11200

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 9:59pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: National/group Kamma?

 	
Dear Chris, Howard, Ranil, Rob K & friends,

By way of a diversion, let me add my own daily life experience this
morning and try to make it relevant to 9-11, Holocaust, Sri Lanka’s plight
and indigenous Australians later.

I found out last night (by email) that a client is considering not paying
quite a large fee due to me. I went to bed ‘obsessed’ and worried about
this and was unable to relax or even read posts . This morning I phoned
the client, hoping to sort the matter out, but in spite of best
intentions, somewhat lost my ‘cool’ and probably reduced the chance of
repayment further;-(

It may seem (and of course I’d like to kid myself that this is so) that
the problem has been caused entirely by the naughty client. Of course, as
Howard says, conditions are extremely complex and if the client hadn’t
sent the email and had behaved properly, there wouldn’t have been the same
set of unpleasant experiences on my part. 

However, what unpleasant experiences were there anyway? Last night I read
the email. I saw visible object only. Immeditately there were stories and
proliferations and plenty of dosa and also mana (‘how dare he treat me
like this’ and so on). What was the real problem, if not the dosa, mana
and other kilesa arising? This morning when I spoke to him for 10mins
only, I really didn’t even hear anything very unpleasant at all. He didn’t
raise his voice or even speak impolitely. Again the problem was the
thinking and proliferating about his bad motives and actions, the taking
‘me’ as being so very important and the clinging to this version of events
with so very little awareness of any realities.
*****
As Rob K recently quoted from the Vism (in his post about
paticcasamuppada):

> 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..."
As Rob adds:
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);"
*****
By understanding more about different phenomena now, we’ll undersatand
more about how momentary vipaka (result of kamma) is and how it is in fact
not the vipaka which hurts or damages, but the mental states which follow
the vipaka and makes it into a big story. 

Last week I tripped on some steep steps and hurt my knee. There was no
client to blame, no Sri Lankan or other terrorists and yet I started
getting angry with the ‘stupid steps’ and the design or the building. As
Howard and Rob K have indicated, the conditions for any kamma to bring a
result are very, very complicated. Whether or not we can accept the
unpleasant bodily experience or seeing at this moment as being the result
of kamma, we can at least begin to understand the difference between these
realities and the proceeding ones which cling, grasp or are averse to the
expereinces.

We never know what kamma or other conditions will bring what result. Again
Rob K just quoted this:
*****
> ...........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).
*****
Do we have an idea of national identity or group? How is this national
identity experienced? Does it help us to develop any awareness to cling to
this idea of identity or to find ourselves important in anyway? 

It may seem that groups share the same results of kamma, and indeed there
may be certain factors in common, conventionally speaking. Just as there
are conditions for us to all read the posts here, there are conditions for
groups of people to all suffer at the same time or all hear the Buddha
preach the dhamma. So conventionally, perhaps we can talk about ‘group
kamma’. In fact, when we look at the same words on the computer screen,
seeing sees different visible objects for each of us, and these are
different at each moment too. The thinking which follows, conjures up
different stories and the accumulated tendencies of ignorance, attachment
and understanding will arise accordingly, dependent again on so many
conditions. Beginning to understand realities little by little is the way
we see that we really live alone and only ever experience the results of
our own deeds and other conditioning factors.
*****
> 161 ".................
> 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"....... "
*****
Thanks Rob for all the helpful quotes which I’ve appreciated as I write. 

I fully appreciate the sensitive nature of some of the issues I raised in
the first paragraph of this post and I certainly haven't meant to
trivialise these by discussing mundane 'mishaps', but I hope that may be
some conditions for useful reflection. Please let me know if I seem to
have 'missed the mark';-)

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


	
11201

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 10:32pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] National/group Kamma?

 	
Hi Christine,

I like this quote, "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."

How it could relate to national kamma I think hinges on the concept
"owner". If we read "owner" as something like "take as attribute" then
we could say that most of us take our nationalities as an attribute and,
to the extent that we do so, the actions of our various nations
contribute to our kamma. Conversly, our own actions contribute to the
kamma of our nations.

The point that Robert K brought up seems to suggest that there are no
innocent victims. However, all bad results result from evil done to
innocent victims. So guilt and innocence are pretty much a matter of
point of view, in the long run.

On second thought, maybe "cling to" would be a better way of describing
"owner" in "beings are owners of their actions".

Larry
	
11202

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 11:27pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really lon...

 	
Dear Howard,

--- upasaka@a... wrote: > 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’m glad that indirectly the Abhidhamma is becoming more and more
appealing to you (even if only because it conforms with radical
phenomenalism;-))

> 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.) 

I cannot comment further on the associations but I have often appreciated
the keen study of abhidhamma by Mahayanists (especially some Tibetan
Lamas) and I’m always surprised when I hear people who don’t accept the
Abhidhamma as being part of the Tipitaka.

The extract below, with references to Mahayanist sects accepting the
inclusion of the Abhidhamma at the 1st Council, is from my last post in
the “Introduction to Vinaya” series which people may have missed if they
didn’t get to the end of a long post;-).

Sarah
======

<From my earlier post>
“Without wishing to enter into any debate on the topic (about which I know
nothing;-), I’ll just add a note from Geiger’s introduction to his
translation
of Mahavamsa concerning the inclusion of the Abhidhamma in the ‘later
tradition’ accounts of the First Council:

‘Among the Northern buddhist sources dealing with the first Council I
mention
the Mahavastu. Here, in agreement with the southern tradition Kasyapa is
given
as the originator of the coucil, the number of the bhiksus taking part is
stated to be 500 and the place the aptaparna grotto near Rajagrha.

‘There is, besides, an account in the second volume of the Dulva, the
Tibetan
Vinaya of the Sarvastivadin sect. The fixing of the canon took place,
according to this source, in the following order: 1) Dharma, by Ananda;
2)Vinaya, by Upali; 3)Matrka (i.e.Abhidarma) by Mahakasyapa himself.....

‘Fa-hian and Hiuen-thsang also mention the First Council. The former gives
the
number of the bhiksus a 500, the latter as 1,000; the former speaks in a
general way of ‘a collection of sacred books’, the latter expressly
mentions
also the redaction of the Abhidharma by Mahakasyapa.’ <end all quotes>”
======================================================

	
11203

From: Kom Tukovinit <tikmok@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 11:31pm
Subject: RE: [dsg] self, self.

 	
Dear Larry,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...]
>
> 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?

The pleasant feeling is not attachment, but may rise with or
without attachment. When we say we are happy, we often mean
that we are having a pleasant feeling (mostly with
attachment). The feeling is vedana (feeling) kandha, where
as attachment is sankhara (voilitional formations) kandha.
Vedana (unplesant, neutral, and pleasant) arise with all
consciousness, whereas attachment does not.

We are creatures bound to pleasant feelings, so when
attachment arises with pleasant feeling, we pay attention
mostly to the pleasant feeling (and don't know that the
attachment is there). The really noticeable one that you
may help you understand is when you desire something you do
not (yet) have. This is where the feeling may be neutral,
but the attachment very strong. Think of your most favorite
(non dhamma!) activity. When you want to pursue such an
activity, does attachment not rise?

It is hard to separate the different mental co-commitants
from one another. This is why it says (I think in Mirinda
panha, and most likely in other places) that the Buddha did
what is extremely difficult: penetrating thoroughly the
different mental factors AND being able to put into words
that others can understand. No other types of Arahant,
Paceka Buddha or the disciple arahants, can do what a
Samma-sambuddha can.

Here are more definition for you (again, from Cetasikas),
and a small comment at the end:

The Dhammasangaùi (§1059), in the section where it deals
with lobha as hetu, gives a long list of different names for
lobha in order to illustrate its different shades and
aspects. Lobha is compared to a creeper, it strangles its
victim such as a creeper strangles a tree. It is like the
ocean, it is insatiable. Lobha can be coarse or it can be
more subtle such as hoping or expecting. It is a “bondage”
because it binds beings in the round of births. It is a
depravity because it corrupts the mind.

The Visuddhimagga (XIV, 162) gives the following definition
of lobha:
- greed has the characteristic of grasping an object like
“monkey lime”.
- Its function is sticking, like meat put in a hot pan.
- It is manifested as not giving up, like the dye of
lamp-black.
- Its proximate cause is seeing enjoyment in things that
lead to bondage.
- Swelling with the current of craving, it should be
regarded as taking (beings) with it to states of loss, as a
swift-flowing river does to the great ocean.

The Atthasåliní (II, Part IX, Chapter I, 249) gives a
similar definition.

Greed has the characteristic of grasping like monkey lime.
Monkey lime was used by hunters in order to catch monkeys.
We read in the Kindred Sayings (V, Mahå-vagga, Book III,
Chapter I, §7, The monkey) that a hunter sets a trap of lime
for monkeys. Monkeys who are free from “folly and greed” do
not get trapped. We read:

… But a greedy, foolish monkey comes up to the pitch and
handles it with one paw, and his paw sticks fast in it.
Then, thinking: I’ll free my paw, he seizes it with the
other paw, but that too sticks fast. To free both paws he
seizes them with one foot, and that too sticks fast. To free
both paws and the one foot, he lays hold of them with the
other foot, but that too sticks fast. To free both paws and
both feet he lays hold of them with his muzzle: but that too
sticks fast. So that monkey thus trapped in five ways lies
down and howls, thus fallen on misfortune.

I equate the above tale of the stuck monkey to our being
stuck in the samsara (rebirth rounds). We like to do
something (with attachment), and seek what we like in hoping
that we would satisfy that attachment, not knowing that the
seeking only brings more conditions to get us even more
tightly stuck to this state of suffering, and not knowing
that Lobha can never be satisified.

I think your equation of lobha to magnetic charge is quite
apt. Lobha sticks to its objecct: it doesn't what to let
go. When you are doing something really enjoyable, do you
want to interrupt your activities so that you may help
others? Attachment leads to being, where as panna that sees
realities as they are leads to the end of being.

kom


	
11204

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 11:35pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] ayatanas

 	
Dear Nina,

> >Dear Num, Which book your aunt is helping to translate?

> 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.

I've left out all the details about ayatanas which I need to study when I
have a little time to pull out texts and look at all your posts;-) 

I don't think I know Num's aunt, K. Krisana, but Jon does from the Thai
sessions. On our last visit he and Jaran were invited to join the Board
meeting and K.Krisana was one of the 'experts' there...Like you say, it's
great to have her input here and we look forward to Num's direct reports
too;-)

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


	
11205

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 11:41pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: photos - sarah's lucky day

 	
Dear Chris and Frank,

--- christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> wrote: > 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. :-)

I had to show my ignorance and get a translation from Jon (whom I notice
you don't include in your genuine Down Under mafia team;-)) Anyway, he was
able to tell me that an Akubra is a Bush hat.

> Great to see you,

Aren't you glad he checked his inventory and found the 'convict on the
run' photo? Great scenery and a nice pic after one's turned one's computer
on its side;-)

Thanks Frank....you can relax now and help us nag anyone else who tries to
come up with all the non-attachment or other excuses;-)

Sarah
========


	
11206

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 11:47pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re.namas and rupas

 	
Dear Azita,

Good to see you posting and to see the sharp reminders about rupas (even
if you're still having to work out the concepts and names;-))

Ranil, I first met Azita in Sri Lanka too (1979) when she was there with
her baby....which makes Zoe (that baby) in her early 20s now....Photo of
you both for the album, Azita?

