselves. Kamma is, therefore, > > only one of the five orders that prevail in the universe > . > ******************************************** > > > If anything is not the result of past actions, how can one tell what > > is? > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I would say that it is generally not knowable to a worldling whether > > or how some event is one's kammic fruit. Sometimes it clearly is - one > angrily punches someone and breaks one's little finger (instant and obvious > > kamma vipaka), but, as the Buddha said, the working out of kamma is far too > > complex for a worldling to grasp, and working too hard to do so can drive > one > nuts! (No relation to Ven Narada's Nutshell!) > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > Somehow feel this relates to the 'no control' question as > > well...... > > I almost feel I shouldn't post this, and that I've missed a very > > basic point.....but can't think of any other way to find out. > > > > metta, > > Christine > > > > /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) 11195 From: Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 11:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: National/group Kamma? Hi, Lucy (and Christine) - Excellent! Thank you. This is exactly what I was after. BTW, there are some odd commonalities between the sutta you copy here and the piece of writing (supposedly from the Dhammapada) quoted by Ven Payutto, and which I posted in my last msg on this topic. They are not identical, but they are certainly close. (Of course this does happen frequently, with similar language occurring in different suttas.) With metta, Howard In a message dated 2/7/02 6:36:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, selene@c... writes: > Dear Howard, Christine > > I think this is the reference Howard mentioned: > > Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.21 > Moliyasivaka Sutta > To Sivaka > > Once the Blessed One dwelled at Rajagaha in the Bamboo-Grove Monastery, at > the Squirrel's Feeding Place. There a wandering ascetic, Moliya Sivaka by > name, called on the Blessed One, and after an exchange of courteous and > friendly words, sat down at one side. Thus seated, he said: > "There are, revered Gotama, some ascetics and brahmans who have this > doctrine and view: 'Whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or > neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action.' Now, > what does the revered Gotama say about this?" > > "Produced by (disorders of the) bile, there arise, Sivaka, certain kinds of > feelings. That this happens, can be known by oneself; also in the world it > is accepted as true. Produced by (disorders of the) phlegm... of wind... of > (the three) combined... by change of climate... by adverse behavior... by > injuries... by the results of Kamma -- (through all that), Sivaka, there > arise certain kinds of feelings. That this happens can be known by oneself; > also in the world it is accepted as true. > > "Now when these ascetics and brahmans have such a doctrine and view that > 'whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or > neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action,' then > they go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted as true by > the world. Therefore, I say that this is wrong on the part of these > ascetics and brahmans." > > When this was spoken, Moliya Sivaka, the wandering ascetic, said: "It is > excellent, revered Gotama, it is excellent indeed!...May the revered Gotama > regard me as a lay follower who, from today, has taken refuge in him as > long as life lasts." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn36-021.html > > This is also worth a read with reference to determinism: > > Samyutta Nikaya XLII.8 > Sankha Sutta > The Conch Trumpet > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn42-008.html > > Best wishes > > Lucy > /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) 11196 From: Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 4:37pm Subject: RE: [dsg] self, self. Thanks Kom, This is very interesting. I'm going to ponder on this some more, especially the difference between attachment to realities and attachment to concepts. But I'm still not clear on what attachment itself is. It seems a little like pleasant feeling with a magnetic charge; I'm not sure if this charge is concept or something else. I can't see this very clearly; does it make sense to you? Larry 11197 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 6:46pm Subject: [dsg] Re: National/group Kamma? Dear Howard and Lucy, Thanks for the references and thoughts.... I don't know about vehement disagreement Howard....can one have vehement confusion? :-) Will do some reading and reflecting, metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Christine - > > In a message dated 2/7/02 3:51:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, > cforsyth@v... writes: > > > > Hello Howard, abd All, > > > > Thanks, that was first suggestion I made to my friend also. Though > > if it is a tenet of a particular school of Buddhism, they would > > surely have considered that also. > > However, at the same time as the conversation at work occurred, I > > recalled reading (in Abhidhamma in Daily Life about akusala and > > kusala and the importance of not taking one for the other) one > > sentence which caught my attention - "when we hear unpleasant words, > > the moment of experiencing the sound (hearing-consciousness) is > > akusala vipaka, the result of an unwholesome deed we performed > > ourselves." Perhaps I am not understanding the sense of this, but > > there seems to be no question there as to whether the unpleasant > > sounds are the result of past intentional actions of our own (or is > > it the moment, that is? not what appears in the moment?). > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > There is no doubt in my mind that what is being said there is that > every unpleasant experience is the