12200 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 2:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Noble Eightfold Path and Right Concentration - Frank Frank --- frank kuan wrote: > Hi Jon, > I see your point about the 8foldpath being a > culmination and just a STARTING point for advanced > practice, but the fact that the 8foldpath contains > some limbs which are redundant tells me that it's > meant to be a complete solution for practitioners of > all levels from householder to the saintly. > Right action, right livelihood, right speech for > example, are redundant corollaries if an advanced > practitioner already has a good understanding of right > view, right effort. With one practicing right > mindfulness, right view, right effort, how can wrong > speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood occur? The fact > that those 3 limbs are spelled out tells me it's there > to provide a support for those who don't have a good > understanding of right view yet, i.e., worldly > householders. > > -fk It's of course true that at the moment of right mindfulness or right view there cannot be wrong speech, action or livelihood. But this is so at any moment of kusala (e.g., dana, observing sila, metta), not just at moments of vipassana bhavana. Our own experience teaches us, however, that any moment of kusala can be followed by moments of wrong speech, wrong action or wrong livelihood or any other form of akusala. If the latent tendencies for the akusala are there, nothing can stop it from manifesting (other than on a very temporary basis). My point is that you can't deduce the nature of the Noble Eightfold Path just by looking at the description of the path factors. Rather it's the other way around; you can only understand the significance of the factors by understanding what is meant by the Noble Eightfold Path (one of the Four Noble Truths). I believe that, properly understood, none of the path factors are 'redundant'. The Visuddhimagga makes it clear that all 8 factors arise at any (supramundane) path moment (i.e., moment of enlightenment), while 5 (or sometimes 6) of the path factors arise at any mundane path moment (i.e., moment of insight). There are plenty of examples in the suttas of people who had very wrong speech, action or livelihood right up to the time of their enlightenment! Jon 12201 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 2:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samatha bhavana Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Seems pretty easy to me. Just read one of Nina's or Ken O's emails. > They're oozing with tranquility and reading them is cultivating > tranquilty. Every word of the tipitaka is about tranquility, peace, few > activities. Tranquility is nothing less than an imperfect nibbana; > insight is the bicycle we use to get there. I admit, getting off the > bicycle is difficult. Cultivating isn't quite perfecting. Great sense of humour, Larry! I take your bicycle as the modern-day equivalent of the raft mentioned in the suttas ;-)) Jon > Larry > ------------------- > Jon wrote: > Larry > --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, > My definition of samatha bhavana is "cultivating tranquility", what's > yours? > Larry > Great definition (and you can never go far wrong with a literal > translation!). I guess my problem then becomes matching "cultivating > tranquility" with "Not making special efforts and waiting around for > aeons for results". Maybe it's obvious to others! > I can't improve on your definition, but I do think it's something that's > a lot easier said than done. But nonetheless possible in daily life, I > believe. > Jon 12202 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 2:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samatha bhavana - Rob Ep Rob Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Hi Jon! > I know I've been absent lately, but I always intend to pop back in, and > here I am, > manifesting my intention!! [no one to do that of course, but it's an > awkward way > of saying 'it happens'.] > > This probably sounds like an old record, but if one can indeed > 'cultivate > tranquility', why not do so through samatha meditation? 'Cultivate tranquillity' and 'samatha meditation' are terms that are often used as a translation for the same Pali term, 'samatha bhavana'. So the question, as ever, is what exactly *is* samatha bhavana? > There's no doubt that > breathing meditation, slowing and lengthening the breath, etc., creates > 'tranquility'. You could even say it 'cultivates' it. Like all terms used by the Buddha, samatha bhavana has a very specific meaning. The tranquillity ('samatha') is the tranquillity that comes from the *quality of kusala*, and the cultivation ('bhavana') connotes the fact that the kusala in question is *accompanied by panna*. Now when it comes to breathing meditation, there is nothing *necessarily* kusala about focussing on one's breath. Focussing on the breath is not like, say, metta which is something intrinsically kusala (if it's not kusala then it's not metta). It's something that anyone can do at any time. So if breathing meditation is to be samatha bhavana, one needs to know where the kusala and the panna come in (you cannot just equate breathing meditation with samatha bhavana). I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this. > I suppose this can be done > in 'everyday life' as well, although if you meditate regularly, then > meditation is > part of your 'everyday life' so I guess it would qualify as a 'double > cultivation vehicle'. No doubt breath can be the object of one's attention in daily life, but I was not saying that samatha bhavana based on mindfulness of breath is something that can be developed in daily life, since breath is said to be an extremely difficult object for samatha bhavana. > Although samatha may suppress defilements and thus mask akusala states, > this is > true of any tranquility, not just the meditative kind, so if one is > indeed to > 'cultivate