Sarah
====================
--- azita gill <gazita2002@y...> wrote: > 

> > > > 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.
> 


	
11207

From: ranil gunawardena <dearranil@h...> 
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 3:22am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Attn Robert

 	
Dear Robert,

Thank you for your concern...
I hope this country will understand the pretious values it has. Otherwise, 
the meat can you open will have the lable "Made in Sri Lanka". Symptoms are 
there that ofcourse will happen in the near future. Now things are happening 
in this country with no one knowing... You should read the news papers to 
see how the media is trying to fool the people...

Anyway... hoping for the best...
~with much meththa
Ranil


>From: "robertkirkpatrick.rm" <robertkirkpatrick@r...>
>Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
>To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [dsg] Attn Michael, Sujin, Nina and Sarah
>Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 14:42:34 -0000
>
>---
>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

	
11208

From: christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 3:37am
Subject: Re: photos - sarah's lucky day

 	
Dear Sarah,and All,

This was a case of damned if you do, and damned if you don't........
I actually DID include Jon (initially) in the Down Under mafia (what 
do you know about Herman, Azita or Ken that I don't??) but decided 
that he might get picky and object on the grounds that a Resident of 
Hong Kong may not be able to join in a group adoption under 
Australian Law of a citizen of the United States who just happens 
also to be an adult, and who may also strenuously object to the 
process. Possibly even take out a suit against us for assault, 
battery and deprivation of liberty.........come to think of it, a 
lawyer might have just had something to offer here......
But this is all just papanca.... :-) It wasn't an akubra anyway.

Cheers,
Chris

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
> Dear Chris and Frank,
> 
> --- christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> wrote: > 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. :-)
> 
> I had to show my ignorance and get a translation from Jon (whom I 
notice
> you don't include in your genuine Down Under mafia team;-)) Anyway, 
he was
> able to tell me that an Akubra is a Bush hat.
> 
> > Great to see you,
> 
> Aren't you glad he checked his inventory and found the 'convict on 
the
> run' photo? Great scenery and a nice pic after one's turned one's 
computer
> on its side;-)
> 
> Thanks Frank....you can relax now and help us nag anyone else who 
tries to
> come up with all the non-attachment or other excuses;-)
> 
> Sarah
> ========
> 
> 
> 
	
11209

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 4:30am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: photos - sarah's lucky day

 	
Hi Chris,

--- christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> wrote: > Dear Sarah,and
All,
> 
> This was a case of damned if you do, and damned if you don't........

It's a hard life isn't it? 

For a little light relief (and on about the 10th attempt;-)), we've just
managed toadd a few photos to the album donated to the cause by friends
(and scanned onto a disc) by the local photo shop....(Actually I have one
more from England, but need to ask permission off-list first). 

Sarah

p.s. Dan, if you're there, I tried to find one of a less "nerd-looking"
Jon after your earlier questionable comments in this regard - let me know
if any pass;-))

	
11210

From: robertkirkpatrick.rm <robertkirkpatrick@r...> 
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 6:26am
Subject: Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 2

 	
Dear Frank,
Thanks for your comments. I find the venerable Buddhadasa writes very 
well on many matters also. His most severe criticism of the 
Visuddhimagga and the teaching of Paticcasamuppada over several 
lifetimes is that it p59 "is of no use at all because it cannot be 
practised" . 

I make this letter more personal than the first one as
I hope this will show the help that the ancient
commentaries about Paticcasamuppada can be.
But firstly, on the issue that Stephen and others brought up of the
Jatakas (Buddha's past lives) being a Hindu, Brahmin
idea:
Some of my study of the Tipitaka focuses on the
Abhidhamma - that section of the Dhamma that is said
to have one taste: "the taste of anatta". Thus when I
read The Dhammapada or the Jataka I look at it in this
way, which is also the way that life is here and now.
We read of when the Buddha was an animal as a
bodhisatta and some people laugh and say it couldn't
have been so. Do they realise that in truth there was
no Buddha in the sense of an existing being - in the
deepest sense. The Abhidhamma and suttas shows us that
what we thought were trees and people and animals and
even ourself are only conditioned, concantanations of
evanescent aggregates (khandas). When we look at a man
or woman the Paticcasamuppada (which is also an
important section of the Vibhanga, the second book of
the Abhidhamma) helps us to see 'man' is simply an
idea , a concept and that what is real are only
fleeting moments of seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling
etc. and then thinking which thinks about these sense
contacts. I think knowing this we read the Jataka in a
different way: That is that the stories in the jataka
are illustrations of the workings of conditionality,
especially that condition called kamma.

If we are not yet ready to understand anatta the
Jataka are still very useful. For example, there is
the story of the powerful and deadly snake who decided
not to kill. Once some boys came and pierced him with
wooden spears and paraded him at the market. He could
have killed them all but was so set on sila that he
refrained. I am impatient by nature - even waiting at
line in the bank puts me on edge at times. But
whenever I remember that story I can't help but
reflect how "if a snake can show patience and endure
so much, then surely I, a human who has heard the
Dhamma can do as much" It always makes me smile at my
foolishness. Is the story of the snake literally
true? I don't know. But I don't doubt it. 


Now to the Paticcasamuppada: When I first learned
about Buddhism I was overawed by the themes expounded
in it. The void (sunnata), the deathless, freedom,
nirodha, non-graping and so on. I would hear a talk
and it all seemed right. I could see that these things
must be true. I listened to and read famous teachers
who put things so beautifully; it was almost poetry.
They made the path seem simple and direct.
But somehow I found it didn't quite transform me as I
had expected.After a few years I decided to delve into
the Pali texts. I studied and gradually things began
to make more sense.
I found details in the Abhidhamma and commentaries
that I could not find anywhere else. For instance here
is a passage about verbal intimation – "the mode and
the alteration in the consciousness-originated earth
element that causes that occurrence of speech
utterance which mode and alteration are a condition
for
the knocking together of clung to matter….." This is
not just theory – it happens everytime we talk to
others. Speech is merely these elements, not
us. You see I had heard that everything is anatta but
I
found while I believed this to be true, nonetheless
when I spoke I thought it was "me" speaking.
Contemplating passages like this helped to bring
attention to every little moment in life and break it
down into its component parts.

Before I studied I had heard many times that
avijja(ignorance) keeps the wheel of dependent
origination spinning. But ignorance of exactly what?
Without the details I couldn't grasp the meaning.
Here are some details about avijja (the first link in
the Paticcasamuppada from the Visudhimagga
XVII 43: " it (avijja) prevents knowing the meaning of
collection in the aggregates(khandas), the meaning of
actuating in the bases(ayatanas)…..the
meaning of reality in the truths…Also it prevents
knowing the meaning of dukkha described in the four
ways as `oppression etc'..Furthermore it is
ignorance because it conceals the physical bases and
objects of eyeconsciousness etc and the dependent
origination."
In brief we can say it is an ignorance of the true
nature of dhammas and the intricate ways they
condition each other. The commentary to
the UDANA ( translation by Peter Masefield
from PTS)defines it (p71,vol1, enlightenment chapter)
"it is ignorance since it causes beings
to dart among becomings and so on within samsara.., it
is ignorance since it darts among those things which
do not actually exist (i.e.men, women) and
since it does not dart among those things that do
exist (i.e.it cannot understand the khandas,
paramattha dhammas).
This is not just philosophising. Knowing this helped a
lot when I heard it. I thought "yes we are always
thinking of "me" and "she" , "us" and "them", we don't
see the real dhammas that arise and fall away so
quickly. It encouraged me to start to study another
world - the world of this moment.

This letter is starting to get long so I just want to
touch on one other link of the Paticcasamupada(there
are twelve in total); the factor of upadana,
grasping, clinging. There are four types of clinging
(see visuddhimagga xvii 241-3). That of sense desire
clinging, wrongview clinging, clinging to rules and
rituals, and lastly self view clinging. Note
that the last three are types of miccha-ditthi, wrong
view(the three include all types of wrong view from
the gross to the very most subtle). These three are
the most dangerous types of clinging and the ones we
especially need to understand, see Visuddhimagga
xvii246. The path of vipassana gradually
eliminates the three types of micchaditthi until at
sotapanna they are eradicated forever. Later stages,
after sotapanna, then attenuate the
clinging to sense desires. I mention this because one
of the mistakes I made in my early buddhist life was
to try to stop having sense desire. It got to the
point where I would feel guilty everytime I had an
icecream. 
What is most needed, I think, is that there should be
a gradual wearing away of wrongview. We have
accumulated much defilements and we have to learn to
understand them –not suppress them. Most of us have
difficulty in comprehending this point as "sense
desire clinging is obvious ... not so the other
kinds (the three types of micchaditthi)" Visuddhimagga
XVII 246.
However, at the moments there is insight into any
reality - for example, lust, at those
moments there is no clinging. But if we merely try to
surpress lust we may succeed (and then feel happy) but
be unaware of the more subtle clingings to the idea of
'self' and control that were present.


robert
	
11211

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 2:14am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: National/group Kamma?

 	
Hi, Sarah -

I think the following post of yours is very good - clear, to the 
point, realistic (though conventional .. oh, gee! ;-)), and not doctrinnaire. 
With regard to your client, we just can't know what of that complex event is 
kamma vipaka of yours and what is not. I suspect that the *original* 
non-paying was not. I suspect that your finding that unpleasant may have been 
just an automatic evaluation (or, better, the vipaka of being human). I 
suspect that your internal reaction of anger may have been kamma vipaka, and 
that your angry verbal response was akusala. But I can suspect what I will, 
and that won't change the facts. Bottom line: We just don't know.