result of one's own kamma. But I do not > buy that at all, nor do I believe that the Buddha did. In fact, in at least > one sutta, the Buddha explicitly denied that, characterizing it as wrong > view, a view of kammic determinism. (I regret that I don't have a reference > for you. I hope that someone else can come up with it. In which case, I will > bookmark it for when this issue arises again. I look forward to seing the > reference. (I also have every expectation of seeing vehement disagreement > with me on this issue! ;-)) > What I can do right now is give an excerpt somewhat relevant to this > (for example, with regard to the famine scenario I referred to) from Ven > Narada's Buddhism in a Nutshell, well respected by Theravadins. The excerpt > follows: > ********************************** > According to Buddhism, there are five orders or processes (Niyamas) which > operate in the physical and mental realms: > > i. Kamma Niyama, order of act and result, e.g., desirable and undesirable > > acts produce corresponding good and bad results. ii. Utu Niyama, physical > > (inorganic) order, e.g., seasonal phenomena of winds and rains. iii. Bija > > Niyama, order of germs or seeds (physical organic order); e.g., rice > > produced from rice-seed, sugary taste from sugar cane or honey etc. The > > scientific theory of cells and genes and the physical similarity of twins > > may be ascribed to this order. iv. Citta Niyama, order of mind or psychic > > law, e.g., processes of consciousness (Citta vithi), power of mind etc. v. > > Dhamma Niyama, order of the norm, e.g., the natural phenomena occurring at > > the advent of a Bodhisatta in his last birth, gravitation, etc. > Every mental or physical phenomenon could be explained by these all- embracing > five orders or processes which are laws in themselves. Kamma is, therefore, > only one of the five orders that prevail in the universe > . > ******************************************** > > > If anything is not the result of past actions, how can one tell what > > is? > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I would say that it is generally not knowable to a worldling whether > or how some event is one's kammic fruit. Sometimes it clearly is - one > angrily punches someone and breaks one's little finger (instant and obvious > kamma vipaka), but, as the Buddha said, the working out of kamma is far too > complex for a worldling to grasp, and working too hard to do so can drive one > nuts! (No relation to Ven Narada's Nutshell!) > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > Somehow feel this relates to the 'no control' question as > > well...... > > I almost feel I shouldn't post this, and that I've missed a very > > basic point.....but can't think of any other way to find out. > > > > metta, > > Christine 11198 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 7:19pm Subject: [dsg] Re: National/group Kamma? ---Dear Howard, You write that with regard to the statement in Abhidhamma in daily life that ""when we hear unpleasant words, > > the moment of experiencing the sound (hearing-consciousness) is > > akusala vipaka, the result of an unwholesome deed we performed > > ourselves."" that ""There is no doubt in my mind that what is being said there is that > every unpleasant experience is the result of one's own kamma. But I do not > buy that at all, nor do I believe that the Buddha did. In fact, in at least > one sutta, the Buddha explicitly denied that, characterizing it as wrong > view, a view of kammic determinism""" I think this has been discussed before. Perhaps if we take note that in the Abhidhamma - as has been explained in Abhidhamma in Daily life- there are 4 types of cittas classified as jati. Vipaka(result), kiriya , akusala and kusala. In a process of cittas that experiences an object such as sound only one moment is vipaka, result. The rest are of the other jatis(not the result of kamma). The vipaka is like a flash and then many more moments that are not vipaka. This is not theory and can be seen by developed insight to whatever degree is appropriate. Also even the vipaka citta has to have other conditions to support it. It is never the only condition. If there were not supporting conditions such as a famine in the countryside then the vipaka to condition moments of painful feeling through the bodysense (hunger) may not have had the chance to arise. And then not all in the country will experience the hardship of famine becase there are always a few who have strong supporting kamma that means they do not go without. Kamma can give results hundreds of thousands of aeons in the future. For example, perhaps we steal something now , but do not get caught and enjoy our ill-gotten gains (because of good supporting kamma from the past) but in the future if there are sufficient other conditions the fruit of this act will arise. From the Dhammapada IX:11 NOBODY IS EXEMPT FROM THE EFFECTS OF EVIL KAMMA Na antalikkhe na samudda majjhe - na pabbatanam vivaram pavissa Na vijjati so jagatippadeso - yatthatthito munceyya papakamma. Not in the sky, nor in mid-ocean, nor in a mountain cave, is found that place on earth where abiding, one may escape from (the consequences of) one's evil deed. IX:11 Nobody can escape from the effects of evil kamma A group of bhikkhus were on their way to see the Buddha and they stopped at a village on the way. Some people were cooking alms food for them when one of the houses caught fire and a ring of fire flew up into the air. At that moment, a crow came flying, got caught in the ring of fire and dropped dead. The bhikkhus seeing the dead crow, observed that only the Buddha would be able to explain for what evil deed this crow had to die in this manner. After taking alms food they continued on their journey. Another group of bhikkhus were travelling in a boat; they too were on their way to see the Buddha. When they were in the middle of the ocean the boat could not be moved. So, lots were drawn to find out who the unlucky one