tranquility', one may as well do it in a skillful way. At > least part of the time. I don't think I've ever made this comment ('masking akusala states') about samatha, and I don't see that as a reason for not developing it. > Hope to post more as time allows, as I work my way backwards > through....oh my > G**...three hundred some odd posts. Welcome back, and look forward to hearing more from you, Rob. Jon 12203 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 2:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep Rob Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > "What is the stream? > > "This Noble Eightfold Path is the stream; that is, right view, right > > intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, > > fright mindfulness, right concentration. > > "What is a stream-enterer? > > "One who possesses this Noble Eightfold Path is a stream-enterer: > this > > venerable one of such a name and clan." > > Jon, > I think another interpretation of this section of the Sutta is one that > makes > sense to me: That the Noble Eightfold Path is the 'stream' which all > Buddhists > approach through attempting to cultivate various aspects of the eight elements; > and that a 'Stream Enterer' is one who 'possesses' this Noble Eightfold Path, in > other words, one who has accomplished, mastered, these eight elements to an > adequate extent. They are no longer trying to enter the stream, but > have entered > that same stream and will then be carried along by it. Interesting, Rob. I don't recall ever having seen the stream used in the context you suggest, but I'll keep this possibility in mind when reading the texts. However, I'm not sure that it makes any difference, since even on this interpretation, the factors for attaining stream-entry, as given in the same sutta in the passage just before the passage you quote, are not the individual factors of the Noble Eightfold Path but another set of factors altogether (namely, association with superior persons, hearing the true Dhamma, careful attention, and practice in accordance with the Dhamma). It's true that the 4th Noble Truth (the Noble Eightfold Path) is a truth that is 'to be developed', but this refers to the path itself rather than the individual factors. I do not recall seeing in the texts reference to the development of the factors of the Noble Eightfold Path -- the reference is always to the development of the path i.e., the path as an eightfold entity. There is an important distinction to be made here between a *single entity comprising a number of factors* and a *grouping of separate factors that share a common feature or function*. An example of the latter would be the 37 bodhi-pakkhiya dhamma (factors pertaining to enlightenment). The Noble Eightfold Path is an example of the former. The style of the name ('eightfold') gives a clue to its nature. Jon > I think it makes sense to say that we are all fumbling around with the eight > elements of the Noble Eightfold Path as long as we have not mastered them. > Certainly, if the Jhanas are the definition of Right Concentration, > which I'll > take as given just for this example, we know it is exceedingly difficult to > accomplish the first jhana, and even harder to get into the second, > third or > fourth. So we are struggling with one or another element, both > progressively and > sporadically. When we have enough mastery to be able to accomplish these > elements, we 'possess' the Path and enter the Stream. This view is both > progressive and ultimate. It neither necessitates nor denies the idea of the > elements all taking place at the same time or separately, but allows for gradual > cultivation, as well as skillful accomplishment, when the eight elements all come > together. > To me, this makes the most sense and seems to satisfy the sense of what I read in > the Sutta. > > Best, > Robert Ep. 12204 From: Sarah Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 2:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Directed attention to dhammas (was: The Two Truths (for Howard) (II)) Dear Ken H, Always good to hear from you.....I'll leave this thread to you and Rob Ep (and Erik);-) Your post has come into my 'inbox' right down at the bottom of the page and supposedly a few days after you sent it. I notice you use a hotmail account and I have an idea that yahoo 'blacklists' hotmail...;-( Chris and I already 'see' ourselves brunching and chatting with you and other friends by the Noosa waves in July;-) Sarah ========== {??w14 wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > I agree. > > > > robert ep. > > > > ====== > > > > > > Hi, > > I disagree. > > Which is the better guide to the Dhamma; `gut feeling,' or wise, > carefully considered opinion accompanied, on all points, by > references to the ancient Theravadin texts? > > No contest. > > Kind regards > Ken H > > > --- rikpa21 wrote: ................ 12205 From: Sukinder Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:46pm Subject: RE: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2)n Dear Howard, In my blurry way of thinking this is what came to my mind; The Buddha taught about conditions and anatta. What ever dhamma arises now has already fallen aw?y. Sati would have arisen or not depends on conditions. K. Sujin often reminds us that the right results must follow the right cause. To me the conditions that cause a dhamma to arise are very very complex. I have absolutely no idea how and when satipatthana can arise, considering the accumulations it would seem impossible that sati can ever arise in me, but actually I can never know. According to what I've heard, it would be panna not me(lobha/ dosa/ moha) which will help condition the arising of satipatthana. If at this moment the conditions are right for panna and sati to arise, it would. If not, thinking that I can do something about it, would in my understanding, not be the work of panna. On the other hand, someone might come to the conclusion after extensive reading of the texts, that what the Buddha taught was a