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 2/8/02 1:01:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
sarahdhhk@y... writes:


> 
> Dear Chris, Howard, Ranil, Rob K & friends,
> 
> By way of a diversion, let me add my own daily life experience this
> morning and try to make it relevant to 9-11, Holocaust, Sri Lanka’s plight
> and indigenous Australians later.
> 
> I found out last night (by email) that a client is considering not paying
> quite a large fee due to me. I went to bed ‘obsessed’ and worried about
> this and was unable to relax or even read posts . This morning I phoned
> the client, hoping to sort the matter out, but in spite of best
> intentions, somewhat lost my ‘cool’ and probably reduced the chance of
> repayment further;-(
> 
> It may seem (and of course I’d like to kid myself that this is so) that
> the problem has been caused entirely by the naughty client. Of course, as
> Howard says, conditions are extremely complex and if the client hadn’t
> sent the email and had behaved properly, there wouldn’t have been the same
> set of unpleasant experiences on my part. 
> 
> However, what unpleasant experiences were there anyway? Last night I read
> the email. I saw visible object only. Immeditately there were stories and
> proliferations and plenty of dosa and also mana (‘how dare he treat me
> like this’ and so on). What was the real problem, if not the dosa, mana
> and other kilesa arising? This morning when I spoke to him for 10mins
> only, I really didn’t even hear anything very unpleasant at all. He didn’t
> raise his voice or even speak impolitely. Again the problem was the
> thinking and proliferating about his bad motives and actions, the taking
> ‘me’ as being so very important and the clinging to this version of events
> with so very little awareness of any realities.
> *****
> As Rob K recently quoted from the Vism (in his post about
> paticcasamuppada):
> 
> > 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..."
> As Rob adds:
> 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);"
> *****
> By understanding more about different phenomena now, we’ll undersatand
> more about how momentary vipaka (result of kamma) is and how it is in fact
> not the vipaka which hurts or damages, but the mental states which follow
> the vipaka and makes it into a big story. 
> 
> Last week I tripped on some steep steps and hurt my knee. There was no
> client to blame, no Sri Lankan or other terrorists and yet I started
> getting angry with the ‘stupid steps’ and the design or the building. As
> Howard and Rob K have indicated, the conditions for any kamma to bring a
> result are very, very complicated. Whether or not we can accept the
> unpleasant bodily experience or seeing at this moment as being the result
> of kamma, we can at least begin to understand the difference between these
> realities and the proceeding ones which cling, grasp or are averse to the
> expereinces.
> 
> We never know what kamma or other conditions will bring what result. Again
> Rob K just quoted this:
> *****
> > ...........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-vedanÃya-kamma),
> > ripening in the next birth (upapajja-vedanÃya-kamma),
> > ripening in later births (aparápariya-vedanÃya kamma)
> > ...." (A.VI, 63).
> *****
> Do we have an idea of national identity or group? How is this national
> identity experienced? Does it help us to develop any awareness to cling to
> this idea of identity or to find ourselves important in anyway? 
> 
> It may seem that groups share the same results of kamma, and indeed there
> may be certain factors in common, conventionally speaking. Just as there
> are conditions for us to all read the posts here, there are conditions for
> groups of people to all suffer at the same time or all hear the Buddha
> preach the dhamma. So conventionally, perhaps we can talk about ‘group
> kamma’. In fact, when we look at the same words on the computer screen,
> seeing sees different visible objects for each of us, and these are
> different at each moment too. The thinking which follows, conjures up
> different stories and the accumulated tendencies of ignorance, attachment
> and understanding will arise accordingly, dependent again on so many
> conditions. Beginning to understand realities little by little is the way
> we see that we really live alone and only ever experience the results of
> our own deeds and other conditioning factors.
> *****
> > 161 ".................
> > 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"....... "
> *****
> Thanks Rob for all the helpful quotes which I’ve appreciated as I write. 
> 
> I fully appreciate the sensitive nature of some of the issues I raised in
> the first paragraph of this post and I certainly haven't meant to
> trivialise these by discussing mundane 'mishaps', but I hope that may be
> some conditions for useful reflection. Please let me know if I seem to
> have 'missed the mark';-)
> 
> 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) 




	
11212

From: rikpa21 <rikpa21@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 7:52am
Subject: Re: Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 2

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" 
<robertkirkpatrick@r...> wrote:

Robert, I just wanted to that you for your post, because I found 
your entire post inspiring and beautiful, to hear exactly how the 
study of the Abhidhamma has helped your understanding of the 
Buddha's teachings.

Erik
	
11213

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 2:57am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really lon...

 	
Hi, Sarah -

Thank you for the post I copy below. I will just comment on: "I’m 
always surprised when I hear people who don’t accept the Abhidhamma as being 
part of the Tipitaka." I certainly do accept the Abhidhamma Pitaka as the 
third basket of the Tipitaka, but I don't take it to be direct Buddha word. 
Several if not all of the early schools developed their own abhidhamma, as 
did Mahayana schools. The 7 books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka constitute the 
Theravadin Abhidhamma. I think that it includes enormously valuable material 
and insights, and, for the most part, brilliantly synopsizes the theoretical 
content taught directly by the Buddha in his 45 years of giving discourses. 
But I take the other two baskets as coming directly (more or less) from the 
Buddha.

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 2/8/02 2:27:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
sarahdhhk@y... writes:


> Dear Howard,
> 
> --- upasaka@a... wrote: > 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’m glad that indirectly the Abhidhamma is becoming more and more
> appealing to you (even if only because it conforms with radical
> phenomenalism;-))
> 
> > 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.) 
> 
> I cannot comment further on the associations but I have often appreciated
> the keen study of abhidhamma by Mahayanists (especially some Tibetan
> Lamas) and I’m always surprised when I hear people who don’t accept the
> Abhidhamma as being part of the Tipitaka.
> 
> The extract below, with references to Mahayanist sects accepting the
> inclusion of the Abhidhamma at the 1st Council, is from my last post in
> the “Introduction to Vinaya� series which people may have missed if they
> didn’t get to the end of a long post;-).
> 
> Sarah
> ======
> 
> <From my earlier post>
> “Without wishing to enter into any debate on the topic (about which I know
> nothing;-), I’ll just add a note from Geiger’s introduction to his
> translation
> of Mahavamsa concerning the inclusion of the Abhidhamma in the ‘later
> tradition’ accounts of the First Council:
> 
> ‘Among the Northern buddhist sources dealing with the first Council I
> mention
> the Mahavastu. Here, in agreement with the southern tradition Kasyapa is
> given
> as the originator of the coucil, t?e number of the bhiksus taking part is
> stated to be 500 and the place the aptaparna grotto near Rajagrha.
> 
> ‘There is, besides, an account in the second volume of the Dulva, the
> Tibetan
> Vinaya of the Sarvastivadin sect. The fixing of the canon took place,
> according to this source, in the following order: 1) Dharma, by Ananda;
> 2)Vinaya, by Upali; 3)Matrka (i.e.Abhidarma) by Mahakasyapa himself.....
> 
> ‘Fa-hian and Hiuen-thsang also mention the First Council. The former gives
> the
> number of the bhiksus a 500, the latter as 1,000; the former speaks in a
> general way of ‘a collection of sacred books’, the latter expressly
> mentions
> also the redaction of the Abhidharma by Mahakasyapa.’ <end all quotes>�
> ======================================================
> 
> 


/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) 




	
11214

From: frank kuan <fcckuan@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 8:14am
Subject: mistaken identities, photos - sarah's lucky day

 	
Hi Chris and Sarah,


--- christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> wrote:
> Dear Sarah,and All,
> 
> This was a case of damned if you do, and damned if
> you don't........
> I actually DID include Jon (initially) in the Down
> Under mafia (what 
> do you know about Herman, Azita or Ken that I
> don't??) but decided 
> that he might get picky and object on the grounds
> that a Resident of 
> Hong Kong may not be able to join in a group
> adoption under 
> Australian Law of a citizen of the United States who
> just happens 
> also to be an adult, and who may also strenuously
> object to the 
> process. 

If adoption means I get to cultivate in a warm
climate full time with the requisites taken care of by
my mafia parents, sign me up :-)

> --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...>
> wrote:
> > I had to show my ignorance and get a translation
> from Jon (whom I 
> notice
> > you don't include in your genuine Down Under mafia
> team;-)) Anyway, 
> he was
> > able to tell me that an Akubra is a Bush hat.

So Oz referred to Australia then and not Wizard of
Oz? I thought Chris meant that I was wearing an outfit
that made me look like one of the munchkins or
something from the movie Wizard of Oz. 

> > Aren't you glad he checked his inventory and found
> the 'convict on 
> the
> > run' photo? Great scenery and a nice pic after
> one's turned one's 
> computer
> > on its side;-)

Interestingly enough, a case of mistaken identity
seems to happen to me all the time. In Japan, people
regularly approached me and spoke Japanese (I'm
Chinese). Many Chinese think I look Korean, or at
least not Chinese. When I first started shaving my
head many years ago before it became common, my friend
thought I looked like an escaped convict. When I was
in Mexico (I can get as tan as they do), a native
mexican woman approached me speaking Spanish to ask
for directions. A classmate in yoga who had taken kung
fu lessons for many years thought I was a Shaolin
monk. At Wat Metta, one of the Thai people thought I
was Thai. Walking at night in Los Angeles, I was
stopped by police who thought I looked like an Asian
Gang member. At the temple I'm volunteering at, people
think I'm a monk. Maybe I'll grow an afro and see what
happens. It sure would be nice if people on the
basketball court perceived me as a real threat to dunk
on them. 

obligatory dhamma insight: All kinds of
misunderstandings and misadventures ensue when we
identify with and misconceive this skin bag filled
with bones, blood, pus.

-fk




	
11215

From: Lucy <selene@c...> 
Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 11:49pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Effort/samma vayamo

 	
Thanks Victor. You should post that message every day : )

Lucy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Victor Yu" <victoryu@s...>

> 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
	
11216

From: Lucy <selene@c...> 
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 0:50pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mindfulness of nama and rupa/Jon

 	
Dear Jon & Larry

Thanks for the very helpful thread - it addresses several of my questions
on what is "practice".

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonothan Abbott" <jonoabb@y...>

> >

> 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.
>

Jon, do you mean that it is more "correct" (can't really think of an
appropriate word to use here!) to allow attention to follow the events as
they become prominent in the consciousness? Just looking at what appears
and how it appears & disappears, instead of trying to force attention onto
one particular event / dhamma, makes a lot more sense (to me, and I may be
wrong!). "Concentrating" on one aspect feels to me rather artificial, as
if constructing something that isn't there at all - not a reality. Also,
"concentrating" on the task in hand feels as if I'm blindfolded and can't
"see" anything, but if I sort of step aside and just look, then things
start falling into place --- or unravelling, as you say.

< >
> 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.
>

This makes a lot of sense too - often I catch myself trying to stick
"labels" (dukkha, anicca, anatta) on dhammas but this too feels very
forced. Without the "labels", I can often see anicca quite clearly ---
perhaps it's a question of carrying on looking at anicca until the others
appear too : )

> That's as I understand it, anyway, Larry. I hope some of what I've said
> make some sense for you.
>

Makes a lot of sense to me, thanks !

Lucy
	
11217

From: frank kuan <fcckuan@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 5:55pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 2

 	
Hi Robert,

--- "robertkirkpatrick.rm"
<robertkirkpatrick@r...> wrote:
[buddhadhasa's] most severe criticism
> of the 
> Visuddhimagga and the teaching of Paticcasamuppada
> over several 
> lifetimes is that it p59 "is of no use at all
> because it cannot be 
> practised" . 