was; three times the lot fell on the wife of the skipper. Then the skipper said sorrowfully, 'Many people should not die on account of this unlucky woman. Tie a pot of sand to her neck and throw her into the sea so that I will not see her.' The woman was thrown into the sea as instructed by the skipper so that the ship could move on. On arrival at their destination, the bhikkhus disembarked and continued on their way to the Buddha. They also intended to ask the Buddha due to what evil kamma the unfortunate woman was thrown overboard. A third group of bhikkhus were also on their way to see the Buddha. On the way, they enquired at a monastery whether there was any suitable place for them to take shelter for the night in the neighbourhood. They were directed to a cave, and there they spent the night, but in the middle of the night, a large boulder slipped off from above and effectively closed the entrance. In the morning the bhikkhus from the nearby monastery coming to the cave saw what had happened and they went to seek help from the village. With the help of those people they tried to move the boulder, but it was of no avail. Thus, the bhikkhus were trapped in the cave without food or water for a few days. On the seventh day, the boulder miraculously moved by itself, and the bhikkhus came out and continued their journey to the Buddha. They too intended to ask the Buddha due to what previous evil deed they were thus shut up for a few days in a cave. The three groups of bhikkhus met on the way and together they went to the Buddha. Each group related what they had seen or experienced on their journeys. The Buddha's answer to the first group: 'Bhikkhus, once there was a farmer who had an ox. The ox was very lazy and also very stubborn. It could not be coaxed to do any work, it would just lie down chewing the cud or else go to sleep. The farmer lost his temper many times on account of this lazy animal. So, in anger, he tied a straw rope round the neck of the ox and set fire to it, and the ox died. On account of this evil deed the farmer has suffered for a long time and in serving out the remaining part of the bad kamma, he has been burnt to death (as a crow)in the last few previous existences.' The Buddha's answer to the second group: 'Bhikkhus, once there was a woman who had a dog. Whatever she did and wherever she went the dog always followed her.* As a result some young boys would poke fun at her. She was very angry and felt so ashamed that she planned to kill the dog. She filled a pot with sand, tied it round the neck of the dog and threw it into the water; and the dog was drowned. On account of this evil deed that woman had suffered for a long time and in serving the remaining part of the bad effect, she had been thrown into the water to be drowned.' The Buddha's answer to the third group: 'Bhikkhus, once, seven cowherds saw an iguana going into a mound and for fun, they closed all the outlets of the mound. After closing the outlets they went away, completely forgetting the iguana that was trapped in the mound. Only after seven days, they remembered what they had done and hurriedly returned to the scene of their mischief and let out the iguana. On account of this evil deed, you seven had been imprisoned together for seven days without any food.' Then, a bhikkhu remarked, 'O indeed! There is no escape from evil consequences for one who has done evil, even if he were in the sky, or in the ocean, or in a cave'. The Buddha replied, 'Yes, bhikkhu, you are right.; even in the sky or anywhere else, there is no place which is beyond the reach of the consequences of evil.' *This dog, in one of his previous existences, had been the woman's husband. In samsasa (which has no conceivable beginning) there is no one who has not at some time or other been the relative of somebody else. Because of his strong and intense affection for the woman, the dog simply could not leave his mistress. That is why the Buddha says there is no grip like affection.endquote best wishes robert 11199 From: Michael Newton Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 9:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Winnie the Pooh (was Re: samma samadhi) Hello!Sumane; Your also from Sri Lanka,like Ranil is,who also is a member of the dhamma study group.I lived in Sri Lanka as a novice monk in the mid-70's.Was ordained by the Ven.Balangoda Ananda Maitreya,who gently passed in Balangoda a few years ago in Balangoda.Wow!In those days,I wouldn't have dreamed I'd be back in California now as a householder in front of this computer terminal sending these messages around the world via Internet. Zip-there is it goes-from California to Sri Lanka. Met members Khun Sujin,Nina,and Sarah at the Buddhist Information Center in colombo in 1976.Amazing!this world wide web.Nice to connect.YOURS IN DHAMMA WITH METTA,MICHEAL-PS-Intersting sharing of toilet wisdom peace you wrote here,Sumane. --- "Seylan Bank - DBD (Sumane Ratnasuriya)" wrote: > Dear All, > Contributing after a long lapse, with what I can. > Fictitious all right, but the idea of reading in the > toilet, better not be propagated unless with a > course of exercises to stimulate the rectal veins > (Yoga) & facilitate blood circulation. Half a minute > for the 'go' & another one & a half to clean-up > would/should not allow more than a glance at > toiletry ads on packaging etc.(meaning nothing > brought from outside to read) > Health problems, especially painful ones are > deterrent at meditation, primarily & at all other > activity, mental & physical. > Therefore best avoided, when possible. > A lot of roughage & a lot of water ( and those > controls) help leave the seat in 2 minutes! > Thank you all for the many concept analyses received > by me, a born Buddhist. > With Mettha, > Sumane Rathnasuriya > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > --- egberdina wrote: > > Dear Christine, > > > > > > I hope ............. > > > > > > 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.