step-by-step program as conditions for the arising of sati, I think to some extent that this can condition the false view that understanding cannot happen now. And an idea that there are a more ideal time and place for practice. This I think is 'doubt'. Doubt that there are dhammas arising now and that they can be known if conditions are right. I had other thoughts too, but I am very blurred now. Maybe if I hear your response I would remember. But I have the fear that I will be getting tough questions from you, ones I won't be able to resopnd to. :-) Have mercy. Best, Sukin. -----Original Message----- From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:03 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2)n Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 3/29/02 1:31:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, sukin@k... writes: > Dear Howard, > I think you are right, only I think it is a little more precise > than that. If it is not about understanding the dhammas right now, > but instead one thinks that one has to follow a prescribed program > of practice, then surely there is still doubt, no? > What do you think? > Best, > Sukin. ============================= Could you say a bit more? I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 12206 From: Sukinder Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:56pm Subject: RE: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2)n Dear Christine, Nice to know that my words can be useful too. I must say though, that I am not struggling with 'mana' particularly, but due to ignorance, there is struggle here with EVERYTHING. Ken O. should write more, his posts are a condition for good cheer. Best wishes, Sukin. Dear Sukin and Howard, I am enjoying your discussion as it touches on 'doubt', ...thanks for raising additonal aspects to consider. And, Sukin, it is reassuring (in some strange way) to know, as you mentioned in a previous post, that others struggle with 'mana' too.:-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Sukinder" wrote: > Dear Howard, > I think you are right, only I think it is a little more precise > than that. If it is not about understanding the dhammas right now, > but instead one thinks that one has to follow a prescribed program > of practice, then surely there is still doubt, no? > What do you think? > Best, > Sukin. 12207 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Directed attention to dhammas (was: The Two Truths (for Howard) (II)) Dear Ken H, July in Noosa - kilometres of beautiful unspoiled, uncrowded, sandy, surf beaches. There is a reason for the uncrowded part.:) :) And those that are there are wearing wetsuits...... Ken, I wonder if it is unskillful not to tell Sarah and Jon that July is mid-winter in Queensland. Air temperatures down to between 21C Max.(69.8F) and 8C Min.(46.4F) I'm not sure about water temperatures.....never put even a toe in until November! :) But this seems to indicate great conditions for Dhamma discussions over hot chocolate, hot tea, hot coffee, or food of any description as long as it's hot, in a heated coffee shop or heated restaurant. .......Let's just let them find out for themselves, experience is the best teacher after all. :) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Dear Ken H, > > Always good to hear from you..... <<<<>>>>> > Chris and I already 'see' ourselves brunching and chatting with you and > other friends by the Noosa waves in July;-) > > Sarah > ========== 12208 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Mar 25, 2002 8:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] tibetan tanka question Frank, In my occasional experience of Thankas in Nepal, I always saw the curtain rolled up in a cylindrical fashion and then tied with two little ribbons that generally hang on top, so it just sits like a little roll above the Thanka. Most Thankas also have a string which runs above the top and attaches to the top two corners, and this hangs on a nail or picture hook or whatever. When the Thanka is not on display, the ribbons are untied, and the curtain covers the full length and breadth of the Thanka to protect it from dust and wear. I think it is that simple, but I could be wrong. When the Thankas were stored, the curtain would cover the Thanka, and then the whole Thanka would be rolled up into a roll, then tied with the two ribbon ties. Robert Ep. ============== --- frank kuan wrote: > My ashtanga yoga teachers have a tibetan tanka (cloth > painting of a buddha) hanging in the studio. > > There's a yellow/red curtain thingie at the top of the > tanka that's currently rolled up, and they wanted to > know what the proper way to drape the curtain around > the painting. > > Does anyone know the answer? Someone with quicker lama > access than me? Thanks. > > While I'm personally not a big fan of peripheral > aspects of cultural buddhist rites and rituals, it > doesn't hurt to make some brownie points with my yoga > friends. Help me look smart :-) Besides, now that > they've asked me to advise on this thinking I'm a > Buddhist who knows stuff, I would hate to give > erroneous advice and have one of the wrathful dharma > protectors come down from the deva realms to kick my > ass. Actually, that would be pretty cool. Devas don't > mess with dhamma practitioners who haven't > accomplished anything, so if I get attacked, it means > I'm signifigant enough to warrant their attention :-) > > -fk 12209 From: yuzhonghao Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 8:01am Subject: Which Victor? Re: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2) Hi Christine, Frank, and Robert, Christine, I am glad that you enjoyed. Frank, perhaps I was giving you the impression that I was on another plane(t). Robert, I don't think I measure up to you in volubility. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Don't take any notice of the(jolly) jokers below ...:) :) > > I enjoyed reading the verses from the Dhammapada, plus your linking > the building metaphors of Heidegger and the Buddha in this post. > I especially liked your last paragraph - > "However, the truth is that any dwelling in the world such as house, > or > brahma vihara, or any jhana, or any intellectual field of constructs > (mathematics, for instance), is construction, building, fabrications, > formations, subject to destruction, disintegration, change, does not > offer > freedom, peace, security." > > > metta, > Christine > 'It is to be seen as it actually is with right > discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my > self."' [Sorry Victor, withdrawal symptoms....] > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., frank kuan wrote: > > > > --- "robertkirkpatrick.rm" > > wrote: > > > --- > > > Victor, > > > You're becoming almost voluble. I have nothing to > > > add except to say I > > > appreciate you giving us extra details to consider. > > > kind regards > > > robertt > > > > > > > I had to check the sender line on the post heading > > to make sure it was Victor Yu and not a new Victor on > > the list. And then I had to check the calendar to make > > sure it wasn't April 1st yet. And then I scanned the > > message again to look for secret references to anatta. > > And even after all this, I still suspect some alien > > abducted Victor and replaced him with someone else, or > > a buddhist friend is borrowing his account and using > > it without his knowledge. So prankster friend or > > alien, we don't know what you're up to, but we demand > > you return the REAL Victor. > > > > -fk > > p.s. :-) 12210 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Mar 25, 2002 8:05pm Subject: RE: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2) --- Sukinder wrote: > Dear Ken O, > > You said: > "concepts and ideas are defintely impermanent." > > I do not understand this. To me concepts have no reality whatsoever, > so how can it have the characteristic of impermanence? From my > experience it is because of concepts that the illusion of permanence > is formed? > But my understanding is not very good so I would greatly appreciate some > elaboration. > Thanks in advance. > Sukin. I would say that it's incorrect to think that concepts have 'no reality whatsoever'. If you take a look at what this means, it would mean that they do not even come into being as concepts. But since we refer to them, and can be fooled by them into thinking they are realities, isn't it more accurate to say that 'concepts exist momentarily as concepts, but they claim to represent realities which they do not'. In other words, they are illusory, but not non-existent. In the famous illusion of the rope and the snake, where a rope is mistaken for a snake, one would normally say that the snake does not exist at all. I would say this incorrect. The rope exists as an actual object [in conventional terms] while the snake *does* exist, but only as an image or hallucination. So it is more correct to say that the snake in this case is an image formed by the mind, or a trick of the mind, rather than to say that it is non-existent. This is important, because then we can start to look at the status of the things that arise in the mind and in the senses, rather than talking about them in a general way. Now I think the way that concepts are looked at in Abhidhamma is a little more confusing and technical, because it is said that concepts do not have a characteristic which can be experienced as a reality, while thoughts I believe do have an identifiable 'actual' characteristics -- I'm ready for more correction on this one -- but I don't think anyone would say that the occurence of a concept as a part of a thought *does not actually take place*. The thought refers to the concept and references it in either language or image, so as the referent in a thought or sentence, the concept exists. The reason it doesn't have its own characteristic, I am guessing, is because a concept disguises itself as something other than what it is. Therefore it falls apart on closer inspection, in terms of what it claims to be. If I say 'I'm thinking of a rock', the 'rock' in that thought pretends to be an actual rock in the thought. The thought will think that it is indeed thinking of a rock. In fact it is thinking of an image or idea of a rock, not a real rock, and so the rock referred to is a concept, not a 'reality'. When these concepts are confused with the reality they are trying to talk or think about, we are thrice removed from the reality of experience: 1/ we are removed from knowing that we are dealing with a concept not a reality; 2/ we are removed from the reality itself by dealing with a substitute image or definition as represented in the concept; and 3/ we are removed from the rupa that is occuring in the moment by looking at the reality as an object beyond the moment. But the concept is still only illusory, not nonexistent. It arises as part of a thought, a part of a thought that makes thought think it is more or other than merely a fabrication in the moment. I'm now ready to be deconstructed, reconstructed, dissected, corrected, or whatever else is necessary. Robert Ep. 12211 From: Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 8:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Doubt Christine, dsg, Here is an interesting comment from "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma"; it concerns akusala consciousness rooted in dilusion (mohamulacittani). ----------------- Associated with doubt (vicikicchasampayutta): The commentators give two etymological explanations of the word "vicikiccha": (i) vexation due to perplexed thinking; and (ii) being devoid of the remedy consisting in knowledge.* Both these explanations indicate that vicikiccha, doubt, means perplexity, skepticism or indecisiveness, due to the prevalence of delusion. The citta associated with this doubt is the first type of consciousness rooted in delusion. *(i) Vici (vicinato) = inquiring + kicchi, to be vexed; (ii) vi = devoid of + cikiccha = remedy. 