On this point, I actually sympathize with him.
After all these years, I'm still not sure what to make
of the entire 12 links in the dependent origination.
Parts of it seem to apply only in the extreme present
moment, while other parts seem to go over many
lifetimes. 
I tend to focus on only the extreme present moment
part of it for my practice- i.e.
contact->feeling->craving->being. After all, that's
the only reality I'm experiencing directly. The heart
of my practice and the evidence of the efficacy of my
practice is right there. If I react to feeling in
unprofitable ways, then right there I know if I'm
reducing or increasing suffering. 
Yet, the belief in rebirth is an incredibly
powerful motivator in spiritual practice. If I
believed that physical death in this present life was
annihilation, that would not change my conviction that
Buddhism is still the most practical and pragmatic
method of maximizing happiness and minimizing
suffering, but it would remove the sense of urgency I
have to seek COMPLETE cessation of
suffering/primordial ignorance. I would most likely
live a much more lax lifestyle, integrating ultimately
unprofitable but immediately gratifying worldly
pleasures. I would be much more likely to lead a self
indulgent lifestyle as a forest recluse absorbed in
the bliss of meditation instead of trying to help
spread what little I've learned of the dhamma to
others. 
Just intuitively examining the reasons of why
ancient cultivators of the past practiced austerities,
and continued to practice austerities even after
becoming an arahant, I find it completely
incomprehensible that they did not believe in rebirth.
Who in their right mind would subject themselves to so
much pain and arduous practice unless they were driven
by a motive to end the infinite round of existence?
Just doesn't make any sense. 
There is a sutta (SN) where the buddha says:
"Dudes, suppose I were to offer you a deal. For every
day of your life, if someone were to shoot 100 arrows
into your body in the morning, at noon, and in the
evening, for 100 years, but at the end of that life
you were assured of penetrating the 4 NT and putting
an end to this round of suffering, then if you had any
brains at all you would snatch up that deal in a
heartbeat."
I also find it hard to believe that rebirth is a
concept that later followers smuggled into buddhism.
If that is the case, I have to give them credit for
being creative and so convincing in their forgery. 
How many of you would practice Buddhism seriously
if you didn't believe in rebirth? If I didn't have
rebirth as a motivator, I'd focus all my energy of
this lifetime in blissful meditative absorptions and
even some of the less refined blissful worldly
absorptions. 

-fk




	
11218

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 7:32pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (cont.)

 	
Rob Ep

From the context of your post (ie., in reply to my sutta reference about
the factors for development of insight/for enlightenment), I think the
question you are posing for discussion is this: If a form of practice is
intuitively and self-evidently seen as leading to greater insight, does it
matter that it varies from the factors for development as stated in the
texts? (Hope i've not over-stated you here, Rob)

The difficulty with this proposition is that we all know from experience
that what seemed intuitively and self-evidently ‘right’ some time ago (for
example, at a former stage of our lives) is now seen in hindsight as the
product of uninformed ideas or misguided aspirations (no matter how
honestly held at the time).

The explanation for this is I think quite simple; the 'usual suspects' of
ignorance and wrong view about realities, and an unrealistic assessment of
our own capabilities.

I believe these same factors are still with us today, although perhaps in
somewhat more disguised form.

I know from other threads, Rob, that you place great importance on having
a thorough conceptual grasp of the nature of nibbana, as explained by the
Buddha, as a proper basis for the practice. I am not sure why, when it
comes to the real essentials of practice, conformity with the texts is
generally seen as being of less importance, or even an unnecessary delay
to embarking on so-called ‘actual practice’. Surely a clear intellectual
grasp of these qualities called mindfulness and insight about which the
Buddha spoke, and of how those qualities are to be developed, is an
indispensable first step.

No doubt the idea of 'concentrated and repeated attention to the moment
with the least amount of distraction', as mentioned in you post, seems
intuitively self-evident, but to my knowledge nowhere in the texts are the
factors of volitional (forced?) effort and a quiet place given as
prerequisites, in the sense of *must do’s, must have’s*, for the
development of awareness and insight into presently arising realities.

When you think about it, there is an inherent inconsistency in the idea of
attention that is *to the moment* and yet that requires that moment to be
*with the least amount of distraction*. Surely ‘the moment’ is simply the
moment, with or without perceived distractions. 

Actually, what you refer to as distractions are essentially and ultimately
the same dhammas that we seek to have awareness of and insight into. 
Seeing them as distractions simply conceptualises them, and takes us
further away from the present moment. It is really a kind of
'reification' in the abstract.

At one level we can accept that it is only the present moment that has any
significance as regards awareness of and insight into dhammas. The fact
that we nevertheless persist in thinking in terms of present moments other
than the *present* present moment (!) suggests that we have only a
superficial appreciation of this. Seeing in ourselves the tendency to shy
away from understanding the presently appearing reality, on whatever
pretext, can be the first step in exposing normally unrecognised wrong
view.

Jon

--- Robert Epstein <epsteinrob@Y...> wrote: > 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.


	
11219

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 8:39pm
Subject: RE: [dsg] self, self.

 	
Thanks Kom, 

I'm going to have to investigate further before I have any more to say.
Everything you have written and sent has inspired me to look more
closely at experience as it unfolds. So, the only thing to do is do it.

best regards, Larry
	
11220

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 9:01pm
Subject: Re: 4 hallucinations/perversions (and 'gos')

 	
--- azita gill <gazita2002@y...> wrote: > 

> 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.

Great news, Helen. I remember from the old days that you have a real
interest in understading the present moment. I'm sure this focus has not
been entirely absent during the past few (now let's see, that must be 20
or so) years.

> 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. 

Good. I'm waiting!

Jon


	
11221

From: christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 1:23am
Subject: Re: [dsg] 'No control' vs the 4 padhanas (was, samma samadhi)

 	
Dear Kom,

I wonder whether everyone has a slightly different definition 
of 'control' and possibly agreeing on a definition first may be more 
productive.

When I think about 'to control', it carries the meaning:
"To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over, power to 
direct or determine result."

Perhaps others see 'to control' differently?
Is there anything in 'Useful Posts' on this, maybe under a different 
heading?

metta,
Christine
--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Kom Tukovinit" <tikmok@y...> wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
	
11222

From: Robert Kirkpatrick <robertkirkpatrick@r...> 
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 3:33am
Subject: kamma/view/paticcasamuppada

 	
Dear Lucy and Howard,
I thought you might be interested in some more about kamma as it relates
to the sutta you posted:
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?"endquote

The view that Moliyasivaka presented to the Buddha is called
pubbakatahetuvada or pubbebbetaka -hetu-ditthi, the view that all feelings
in the present life is due to deeds done in former existences. It is an
extreme view that is ignorant of the many other conditions operating from
the past and present. Another two commonly held views are
issaranimmana-hetu-ditthi, the view that a creator God is responsible for 
the experiences in this life ahetu-apaccaya-ditthi, the view that there is
no such thing as kamma and that all feelings arise by chance. This last
view is fairly common in our age with many people imagining that it is by
chance that they are born as man or woman or dog or horse, and that their
experiences in life happen largely by chance and present effort only. Some
people hold to views which are a mix of two or even all three.
In this sutta the Buddha was concerned to refute the first extreme view
only.

The Blessed one replied to Sivaka: "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."endquote

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 perform ourselves.""

Howard wrote 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"""

However, this is perhaps a hasty conclusion: 
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, many more moments that are not vipaka. 
Now that very insignificant vipaka citta is certainly conditioned by
kamma, that is by kamma done at an earlier time in the same life or in
previous lives. However, even that vipaka is not conditioned solely by
kamma. The Sammohavinodani, chapter on Paticcasamuppada (PTS)p181 notes
that there is no single fruit from a single cause: "for here there is no
single nor multiple fruit of any kind from a single cause, nor is there a
single fruit from multiple causes, but only multiple fruit from multiple
causes. BUT with one representative fruit and cause given thus 'avijja
paccaya vinnana' etc. For the blessed one uses one representative cause
and fruit when it is suitable for elegance in teaching and to suit the
inclinations of those being taught. And he does so in some instances
because it is a basic factor and in some instances because it is obvious
and in some instances because of being not shared"...."he mentioned a
single cause in the passage 'diseases due to phlegm'(in the sutta above)
because of obviousness,for here it is phlegm that is obvious, not kamma
and so on."" 


best wishes
robert

	
11223

From: robertkirkpatrick.rm <robertkirkpatrick@r...> 
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 4:21am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 2

 	
Dear Frank and Erik,
thanks for your comments. It has been very helpful for me to reflect 
more on Paticcasamuppada during this week.I appreciate that 
Venerable Buddhadasa's book acted as a spur for this. More below:

<fcckuan@y...> wrote:

> <robertkirkpatrick@r...> wrote:
> [buddhadhasa's] most severe criticism
> > of the 
> > Visuddhimagga and the teaching of Paticcasamuppada
> > over several 
> > lifetimes is that it p59 "is of no use at all
> > because it cannot be 
> > practised" . 
> 
> On this point, I actually sympathize with him.
> After all these years, I'm still not sure what to make
> of the entire 12 links in the dependent origination.
> Parts of it seem to apply only in the extreme present
> moment, while other parts seem to go over many
> lifetimes. 
> I tend to focus on only the extreme present moment
> part of it for my practice- i.e.
> contact->feeling->craving->being. After all, that's
> the only reality I'm experiencing directly. The heart
> of my practice and the evidence of the efficacy of my
> practice is right there. If I react to feeling in
> unprofitable ways, then right there I know if I'm
> reducing or increasing suffering. 
> _______________
Dear Frank,
The Paticcasamupadda is sometimes taught as covering just one 
moment , as well as over lifetimes. When it is taught over lifetimes 
avijja and sankhara are described as the causes in the past life, 
vinnana, nama-rupa, phassa and vedana as the consequences in the 
present life; tanha, upadana and bhava as the causes in the present 
life and jati and jaramarana (old age and death) as results that will 
occur in the future. 
I focussed on two links in my post, avijja - a cause from the past- 
and upadana- a cause from the present. However, I tried to stress 
that avijja is happening now, just as it was in the past. Thus it 
will give its results in the future. The only way out is for 
ignorance to be overcome - by seeing into this vicious circle called 
dependent origination. This seeing with the eye of wisdom performs 
its function of gradually discerning the nature of dependent 
origination, and it is this same insight that gradually braks up the 
causes for it. As a digression I think it is not a matter of 'us' 
trying to do something; because what insight should be seeing is that 
there is no one who is having insight or sati; that there is only 
these factors of the Paticcasamuppada performing their functions and, 
like a puppet show, deluding us into thinking that beings and people 
really exist who are or are not making progress on the path.
best wishes
robert
	
11224

From: Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> 
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 5:46am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 2

 	
Hello Robert,

As I see from the passage you wrote below, it is a digression to think so.

Regards,
Victor

As a digression I think it is not a matter of 'us' 
> trying to do something; because what insight should be seeing is that 
> there is no one who is having insight or sati; that there is only 
> these factors of the Paticcasamuppada performing their functions and, 
> like a puppet show, deluding us into thinking that beings and people 
> really exist who are or are not making progress on the path.
> best wishes
> robert
	
11225

From: Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> 
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 6:46am
Subject: Re: [dsg] 'No control' vs the 4 padhanas (was, samma samadhi)

 	
Hello Christine,

I think the problem with arguing whether there is control or not, or whether
things are controllable or not is that there are different interpretations
and usages of the word "control". "There is control" is one view. "There
is no control" is another. As I see it, those views are not worth holding
onto.

Regards,
Victor


----- Original Message -----
From: "christine_forsyth" <cforsyth@v...>
To: <dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 4:23 AM
Subject: Re: [dsg] 'No control' vs the 4 padhanas (was, samma samadhi)


> Dear Kom,
>
> I wonder whether everyone has a slightly different definition
> of 'control' and possibly agreeing on a definition first may be more
> productive.
>
> When I think about 'to control', it carries the meaning:
> "To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over, power to
> direct or determine result."
>
> Perhaps others see 'to control' differently?
> Is there anything in 'Useful Posts' on this, maybe under a different
> heading?
>
> metta,
> Christine
	
11226

From: abhidhammika <abhidhammika@y...> 
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 7:02am
Subject: Re: Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 2: To Robert, Frank, And Erik

 	
Dear Robert, Frank, And Erik

How are you?

Robert wrote:

"I focussed on two links in my post, avijja - a cause from the past- 
and upadana- a cause from the present. However, I tried to stress 
that avijja is happening now, just as it was in the past."

As Robert rightly wrote, ignorance is not only a cause from the past, 
but also a pervasive cause for various blunders happening during our 
current lifetime. 

The only time ignorance is suspended is when we are with recollection 
(sati). Or rather, when recollection arises in the mental events, 
which are referred to as we or us.

Gotama the Buddha treated paticcasammupaada very seriously, and Mahaa 
Buddhaghosa found it to be a very challenging subject. It is a pity 
that some people like Buddhadasa blamed Mahaa Buddhaghosa without 
knowing their own failure to study the works of the latter deeply and 
comprehensively. 

Anyone rejecting the relinking consciousness (patisandhi cittam) is 
rejecting the immediate causal link (anantarapaccayo) between the 
dying consciousness and the relinking consciousness, thereby 
rejecting Patthaana.

With best wishes,

Suan 

http://www.bodhiology.org








--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" 
<robertkirkpatrick@r...> wrote:
> Dear Frank and Erik,
> thanks for your comments. It has been very helpful for me to 
reflect 
> more on Paticcasamuppada during this week.I appreciate that 
> Venerable Buddhadasa's book acted as a spur for this. More below:
> 
> <fcckuan@y...> wrote:
> 
> > <robertkirkpatrick@r...> wrote:
> > [buddhadhasa's] most severe criticism
> > > of the 
> > > Visuddhimagga and the teaching of Paticcasamuppada
> > > over several 
> > > lifetimes is that it p59 "is of no use at all
> > > because it cannot be 
> > > practised" . 
> > 
> > On this point, I actually sympathize with him.
> > After all these years, I'm still not sure what to make
> > of the entire 12 links in the dependent origination.
> > Parts of it seem to apply only in the extreme present
> > moment, while other parts seem to go over many
> > lifetimes. 
> > I tend to focus on only the extreme present moment
> > part of it for my practice- i.e.
> > contact->feeling->craving->being. After all, that's
> > the only reality I'm experiencing directly. The heart
> > of my practice and the evidence of the efficacy of my
> > practice is right there. If I react to feeling in
> > unprofitable ways, then right there I know if I'm
> > reducing or increasing suffering. 
> > _______________
> Dear Frank,
> The Paticcasamupadda is sometimes taught as covering just one 
> moment , as well as over lifetimes. When it is taught over 
lifetimes 
> avijja and sankhara are described as the causes in the past life, 
> vinnana, nama-rupa, phassa and vedana as the consequences in the 
> present life; tanha, upadana and bhava as the causes in the present 
> life and jati and jaramarana (old age and death) as results that 
will 
> occur in the future. 
> I focussed on two links in my post, avijja - a cause from the past- 
> and upadana- a cause from the present. However, I tried to stress 
> that avijja is happening now, just as it was in the past. Thus it 
> will give its results in the future. The only way out is for 
> ignorance to be overcome - by seeing into this vicious circle 
called 
> dependent origination. This seeing with the eye of wisdom performs 
> its function of gradually discerning the nature of dependent 
> origination, and it is this same insight that gradually braks up 
the 
> causes for it. As a digression I think it is not a matter of 'us' 
> trying to do something; because what insight should be seeing is 
that 
> there is no one who is having insight or sati; that there is only 
> these factors of the Paticcasamuppada performing their functions 
and, 
> like a puppet show, deluding us into thinking that beings and 
people 
> really exist who are or are not making progress on the path.
> best wishes
> robert
	

11227

From: frank kuan <fcckuan@y...> 
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 7:42am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 2

 	
The only conclusion that I've been able to draw from
PS (12 links of paticcasamupadda/dependent
origination/conditionality) is that it expresses
necessary preconditions for conditions to occur, but
if we try to deduce more information from that
relationship we get confounded. 

For example, if we visualize the 12 links in a
circular chain, and we suppose that cutting off one
link will break the whole circle and end samsaric
existence, it doesn't seem to work quite as simple as
that. What if we cut off craving? Is cutting off
craving the same as cutting off the underlying
tendency for craving? Or can cutting off craving
simply be like Pavlov's dog where a well trained monk
has a conditioned response to not react to
pleasant/unpleasnat/neutral feelings in inapproriate
ways? This is where I wonder about the Burmese
Vipassana system. They seem to give the impression
that we can break the chain at craving. I'm not so
sure.

To me, it seems like the only part of the circular
chain that can truly be broken is "ignorance", but
even then when one becomes an arhant, the WHOLE chain
doesn't just fall completely apart. Discontinuities
occur, but not every link breaks. 

I'm not sure I actually like the 12 nidanas. The
dhamma makes more sense when the related portions in
context are grouped together. Some buddhist scholars
believe the 12 links was a later buddhist development
that tried to compact everything the buddha ever said
about conditionality into one complex formula. Perhaps
similar to a botched attempt at a unified field theory
in physics. 

-fk



	



11228

From: Kom Tukovinit <tikmok@y...> 
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 8:06am
Subject: RE: [dsg] 'No control' vs the 4 padhanas (was, samma samadhi)

 	
Dear Christine,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...]
>
> Dear Kom,
>
> When I think about 'to control', it carries the meaning:
> "To exercise authoritative or dominating
> influence over, power to
> direct or determine result."

You would have no objection from me on this definition!

>
> Perhaps others see 'to control' differently?
> Is there anything in 'Useful Posts' on this,
> maybe under a different
> heading?
>

There are spades of discussion involving around this area
including the recent Pooh, Samma-vayama, and more distant
discussions on our influence on voilitional formations,
being able to influence Sati and Samadhi to arise. It's
probably hard to look up those specific circumstances.
However, the useful posts has tons of stuffs on Anatta.

kom


	
11229

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 3:31am
Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma/view/paticcasamuppada

 	
Hi, Robert -

Thank you for this detailed post. I do accept that every experience 
that comes to one is in part kamma vipaka in the following sense at least: 
The experience would not have occurred had one not been born into the current 
realm. (But., of course, and I expect you will agree with this, that is a far 
cry from the view, for example, that every person who is tortured is reaping 
what he, himself, has sowed. The view that all proceeds from one's kamma 
easily lends itself to such guilt-of-the-victim nonsense as is often 
expressed, for example, in cases of rape.)

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 2/9/02 6:35:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
robertkirkpatrick@r... writes:


> 
> Dear Lucy and Howard,
> I thought you might be interested in some more about kamma as it relates
> to the sutta you posted:
> 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?"endquote
> 
> The view that Moliyasivaka presented to the Buddha is called
> pubbakatahetuvada or pubbebbetaka -hetu-ditthi, the view that all feelings
> in the present life is due to deeds done in former existences. It is an
> extreme view that is ignorant of the many other conditions operating from
> the past and present. Another two commonly held views are
> issaranimmana-hetu-ditthi, the view that a creator God is responsible for 
> the experiences in this life ahetu-apaccaya-ditthi, the view that there is
> no such thing as kamma and that all feelings arise by chance. This last
> view is fairly common in our age with many people imagining that it is by
> chance that they are born as man or woman or dog or horse, and that their
> experiences in life happen largely by chance and present effort only. Some
> people hold to views which are a mix of two or even all three.
> In this sutta the Buddha was concerned to refute the first extreme view
> only.
> 
> The Blessed one replied to Sivaka: "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."endquote
> 
> 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 perform ourselves.""
> 
> Howard wrote 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"""
> 
> However, this is perhaps a hasty conclusion: 
> 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, many more moments that are not vipaka. 
> Now that very insignificant vipaka citta is certainly conditioned by
> kamma, that is by kamma done at an earlier time in the same life or in
> previous lives. However, even that vipaka is not conditioned solely by
> kamma. The Sammohavinodani, chapter on Paticcasamuppada (PTS)p181 notes
> that there is no single fruit from a single cause: "for here there is no
> single nor multiple fruit of any kind from a single cause, nor is there a
> single fruit from multiple causes, but only multiple fruit from multiple
> causes. BUT with one representative fruit and cause given thus 'avijja
> paccaya vinnana' etc. For the blessed one uses one representative cause
> and fruit when it is suitable for elegance in teaching and to suit the
> inclinations of those being taught. And he does so in some instances
> because it is a basic factor and in some instances because it is obvious
> and in some instances because of being not shared"...."he mentioned a
> single cause in the passage 'diseases due to phlegm'(in the sutta above)
> because of obviousness,for here it is phlegm that is obvious, not kamma
> and so on."" 
> 
> 
> best wishes
> robert
> 


/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) 




	
11230

From: Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 10:11am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and the Sutta Pitaka -no discrepancy

 	
op 08-02-2002 00:17 schreef srnsk@a... op srnsk@a...:

> 
> 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.

> Dear Num, You asked me to join in. I agree, there is no discrepancy. Phassa,
contact, has a characteristic, a function, a manifestation and a proximate
cause. The manifestation is the coinciding of base, object and
consciousness, as the Atthasalini stated. The same is said in the suttas:
when visible object impinges on the eye-base and seeing arises, you know
that there is contact accompanying seeing and performing its function of
contacting the visible object, so that seeing can experience it. That is the
manifestation of contact. It is not an abstract category, it performs its
function each moment, also now.
I agree with your other points about Abhidhamma and suttanta. As you said:

> Num: < 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.
> 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. > end quote.

>Nina: I fully agree, we should not forget the aim of all our reading and
studying: understanding seeing, visible object, hearing, sound, and all
dhammas appearing now. Otherwise our study will be fruitless and
speculative. The Buddha taught Malunkyaputta the four noble Truths. When we
come to understand that what we take for people and self are only nama and
rupa, wrong view can be eliminated and only after that the other defilements
can be eradicated. The end of defilements means the end of dukkha because
then there will not be rebirth.
Best wishes from Nina.
> 
>
	
11231

From: christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 3:44pm
Subject: Laughter and Humour

 	
Dear All,

During this last week, a friend of many years commented that he felt 
I couldn't be a real buddhist because I laughed and smiled too much. 
This seemed a strange remark, and I shrugged it off..... But I kept 
remembering it. So I searched for a few references and found that 
perhaps there was a basis for my friends' remark. This was surprising 
to me and a little disturbing. I cannot imagine life without 
laughter - it would become a depressing marathon of 
endurance.....Perhaps, it is too much laughter that is to be 
discouraged?....The wrong sort? and who judges that?...Or is it that 
you automatically lose your sense of humour the more progress you 
make?

metta,
Christine

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn42-002.html 
Then Talaputa, the head of an acting troupe, went to the Blessed One 
and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was 
sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Venerable sir, I have 
heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of 
actors that 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, 
makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of 
reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn 
in the company of the laughing devas.' What does the Blessed One have 
to say about that?" 

"Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that." 