12212 From: Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 4:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2) Hi, Robert - I find what you write here to be very well put! Your understanding on this issue and mine are very close. With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/29/02 11:48:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@Y... writes: > I would say that it's incorrect to think that concepts have 'no reality > whatsoever'. If you take a look at what this means, it would mean that > they do > not even come into being as concepts. But since we refer to them, and can > be > fooled by them into thinking they are realities, isn't it more accurate to > say > that 'concepts exist momentarily as concepts, but they claim to represent > realities which they do not'. In other words, they are illusory, but not > non-existent. > > In the famous illusion of the rope and the snake, where a rope is mistaken > for a > snake, one would normally say that the snake does not exist at all. I > would say > this incorrect. The rope exists as an actual object [in conventional > terms] while > the snake *does* exist, but only as an image or hallucination. So it is > more > correct to say that the snake in this case is an image formed by the mind, > or a > trick of the mind, rather than to say that it is non-existent. This is > important, > because then we can start to look at the status of the things that arise in > the > mind and in the senses, rather than talking about them in a general way. > > Now I think the way that concepts are looked at in Abhidhamma is a little > more > confusing and technical, because it is said that concepts do not have a > characteristic which can be experienced as a reality, while thoughts I > believe do > have an identifiable 'actual' characteristics -- I'm ready for more > correction on > this one -- but I don't think anyone would say that the occurence of a > concept as > a part of a thought *does not actually take place*. The thought refers to > the > concept and references it in either language or image, so as the referent > in a > thought or sentence, the concept exists. The reason it doesn't have its > own > characteristic, I am guessing, is because a concept disguises itself as > something > other than what it is. Therefore it falls apart on closer inspection, in > terms of > what it claims to be. If I say 'I'm thinking of a rock', the 'rock' in > that > thought pretends to be an actual rock in the thought. The thought will > think that > it is indeed thinking of a rock. In fact it is thinking of an image or > idea of a > rock, not a real rock, and so the rock referred to is a concept, not a > 'reality'. > When these concepts are confused with the reality they are trying to talk > or think > about, we are thrice removed from the reality of experience: 1/ we are > removed > from knowing that we are dealing with a concept not a reality; 2/ we are > removed > from the reality itself by dealing with a substitute image or definition as > represented in the concept; and 3/ we are removed from the rupa that is > occuring > in the moment by looking at the reality as an object beyond the moment. > > But the concept is still only illusory, not nonexistent. It arises as part > of a > thought, a part of a thought that makes thought think it is more or other > than > merely a fabrication in the moment. > > I'm now ready to be deconstructed, reconstructed, dissected, corrected, or > whatever else is necessary. > > Robert Ep. > /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) 12213 From: Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 9:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma / akusala citta ADL ch. 1 (4,5,6) Thanks Robert, I'm still not 100% clear on this. Kamma is an intention to act initiated by kusala/akusala citta. What makes it kamma isn't so much the activity but that the activity is qualified by the intention, which in turn was initiated by kusala/akusala citta. So the resultant consciousness (vipakacitta) is an appraisal of the actual activity which arises independent of the intention because intention cannot control activity. However, this appraisal is based on the intention and due to the discrepancy between intention and actuality the stage is set for the arising of new kusala/akusala citta which in turn produces another round of kamma and vipaka citta. Just thinking with my fingers. If you would care to correct this I would appreciate it, a little ;-) Larry ------------------------ Robert wrote: Dear Larry, This is a somewhat complex matter. Sometimes the texts don't distinguish between akusala/kusala citta and akusala/kusala kamma However at times they make distinctions between kilesa (all defilements) and akusala kamma. For examaple there is the three rounds : kamma-vatta(action), vipaka-vatta(result) and kilesa-vatta (defilements such as craving and ignorance). The actual moments of experience through the doorways are vipaka (result) but immediately there is (or may be) reaction which is defilement(kilesa-vatta) and this is a condition for kamma-vatta (deed). Then again when they classify akusala (such as dosa) they make distinctions. Such as the following three levels: anusaya: defilements still latent pariyutthána: rising up; here kilesa(including slight dosa or craving) are present. vítikkama: this is when the 10 types of unwholesome action are committed. _- On the other hand, in the example about the three rounds above, when we consider the Paticcasamuppada from the point of view of occuring in one moment (it can be considered over lifetimes as well)then kilesa-vatta and kamma-vatta are essentially the same. Thus is why it gets complex. But anyway it is useful to know that akusala comes in different degrees. best wishes robert 12214 From: Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:39am Subject: RE: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2) Hello Robert E, Another element to add to this discussion of concept. In my very limited reading I have not yet seen where concept is explicitly said to be unreal. Rather, usually it is said that concept obscures the experience of paramattha dhammas which I take to mean wholeness obscures partness. I have yet to see "unreality" established as a category nor have I seen any discussion of truth and illusion or true and false. Perhaps someone could give us some insight into "adhamma", if it is a word. Also I would like to point out that impermanence must be a concept; there isn't an impermanence citta or impermanence cetasika or impermanence rupa. The only thing left is concept. I'm hoping there will be an indepth discussion of the functioning of mind sense in ADL. I think that would go a long way toward clarifying the nature of concept. Larry 12215 From: Date: Mon Mar 25, 2002 9:08pm Subject: ADL ch. 1 (7-13) from "Abhidhamma In Daily Life" by Nina Van Gorkom chapter 1, paragraphs 7-13 7. Cittas can be classified by way of jati' (literally means 'birth' or 'nature'). There are four jatis: akusala, kusala, vipaka, kiriya. 8. It is important to know which jati a citta is. We cannot develop wholesomeness in our life if we take akusala for kusala or if we take akusala for vipaka. For instance, when we hear unpleasant words, the moment of experiencing the sound (hearing-consciousness) is akusala vipaka, the result of an unwholesome deed we performed ourselves. But the aversion which may arise very shortly afterwards is not vipaka, but it arises with akusala citta. 9. Another way of classifying citta is by plane of consciousness (bhumi). There are four different planes of consciousness: kamavacara citta, rupavacara citta, arupavacara citta, lokuttara citta. 10. The sensuous plane of consciousness (kamavacara cittas) is the plane of sense-impressions, for examples: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and receiving impressions through the body-sense. 11. There are other planes of citta which do not experience sense-impressions. Those who cultivate samatha (tranquil meditation) and attain absorption (jhana), have jhanacittas. The jhanacitta is another plane of citta; it does not experience sense-impressions. The lokuttara citta ('supramundane' consciousness) is the highest plane of consciousness because it is the citta which directly experiences nibbana. 12. There are still other ways of classifying citta and if we consider the different intensities of citta there are many more differences between cittas. For instance, akusala cittas, which are rooted in lobha (attachment), dosa (aversion) and moha (ignorance), can be of many different intensities. Sometimes they may motivate deeds, sometimes they may not, depending on the degree of akusala. Kusala cittas too are of many different intensities. 13. There are altogether eighty-nine or one hundred and twenty-one types of citta. The classification by way of a hundred and twenty-one types includes the cittas of the ariyans who cultivated both jhana (absorption) and vipassana and who could experience nibbana with absorption. 12216 From: Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 9:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2) Hi, Larry (and Robert .. and Sarah! ;-) - In a message dated 3/29/02 1:41:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hello Robert E, > > Another element to add to this discussion of concept. In my very limited > reading I have not yet seen where concept is explicitly said to be > unreal. Rather, usually it is said that concept obscures the experience > of paramattha dhammas which I take to mean wholeness obscures partness. > I have yet to see "unreality" established as a category nor have I seen > any discussion of truth and illusion or true and false. Perhaps someone > could give us some insight into "adhamma", if it is a word. Also I would > like to point out that impermanence must be a concept; there isn't an > impermanence citta or impermanence cetasika or impermanence rupa. The > only thing left is concept. I'm hoping there will be an indepth > discussion of the functioning of mind sense in ADL. I think that would > go a long way toward clarifying the nature of concept. > > Larry > ======================== I'm not sure that I'm satisfied that the breakdown of dhammas into the two classes of paramattha dhammas and pa~n~natti (which we can take to mean concepts and their reducible referents, I suppose) is really complete. Impermanence is a characteristic of (conditioned) dhammas, a lakkhana. There *is* the concept of impermanence, but impermanence and the concept of impermanence can't be the same. Impermanence isn't listed in the Abhidhamma as either citta or cetasika, is it? Yet impermanence is one of the chief things to be known by wisdom! (And it is claimed that pa~n~natti cannot be known by wisdom!) So this is a bit of a conundrum, no? Something's got to be WRONG here! ;-)) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 12217 From: Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 11:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 1 (4,5,6) Dear Larry and ADL group, << In this paragraph, below, it seems to be an act. But in your answer I thought you said it was a_cause_ of an act. Maybe there are two different senses of kamma ……>> Yes, cetana has double functions. Let me refer to Nina-Cetasika:Cetana section. http://www.dhammastudy.com/cetasikas6.html Cetana can be classified by the time relative to the action: 1.Before the action, 2.During the action, 3.Right after the action and 4.Long after the action. Again we talked somewhat in a paramattha frame of reference, single moment of citta at a time. Action can refer to a long series of cittas. Have to run. Num 12218 From: Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 11:23am Subject: RE: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2)n <> Dear K.Sukin, I really appreciate your message here. A very good reminder. Have to run, Num 12219 From: Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2) Hi Howard, I agree the reality status of impermanence is a puzzle. One clue could be that it is a kind of relationship so all "real" relationships (conditional relationships for example) would be in the same boat. Larry 12220 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 7:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2)n --- Sukin:. "According to what I've heard, it would > be panna not me(lobha/ dosa/ moha) which will help condition the > arising of satipatthana. If at this moment the conditions are right for > panna and sati to arise, it would. If not, thinking that I can do > something about it, would in my understanding, not be the work of > panna. > On the other hand, someone might come to the conclusion after > extensive reading of the texts, that what the Buddha taught was a > step-by-step program as conditions for the arising of sati, I > think to some extent that this can condition the false view that > understanding cannot happen now. And an idea that there are a more > ideal time and place for practice.