A second time... A third time Talaputa, the head of an acting troupe, 
said: "Venerable sir, I have heard that it has been passed down by 
the ancient teaching lineage of actors that 'When an actor on the 
stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them 
delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the 
body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing 
devas.' What does the Blessed One have to say about that?" 

"Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by 
saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I 
will simply answer you. Any beings who are not devoid of passion to 
begin with, who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even 
more passion on things inspiring passion presented by an actor on 
stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of 
aversion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus 
with even more aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an 
actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not 
devoid of delusion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of 
delusion, focus with even more delusion on things inspiring delusion 
presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Thus the 
actor -- himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others 
intoxicated & heedless -- with the breakup of the body, after death, 
is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter. But if he holds 
such a view as this: 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a 
festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation 
of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is 
reborn in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view. 
Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell 
you: either hell or the animal womb." 

When this was said, Talaputa, the head of an acting troupe, sobbed & 
burst into tears. [The Blessed One said:] "That is what I couldn't 
get past you by saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask 
me that.'" 

"I'm not crying, venerable sir, because of what the Blessed One said 
to me, but simply because I have been deceived, cheated, & fooled for 
a long time by that ancient teaching lineage of actors who 
said: 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes 
people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then 
with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the 
company of the laughing devas.' 

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/lett7b.htm 

"if humour is, as I have suggested, in some way a reaction to fear, 
then so long as there remains a trace of the contradiction, of the 
existential paradox, so long will there remain a trace of humour. But 
since, essentially, the Buddha's Teaching is the cessation of fear 
(or more strictly of anxiety, the condition of fear), so it leads to 
the subsidence of humour. Not, indeed, that the arahat is humourless 
in the sense of being serious-minded; far from it; no -- it is simply 
that the need he formerly felt for humour has now ceased. And so we 
find in the Suttas (A. III,105: i,261) that whereas excessive 
laughter 'showing the teeth' is called childishness, a smile when one 
is rightly pleased is not out of place. Perhaps you may like to see 
here a distinction between inauthentic and authentic humour." 

http://www.stanford.edu/~jasona/j92-final/

Associating laughter with religion was even a problem for early 
Buddhist scholastics. Laughter was thought to be something common, 
even vulgar. Some see the comic as a distraction from the seriousness 
of religion, while others view it as adding "spice to the rice," so 
to speak. Thus, Buddhist scholastics preferred to disassociate the 
Buddha's teachings from laughter. However, there was a problem: many 
sutras say or imply that the Buddha would laugh on occassion. How 
could this discrepancy be resolved? Bharata, during the fourth 
century in India, wrote a theatrical treatise that remedied this by 
differentiating between the different types of laughter, as 
diagrammed below: Type of Laughter Short Description Appropriate 
Caste 
Sita highest and noblest form, a faint smile High castes, authority 
figures 
Hasita next highest form, a smile which barely reveals the tips of 
the teeth 
Vihasita an even larger smile accompanied by some laughter Middle 
ranks 
Upahasita a more pronounced laughter, marked by shaking of the head, 
shoulders, and arms 
Apahasita loud laughter that makes one teary-eyed Lower castes, 
people of unruly or uncouth behavior 
Atihasita uproarious laughter that makes one double over, slap the 
thighs, or roll around 


Therefore, according to Bharata, the Buddha was only associated with 
sita "laughter", although from a modern sense, this isn't even 
considered laughter"


http://www.palikanon.com/abhidham/sangaha/chapter_1.htm

"26. Hasituppáda is a citta peculiar to Arahats. Smiling is caused by 
a pleasurable feeling. There are thirteen classes of consciousness by 
which one may smile according to the type of the person. An ordinary 
worldling (puthujjana) may laugh with either one of the four types of 
cittas rooted in attachment, accompanied by pleasure, or one of the 
four kusala cittas, accompanied by pleasure. Sotápannas, Sakadágámís, 
and Anágámís may smile with one of the two akusala cittas, 
disconnected with false view, accompanied by pleasure, or with one of 
the four kusala cittas. Arahats and Pacceka Buddhas may smile with 
one of the four sobhana kiriya cittas or hasituppáda. Sammá 
Sambuddhas smile with one of the two sobhana kiriya cittas, 
accompanied by wisdom and pleasure. There is nothing but mere mirth 
in the hasituppáda consciousness.The Compendium of Philosophy 
states: "There are six classes of laughter recognized in Buddhist 
works: (1) sita: - a smile manifesting itself in expression and 
countenance; (2) hasita: - a smile consisting in the slight movements 
of the lips just enough to reveal the tips of the teeth; (3) 
vihasita: - laughter giving out a light sound; (4) upahasita: - 
laughter accompanied by the movement of the head, shoulders, and 
arms; (5) apahasita: - laughter accompanied by the shedding of tears; 
and (6) atihasita: - an outburst of laughter accompanied by the 
forward and backward movements of the entire body from head to foot. 
Laughter is thus a form of bodily expression (káya-viññatti), which 
may or may not be accompanied by vocal expression (vací-viññatti). Of 
these, the first two classes are indulged in by cultured persons, the 
next two by the average man, and the last two by the lower classes of 
being." 


http://www.wfb-hq.org/bud15c.htm 

"Consider, for example, laughter. The Buddha once said, "Laughter is 
the behaviour of an infant in its cradle." Think about it. We like to 
laugh heartily, even though it is the behaviour of an infant in its 
cradle. It doesn't even embarrass us. We like it. We go right on 
laughing heartily, guffawing loudly. Why did the Buddha say 
that "Laughter is the behaviour of an infant in its cradle"? Think of 
an infant in its cradle and the way it lies there gurgling and 
grinning at you. 
The laughter of the noble ones is different. They laugh at 
all compounded things (sankhara), which are impermanent and changing, 
unsatisfactory (dukkha), and not-self. Because they knew, they can 
laugh at compounded things and at craving, which henceforth can do 
them no harm. This is the right kind of laughter, the kind that has 
meaning and worth."
	
11232

From: Victor Yu <victoryu@s...> 
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 4:19pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Laughter and Humour

 	
Hello Christine and all,

Here is a discourse in which the Buddha smiled.

Anguttara Nikaya V.180
Gavesin Sutta
About Gavesin
Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
For free distribution only.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an05-180.html

Regards,
Victor

----- Original Message -----
From: "christine_forsyth" <cforsyth@v...>
To: <dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 6:44 PM
Subject: [dsg] Laughter and Humour


Dear All,

During this last week, a friend of many years commented that he felt
I couldn't be a real buddhist because I laughed and smiled too much.
This seemed a strange remark, and I shrugged it off..... But I kept
remembering it. So I searched for a few references and found that
perhaps there was a basis for my friends' remark. This was surprising
to me and a little disturbing. I cannot imagine life without
laughter - it would become a depressing marathon of
endurance.....Perhaps, it is too much laughter that is to be
discouraged?....The wrong sort? and who judges that?...Or is it that
you automatically lose your sense of humour the more progress you
make?

metta,
Christine

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn42-002.html
Then Talaputa, the head of an acting troupe, went to the Blessed One
and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was
sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Venerable sir, I have
heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of
actors that 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival,
makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of
reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn
in the company of the laughing devas.' What does the Blessed One have
to say about that?"

"Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that."

A second time... A third time Talaputa, the head of an acting troupe,
said: "Venerable sir, I have heard that it has been passed down by
the ancient teaching lineage of actors that 'When an actor on the
stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them
delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the
body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing
devas.' What does the Blessed One have to say about that?"

"Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by
saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I
will simply answer you. Any beings who are not devoid of passion to
begin with, who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even
more passion on things inspiring passion presented by an actor on
stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of
aversion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus
with even more aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an
actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not
devoid of delusion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of
delusion, focus with even more delusion on things inspiring delusion
presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Thus the
actor -- himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others
intoxicated & heedless -- with the breakup of the body, after death,
is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter. But if he holds
such a view as this: 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a
festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation
of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is
reborn in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view.
Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell
you: either hell or the animal womb."

When this was said, Talaputa, the head of an acting troupe, sobbed &
burst into tears. [The Blessed One said:] "That is what I couldn't
get past you by saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask
me that.'"

"I'm not crying, venerable sir, because of what the Blessed One said
to me, but simply because I have been deceived, cheated, & fooled for
a long time by that ancient teaching lineage of actors who
said: 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes
people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then
with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the
company of the laughing devas.'

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/lett7b.htm

"if humour is, as I have suggested, in some way a reaction to fear,
then so long as there remains a trace of the contradiction, of the
existential paradox, so long will there remain a trace of humour. But
since, essentially, the Buddha's Teaching is the cessation of fear
(or more strictly of anxiety, the condition of fear), so it leads to
the subsidence of humour. Not, indeed, that the arahat is humourless
in the sense of being serious-minded; far from it; no -- it is simply
that the need he formerly felt for humour has now ceased. And so we
find in the Suttas (A. III,105: i,261) that whereas excessive
laughter 'showing the teeth' is called childishness, a smile when one
is rightly pleased is not out of place. Perhaps you may like to see
here a distinction between inauthentic and authentic humour."

http://www.stanford.edu/~jasona/j92-final/

Associating laughter with religion was even a problem for early
Buddhist scholastics. Laughter was thought to be something common,
even vulgar. Some see the comic as a distraction from the seriousness
of religion, while others view it as adding "spice to the rice," so
to speak. Thus, Buddhist scholastics preferred to disassociate the
Buddha's teachings from laughter. However, there was a problem: many
sutras say or imply that the Buddha would laugh on occassion. How
could this discrepancy be resolved? Bharata, during the fourth
century in India, wrote a theatrical treatise that remedied this by
differentiating between the different types of laughter, as
diagrammed below: Type of Laughter Short Description Appropriate
Caste
Sita highest and noblest form, a faint smile High castes, authority
figures
Hasita next highest form, a smile which barely reveals the tips of
the teeth
Vihasita an even larger smile accompanied by some laughter Middle
ranks
Upahasita a more pronounced laughter, marked by shaking of the head,
shoulders, and arms
Apahasita loud laughter that makes one teary-eyed Lower castes,
people of unruly or uncouth behavior
Atihasita uproarious laughter that makes one double over, slap the
thighs, or roll around


Therefore, according to Bharata, the Buddha was only associated with
sita "laughter", although from a modern sense, this isn't even
considered laughter"


http://www.palikanon.com/abhidham/sangaha/chapter_1.htm

"26. Hasituppáda is a citta peculiar to Arahats. Smiling is caused by
a pleasurable feeling. There are thirteen classes of consciousness by
which one may smile according to the type of the person. An ordinary
worldling (puthujjana) may laugh with either one of the four types of
cittas rooted in attachment, accompanied by pleasure, or one of the
four kusala cittas, accompanied by pleasure. Sotápannas, Sakadágámís,
and Anágámís may smile with one of the two akusala cittas,
disconnected with false view, accompanied by pleasure, or with one of
the four kusala cittas. Arahats and Pacceka Buddhas may smile with
one of the four sobhana kiriya cittas or hasituppáda. Sammá
Sambuddhas smile with one of the two sobhana kiriya cittas,
accompanied by wisdom and pleasure. There is nothing but mere mirth
in the hasituppáda consciousness.The Compendium of Philosophy
states: "There are six classes of laughter recognized in Buddhist
works: (1) sita: - a smile manifesting itself in expression and
countenance; (2) hasita: - a smile consisting in the slight movements
of the lips just enough to reveal the tips of the teeth; (3)
vihasita: - laughter giving out a light sound; (4) upahasita: -
laughter accompanied by the movement of the head, shoulders, and
arms; (5) apahasita: - laughter accompanied by the shedding of tears;
and (6) atihasita: - an outburst of laughter accompanied by the
forward and backward movements of the entire body from head to foot.
Laughter is thus a form of bodily expression (káya-viññatti), which
may or may not be accompanied by vocal expression (vací-viññatti). Of
these, the first two classes are indulged in by cultured persons, the
next two by the average man, and the last two by the lower classes of
being."


http://www.wfb-hq.org/bud15c.htm

"Consider, for example, laughter. The Buddha once said, "Laughter is
the behaviour of an infant in its cradle." Think about it. We like to
laugh heartily, even though it is the behaviour of an infant in its
cradle. It doesn't even embarrass us. We like it. We go right on
laughing heartily, guffawing loudly. Why did the Buddha say
that "Laughter is the behaviour of an infant in its cradle"? Think of
an infant in its cradle and the way it lies there gurgling and
grinning at you.
The laughter of the noble ones is different. They laugh at
all compounded things (sankhara), which are impermanent and changing,
unsatisfactory (dukkha), and not-self. Because they knew, they can
laugh at compounded things and at craving, which henceforth can do
them no harm. This is the right kind of laughter, the kind that has
meaning and worth."





	
11233

From: manji <manji@s...> 
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 4:49pm
Subject: RE: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 2

 	
Most amazing and auspicious post. :)

Esp. the part 

"... There are four types of clinging
(see visuddhimagga xvii 241-3). That of sense desire
clinging, wrongview clinging, clinging to rules and
rituals, and lastly self view clinging. Note
that the last three are types of miccha-ditthi, wrong
view(the three include all types of wrong view from
the gross to the very most subtle). These three are
the most dangerous types of clinging and the ones we
especially need to understand, see Visuddhimagga
xvii246. The path of vipassana gradually
eliminates the three types of micchaditthi until at
sotapanna they are eradicated forever. Later stages,
after sotapanna, then attenuate the
clinging to sense desires."

Prajna paramita...

manji
shugyokai.org


-----Original Message-----
From: robertkirkpatrick.rm [mailto:robertkirkpatrick@r...] 
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 9:26 AM
To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com; dhammastudy@yahoogroups
Subject: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 2
	
11234

From: robertkirkpatrick.rm <robertkirkpatrick@r...> 
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 6:12pm
Subject: Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3

 	
Dear group,
In this post I look at some more points raised by Venerable 
Buddhadasa in
about Buddhaghosa and the ancient commentaries.
On page 61 , paragraph 268 (chapter heading 'Buddhaghosa' about the 
9th
paragraph): "therefore his explanation took on the appearance of 
spanning
three births because of the rebirth consciousness from the past coming
into the present birth and from the present going over into the future
birth"

Venerable Buddhadasa is correct; in that if the Visuddhimagga and
Buddhaghosa had said that consciousness comes or goes anywhere we 
are at
odds with the Dhamma and the fundamental anattaness and impermanence 
of
all phenomena. It is the radical insight into reality gained by the 
Buddha
that shows that what we have taken to be the same consciousness can't 
last
for the briefest moment- it certainly can't go somewhere or pass from 
life
to life. I am in agreement with venerable Buddhadasa-- as I am with 
many
points in his book-- on the importance of getting this right. I think 
it
is fair, though, to check with the Visuddhimagga as to whether the
ancients really taught this perverted doctrine:
There are several pages about this including especially Visuddhimagga 
xvii
133-175.
It is complex. I will try to put it as simply as possible.
There is a lengthy explanation of how at the actual moment of death, 
due
to several conditions, an object is taken by that consciousness 
(called
cuti-citta) death-consciousness. This consciousness is not different 
from
other types of consciousness that arise and pass away all day long - 
but
it is given this name to identify it(of course each moment is not 
exactly
the same as any other and seeing consciousness is different from 
hearing
consciousness etc; but all have the general characteristic of 
experiencing
an arammana). The next consciousness that arises is called 
patisandhara
(rebirth) and again this is no different from other types of 
consciousness
Although we call it conventionaly a 'new life' it is, just like now,
simply a stream of arising and passing consciousnesses carrying on. 
At this moment this process of arising and passing, birth and death,
(khanika marana) occurs but because of ignorance we don't perceive 
it. But
truly we are utterly different from what we were a second ago - the 
reason
we look and feel approximately the same is because similar conditions
arise to replace the mentality and materiality that fell away. At
conventional death and new birth the changes are more obvious because
different kamma will produce results.
Here are some pertinent quotes:
XVII 164 "The former of these two states of consciousness is called 
death
(cuti) because of falling and the later is called rebirth because of
linking (patisandhara) across the gap separating the beginning of the 
next
becoming". Note that there is no suggestion of the consciousness from 
the
previous life going to the present life. The whole point is to make it
clear that that is exactly NOT what happens.
164. "it should be understood that it has neither come here from the
previous becoming nor has it become manifest without the kamma, the
formations(sankharas), the objective field etc. as cause. An echo , 
or its
like, supplies the figures here; connectedness By continuity denies
Identity and otherness" 
302. "with formations as condition consciousness(sankhara paccaya 
vinnana)
prevents seeing the transmigration of a self." 
280 "consequently, the dependent origination with its twelve factors,
revolving within the linking of cause and effect is established as 
having
no beginning" 
303 "Ignorance here is 'no theory' and 'wrong theory'

Also consider an earlier post where I noted thatBuddhaghosa
also taught "that the structure of conditions is present not only in a
multiple consciousness but also in each single consciousness as well" 
(see
dispeller of delusion and also note 48 of Visuddhimagga). In the
Visuddhimagga it is noted that the factor of resultant consciousness 
does
not only refer to rebirth consciousness but also xvii 126 "in the 
course
of an individual existence or continuity" There are several paragraphs
about this.
======
Now I want to look at the matter of other worlds, hells and animals 
and so
forth. Venerable Buddhadasa refers to this in paragraph 39 page 14 and
suggests that these actually refer to this life. So that "if someone 
is a
state of agitation and anxiety that means that a state of being in 
hell
exists... And these are real hells, more frightful than those hells
beneath the ground that eternalists believe in" As venerable 
Buddhadasa
notes sometimes the buddha used conventional speech (vohara-sacca) 
and at
other times he used speech that refers to actual realities (paramattha
sacca). In conventional speech we are now alive and living on the 
human
plane. We see other beings living on another plane - the animal 
plane. The
other planes(hells heavens) mentioned in the texts we do not usually 
see,
hence some people believe that only the human and animal plane exist.
Actually, according to the Dhamma, in the truest sense there are no
humans, no animals no
"us" even. But there are dhammas - ephemeral, conditioned phenomena -
arising and passing away. At this time, in this world, those streams 
of
conditioned phenomena known conventionally as Stephen or robert 
include
many pleasant moments (intermittently). In some planes pleasant 
moments
are much more frequent and in others much less frequent.
In the salayatanasamyutta 35:135 (p1207 Bodhi translation)- (which 
Ven.
Buddhadasa quotes)
"I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named 'Contact's sixfold base'.
There whatever form one sees with the eye is underdesirable,
never desirable; unlovely, disagreaable. whatever
sound..whatever taste..whatever odour..whatever tactile
object..whatever mental phenomenon one cognises with the mind is
undesirable.disagreeable..."endquote

Now, in this world, there are in reality no humans, computers,
trees: these are only the shadows of the ultimate dhammas
appearing. What appears to eyesense is different colours.
Sometimes the moment of seeing is the result of kusala kamma
(good kamma) and in that case the object will be pleasing to
some degree. At other times, in this plane, the moment of seeing
is the result of past akusala kamma- and in that case the object
will be unpleasant to some degree.
The same for the denizens of hell except that the eye conscious
moments are the result of past akusala kamma and hence there is
usually no opportunity for pleasant results.

Venerable Buddhadasa suggests that "If there is stupidity , then the
state of being an animal arises..if there is sensual pleasure of 
various
kinds and intensities then one of the heavenly states arise...All of 
these
states are more real than those talked about which will be experienced
after entering the coffin".Endquote

I think it is true that we can infer to a degree the nature of other
existences by understanding those momentary states of mind that arise 
in
this life and so I don't think it is wrong to emphasise this aspect. 
But I believe the Buddha taught the planes of existence with a view 
to the
real nature of the world. I think accepting this doesn't have to make 
one
terrified of future lives or hopeful of heavenly pleasures. I think it
acts to force one more onto the present because one knows that life 
now -
which is only seeing, hearing, atsting, touching, thinking etc - is no
different from life in the past and it will be just like that in the
future. It means one becomes intent on understanding this moment and 
how
the factors of the dependent origination work their ways.
best wishes
robert

	
11235

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 2:22pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3

 	
Hi, Robert -

Thanks for this wonderful post. Clearly and beautifully presented. 
Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu!

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 2/9/02 9:13:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
robertkirkpatrick@r... writes:


> Dear group,
> In this post I look at some more points raised by Venerable 
> Buddhadasa in
> about Buddhaghosa and the ancient commentaries.
> On page 61 , paragraph 268 (chapter heading 'Buddhaghosa' about the 
> 9th
> paragraph): "therefore his explanation took on the appearance of 
> spanning
> three births because of the rebirth consciousness from the past coming
> into the present birth and from the present going over into the future
> birth"
> 
> Venerable Buddhadasa is correct; in that if the Visuddhimagga and
> Buddhaghosa had said that consciousness comes or goes anywhere we 
> are at
> odds with the Dhamma and the fundamental anattaness and impermanence 
> of
> all phenomena. It is the radical insight into reality gained by the 
> Buddha
> that shows that what we have taken to be the same consciousness can't 
> last
> for the briefest moment- it certainly can't go somewhere or pass from 
> life
> to life. I am in agreement with venerable Buddhadasa-- as I am with 
> many
> points in his book-- on the importance of getting this right. I think 
> it
> is fair, though, to check with the Visuddhimagga as to whether the
> ancients really taught this perverted doctrine:
> There are several pages about this including especially Visuddhimagga 
> xvii
> 133-175.
> It is complex. I will try to put it as simply as possible.
> There is a lengthy explanation of how at the actual moment of death, 
> due
> to several conditions, an object is taken by that consciousness 
> (called
> cuti-citta) death-consciousness. This consciousness is not different 
> from
> other types of consciousness that arise and pass away all day long - 
> but
> it is given this name to identify it(of course each moment is not 
> exactly
> the same as any other and seeing consciousness is different from 
> hearing
> consciousness etc; but all have the general characteristic of 
> experiencing
> an arammana). The next consciousness that arises is called 
> patisandhara
> (rebirth) and again this is no different from other types of 
> consciousness
> Although we call it conventionaly a 'new life' it is, just like now,
> simply a stream of arising and passing consciousnesses carrying on. 
> At this moment this process of arising and passing, birth and death,
> (khanika marana) occurs but because of ignorance we don't perceive 
> it. But
> truly we are utterly different from what we were a second ago - the 
> reason
> we look and feel approximately the same is because similar conditions
> arise to replace the mentality and materiality that fell away. At
> conventional death and new birth the changes are more obvious because
> different kamma will produce results.
> Here are some pertinent quotes:
> XVII 164 "The former of these two states of consciousness is called 
> death
> (cuti) because of falling and the later is called rebirth because of
> linking (patisandhara) across the gap separating the beginning of the 
> next
> becoming". Note that there is no suggestion of the consciousness from 
> the
> previous life going to the present life. The whole point is to make it
> clear that that is exactly NOT what happens.
> 164. "it should be understood that it has neither come here from the
> previous becoming nor has it become manifest without the kamma, the
> formations(sankharas), the objective field etc. as cause. An echo , 
> or its
> like, supplies the figures here; connectedness By continuity denies
> Identity and otherness" 
> 302. "with formations as condition consciousness(sankhara paccaya 
> vinnana)
> prevents seeing the transmigration of a self." 
> 280 "consequently, the dependent origination with its twelve factors,
> revolving within the linking of cause and effect is established as 
> having
> no beginning" 
> 303 "Ignorance here is 'no theory' and 'wrong theory'
> 
> Also consider an earlier post where I noted thatBuddhaghosa
> also taught "that the structure of conditions is present not only in a
> multiple consciousness but also in each single consciousness as well" 
> (see
> dispeller of delusion and also note 48 of Visuddhimagga). In the
> Visuddhimagga it is noted that the factor of resultant consciousness 
> does
> not only refer to rebirth consciousness but also xvii 126 "in the 
> course
> of an individual existence or continuity" There are several paragraphs
> about this.
> ======
> Now I want to look at the matter of other worlds, hells and animals 
> and so
> forth. Venerable Buddhadasa refers to this in paragraph 39 page 14 and
> suggests that these actually refer to this life. So that "if someone 
> is a
> state of agitation and anxiety that means that a state of being in 
> hell
> exists... And these are real hells, more frightful than those hells
> beneath the ground that eternalists believe in" As venerable 
> Buddhadasa
> notes sometimes the buddha used conventional speech (vohara-sacca) 
> and at
> other times he used speech that refers to actual realities (paramattha
> sacca). In conventional speech we are now alive and living on the 
> human
> plane. We see other beings living on another plane - the animal 
> plane. The
> other planes(hells heavens) mentioned in the texts we do not usually 
> see,
> hence some people believe that only the human and animal plane exist.
> Actually, according to the Dhamma, in the truest sense there are no
> humans, no animals no
> "us" even. But there are dhammas - ephemeral, conditioned phenomena -
> arising and passing away. At this time, in this world, those streams 
> of
> conditioned phenomena known conventionally as Stephen or robert 
> include
> many pleasant moments (intermittently). In some planes pleasant 
> moments
> are much more frequent and in others much less frequent.
> In the salayatanasamyutta 35:135 (p1207 Bodhi translation)- (which 
> Ven.
> Buddhadasa quotes)
> "I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named 'Contact's sixfold base'.
> There whatever form one sees with the eye is underdesirable,
> never desirable; unlovely, disagreaable. whatever
> sound..whatever taste..whatever odour..whatever tactile
> object..whatever mental phenomenon one cognises with the mind is
> undesirable.disagreeable..."endquote
> 
> Now, in this world, there are in reality no humans, computers,
> trees: these are only the shadows of the ultimate dhammas
> appearing. What appears to eyesense is different colours.
> Sometimes the moment of seeing is the result of kusala kamma
> (good kamma) and in that case the object will be pleasing to
> some degree. At other times, in this plane, the moment of seeing
> is the result of past akusala kamma- and in that case the object
> will be unpleasant to some degree.
> The same for the denizens of hell except that the eye conscious
> moments are the result of past akusala kamma and hence there is
> usually no opportunity for pleasant results.
> 
> Venerable Buddhadasa suggests that "If there is stupidity , then the
> state of being an animal arises..if there is sensual pleasure of 
> various
> kinds and intensities then one of the heavenly states arise...All of 
> these
> states are more real than those talked about which will be experienced
> after entering the coffin".Endquote
> 
> I think it is true that we can infer to a degree the nature of other
> existences by understanding those momentary states of mind that arise 
> in
> this life and so I don't think it is wrong to emphasise this aspect. 
> But I believe the Buddha taught the planes of existence with a view 
> to the
> real nature of the world. I think accepting this doesn't have to make 
> one
> terrified of future lives or hopeful of heavenly pleasures. I think it
> acts to force one more onto the present because one knows that life 
> now -
> which is only seeing, hearing, atsting, touching, thinking etc - is no
> different from life in the past and it will be just like that in the
> future. It means one becomes intent on understanding this moment and 
> how
> the factors of the dependent origination work their ways.
> best wishes
> robert
> 
> 
> 
> 


/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) 




	
11236

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 10:14pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard)

 	
Howard

Thanks for your comments (below) on 2 aspects of the teachings that are
both of direct relevance to the understanding of the present moment.

> … The Buddha presented a complete program of practice which,
> if undertaken properly, for sufficient time, will lead to the arising of
> insight and ultimate liberation. 

I would not see the Buddha as teaching that the development of insight is
a question of following a 'program of practice'. I realise that this is
how Buddhism is presented by and large, but I believe such a view to be
misconceived. It is not like there is curriculum of some sort; the
teachings are an explanation of cause and effect, and what the Buddha has
done is to give us the *necessary prerequisites* for the development of
insight leading to enlightenment.

But even in a conventional curriculum scenario (e.g., for academic
achievement), I suspect that you and I would still differ on the role that
volitional effort has to play, Howard ;-). I would say that a far more
important and fundamental factor would be the underlying motivation, in
the sense of seeing the value in attaining the final goal (in this case,
the value of successful graduation on completion of the curriculum). 
Given that motivation, the volitional effort follows naturally as and when
required. Without that motivation, volitional effort is by and large
ineffective and anyway can not be sustained for long.

In the dhamma, the underlying motivation is said to be a 'sense of
urgency' (sorry, no references to hand). This is the motivation that will
generate the necessary 'right effort' of kusala. And this sense of
urgency is ultimately an appreciation of the dangers of ignorance and of
attachment to becoming, in other words, of continuation in the cycle of
existence.

> But we have a choice: We can follow the Buddha's directions - and that 
> requires will! - or not. We exercise volition all the time. Some
volitional 
> actions are harmful, some neutral, some helpful. If we do not refrain
from 
> the harmful ones and pursue the useful ones - and such refraining and
pursuit 
> is right effort! - then we will continue in our ignorance, bound by
wrong 
> understanding, craving, and aversion. 

It is of course true to say that we exercise volition all the time, and
that the resultant actions vary in their moral quality. However, the
question we are discussing here is a more focussed one than that; as I
see it, we are trying to sort out the role (if any) assigned to volitional
will/effort in the teachings.

You suggest that refraining from harmful actions is right effort. I have
no argument with that, insofar as you refer to the actual moment of
refraining. But is it necessary that a moment of refraining should be
preceded by volitional effort? Surely not. The refraining may arise
spontaneously (unprompted = 'asangkharika') either because the temptation
for the harmful action was weak or because of a strongly developed sense
of right and wrong (hiri and otappa). Yet despite the absence of any
preceding volitional effort, there would still be right effort at the
moment of refraining.

Secondly, even if there is conscious, volitional effort to refrain, it may
or may not be followed by the wholesome act of refraining. If the
necessary appreciation of the dangers of the particular kind of harmful
action in contemplation is not present at that precise moment, there can
be no *wholesome* refraining (there may still be *forced* refraining). 

We can, speaking conventionally, tell/exert/force ourselves to do
something; but, to my understanding, kusala can never arise *because of*
these factors (it may, however, arise *preceded by* these factors).

Jon

--- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon -
> 
> I have copied your entire post below. It, including the
> statements by 
> you and me quoted therein, is a bit lengthy. So what I have done is
> pasted 
> right here two paragraphs of yours which express the the main ideas of
> your 
> post to which I'd like to respond at the moment.
> One thing you write is:
> "What I meant to say was that *intentional observation of things*
> is 
> not and cannot be the same as the *direct awareness or understanding of 
> realities* because dhammas/realities cannot be directly experienced by 
> volitional observation (at least as I understand that term), but only by
> 
> awareness and understanding, qualities whose arising is not dependent on
> 
> volitional action or activity of any kind."
> I agree that one cannot *will* insight. It arises, as you are
> wont to 
> say ;-), when conditions for its arising are in place. My position,
> however, 
> is the following: The Buddha presented a complete program of practice
> which, 
> if undertaken properly, for sufficient time, will lead to the arising of
> 
> insight and ultimate liberation. It is much like a traveller who well
> knows 
> the way to a distant city having given precise directions there. But for
> us 
> to get to that city, the directions must not only be read and
> understood, but 
> followed. Doing so is an exercise of volition. Animals don't make the
> trip - 
> they lack the understanding. For the most part, devas don't make the
> trip - 
> they lack the motivation, the inclination, the will. Even most humans
> don't 
> make the trip, for many reasons including mainly ignorance of the
> possibility 
> of even making it. However, of those humans whose lives are not
> completely 
> desperate nor utterly wonderful, and who have learned of the possibility
> and 
> worth of making a trip to that golden city, and who even have confidence
> that 
> the directions there are correct, most will not actually exercise the
> will to 
> make the trip, arduous as it is, or, if so, only haltingly, with
> repeated 
> false starts, hesitations, detours, and postponements. Only strong, 
> courageous, consistent exertion of will can succeed. Oh, one can point
> to 
> those folks who, "because of conditions" entered the stream upon hearing
> a 
> sutta, or being directly lead by the words of a living Buddha. But those
> 
> conditions, those accumulations, had to have been created by a previous 
> walking of the Buddha's path. After all, the Buddha's path *is* ekayana,
> and 
> nothing comes from nothing. 
> You also write:
> "I think that by definition any form of volitional action on our
> part 
> is bound to be coloured by the very ignorance, wrong view and desire for
> 
> results that we believe to be the cause of our bondage to this round of 
> existence."
> This and some other statements you have made appear to have the
> flavor 
> of randomness and dependence on luck. I'm sure that is not your
> intention, 
> but it is something I have consistently detected. Randomness and
> dependence 
> on luck are unrelated to the Dhamma. As I wrote above, nothing comes
> from 
> nothing. I think there is a danger in conflating impersonality and lack
> of 
> (total) control with randomness and dependence on luck.
> Truly, not only our volition, but all of our mental function is 
> colored by ignorance. We seem to be a "self" dealing with
> mind-independent, 
> self-existing "external things". That's where we are! That's where we
> begin. 
> But we have a choice: We can follow the Buddha's directions - and that 
> requires will! - or not. We exercise volition all the time. Some
> volitional 
> actions are harmful, some neutral, some helpful. If we do not refrain
> from 
> the harmful ones and pursue the useful ones - and such refraining and
> pursuit 
> is right effort! - then we will continue in our ignorance, bound by
> wrong 
> understanding, craving, and aversion. 
> 
>