>> > > --------- This is very useful to consider Sukin. There is a strong tendency to think that understanding is something that should happen in the future once "I" do something to make it happen. And this belief means that instead of be?ng aware of the present moment there is a subtle trying (tanha) that wants conditions to be other than they are right now. thanks robert 12221 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 9:10pm Subject: Is Anicca a concept or a reality? (was: Re: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2)) Hi Howard, Nice to hear from you. Since impermanence is to 'realized', not 'understood as a concept', we must look at what anicca might be other than merely a conceptual understanding of the fact that things are constantly changing. I guess we all have the concept at this point, but can we 'spot' it in the moment. I see anicca as a 'characteristic' of a dhamma, and I think it may be defined as a 'characteristic'. A characteristic, I think tentatively, is not a thing in its own right which can be perceived in its own right, it can only be perceived as an aspect of a dhamma, or I guess dhatu or element [not very clear on what the 'elements' are distinct from 'dhammas', but that's a whole different confusion]. So how do we concretely realize anicca? My own experience is that when I conceptualize about anicca, it is kind of dry in a way. I can see that all things are impermanent, but it doesn't seem to touch me directly. But a few times I've gotten into the 'stream of seeing anica' for a moment or two, and the effect is stunning. I suddenly start to see that nothing can be defined, as I look at something I see that at that very moment it is changing and that I am getting continual 'flashes' of dhamma, rather than a continuous experience of 'one stable solid thing'. I see that even my thoughts about it are disappearing as I think them, and anicca leads inevitably to the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing that can be held onto. It is like everything turns into quicksand, and things all disappear into themselves, into the continuous shifting of physical change and perceptual and conceptual shifts. Everything is flying all over the place, but we have the illusion that it is all nailed down quite neatly. To me, this is the power of anicca in the moment. The characteristic that keeps things from being 'something' because all definitions of what something is or will be are eluded even at the moment they are formed. Anicca leads inevitably to anatta. If everything is constantly shifting and changing and there is nothing to hold onto, there can be no stable central entity in anything. Whatever we think something is, is just part of its shifting, indefineable fabric. Without stability and without definitional congruity, even the idea of entity no longer makes any sense. It's all part of an inevitable flow that leads nowhere but to more inevitable flow. Try to define the shapes that are formed in a flowing river and that is the exact experience of seeing anatta as a characteristic of present objects. so I do think that these major characteristics of all things can be realized as presences in the moment: anatta, anicca and dukkha. It is a matter of seeing objects for what they are, which is nothing but what is present, and a flow of constant becoming. In the moment it becomes clear that there is no entity in that flow, that it cannot be held onto or controlled, and that it is nonsensical to seek satisfaction or reassurance from something that cannot be grasped or defined. I think this is available on a pre-conceptual level by perceiving things deeply as they are. Of course, all of that lasts only a little while through concentrated awareness that is trying to see what is there, until such time as it becomes second nature, which in my case seems a ways off. And most of the time even concentrated awareness doesn't create that dizzying effect of suddenly seeing that everything is as constantly shifting as a hill of sand. Robert Ep. =========================== --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Larry (and Robert .. and Sarah! ;-) - > > In a message dated 3/29/02 1:41:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... > writes: > > > > > > Hello Robert E, > > > > Another element to add to this discussion of concept. In my very limited > > reading I have not yet seen where concept is explicitly said to be > > unreal. Rather, usually it is said that concept obscures the experience > > of paramattha dhammas which I take to mean wholeness obscures partness. > > I have yet to see "unreality" established as a category nor have I seen > > any discussion of truth and illusion or true and false. Perhaps someone > > could give us some insight into "adhamma", if it is a word. Also I would > > like to point out that impermanence must be a concept; there isn't an > > impermanence citta or impermanence cetasika or impermanence rupa. The > > only thing left is concept. I'm hoping there will be an indepth > > discussion of the functioning of mind sense in ADL. I think that would > > go a long way toward clarifying the nature of concept. > > > > Larry > > > ======================== > I'm not sure that I'm satisfied that the breakdown of dhammas into the > two classes of paramattha dhammas and pa~n~natti (which we can take to mean > concepts and their reducible referents, I suppose) is really complete. > Impermanence is a characteristic of (conditioned) dhammas, a lakkhana. There > *is* the concept of impermanence, but impermanence and the concept of > impermanence can't be the same. Impermanence isn't listed in the Abhidhamma > as either citta or cetasika, is it? Yet impermanence is one of the chief > things to be known by wisdom! (And it is claimed that pa~n~natti cannot be > known by wisdom!) So this is a bit of a conundrum, no? Something's got to be > WRONG here! ;-)) > > With metta, > Howard > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 12222 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 9:13pm Subject: RE: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2) Thanks for your interesting comments, Larry. And hi! Nice to meet you. As I said to Howard, I think 'anicca' is a characteristic of an object, rather than a concept. It is not an object in its own right, but can be seen directly as part of the way an object functions. Hope to hear more from you on this. Best, Robert Ep. ====== --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hello Robert E, > > Another element to add to this discussion of concept. In my very limited > reading I have not yet seen where concept is explicitly said to be > unreal. Rather, usually it is said that concept obscures the experience > of paramattha dhammas which I take to mean wholeness obscures partness. > I have yet to see "unreality" established as a category nor have I seen > any discussion of truth and illusion or true and false. Perhaps someone > could give us some insight into "adhamma", if it is a word. Also I would > like to point out that impermanence must be a concept; there isn't an > impermanence citta or impermanence cetasika or impermanence rupa. The > only thing left is concept. I'm hoping there will be an indepth > discussion of the functioning of mind sense in ADL. I think that would > go a long way toward clarifying the nature of concept. > > Larry 12223 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 9:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2) --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > I find what you write here to be very well put! Your understanding on > this issue and mine are very close. > > With metta, > Howard Glad to hear from you on this, Howard. Well, we're back in agreement for the moment, and that is a nice familiar feeling! Robert Ep. ======================= > In a message dated 3/29/02 11:48:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, > epsteinrob@Y... writes: > > > > I would say that it's incorrect to think that concepts have 'no reality > > whatsoever'. If you take a look at what this means, it would mean that > > they do > > not even come into being as concepts. But since we refer to them, and can > > be > > fooled by them into thinking they are realities, isn't it more accurate to > > say > > that 'concepts exist momentarily as concepts, but they claim to represent > > realities which they do not'. In other words, they are illusory, but not > > non-existent. > > > > In the famous illusion of the rope and the snake, where a rope is mistaken > > for a > > snake, one would normally say that the snake does not exist at all. I > > would say > > this incorrect. The rope exists as an actual object [in conventional > > terms] while > > the snake *does* exist, but only as an image or hallucination. So it is > > more > > correct to say that the snake in this case is an image formed by the mind, > > or a > > trick of the mind, rather than to say that it is non-existent. This is > > important, > > because then we can start to look at the status of the things that arise in > > the > > mind and in the senses, rather than talking about them in a general way. > > > > Now I think the way that concepts are looked at in Abhidhamma is a little > > more > > confusing and technical, because it is said that concepts do not have a > > characteristic which can be experienced as a reality, while thoughts I > > believe do > > have an identifiable 'actual' characteristics -- I'm ready for more > > correction on > > this one -- but I don't think anyone would say that the occurence of a > > concept as > > a part of a thought *does not actually take place*. The thought refers to > > the > > concept and references it in either language or image, so as the referent > > in a > > thought or sentence, the concept exists. The reason it doesn't have its > > own > > characteristic, I am guessing, is because a concept disguises itself as > > something > > other than what it is. Therefore it falls apart on closer inspection, in > > terms of > > what it claims to be. If I say 'I'm thinking of a rock', the 'rock' in > > that > > thought pretends to be an actual rock in the thought. The thought will > > think that > > it is indeed thinking of a rock. In fact it is thinking of an image or > > idea of a > > rock, not a real rock, and so the rock referred to is a concept, not a > > 'reality'. > > When these concepts are confused with the reality they are trying to talk > > or think > > about, we are thrice removed from the reality of experience: 1/ we are > > removed > > from knowing that we are dealing with a concept not a reality; 2/ we are > > removed > > from the reality itself by dealing with a substitute image or definition as > > represented in the concept; and 3/ we are removed from the rupa that is > > occuring > > in the moment by looking at the reality as an object beyond the moment. > > > > But the concept is still only illusory, not nonexistent. It arises as part > > of a > > thought, a part of a thought that makes thought think it is more or other > > than > > merely a fabrication in the moment. > > > > I'm now ready to be deconstructed, reconstructed, dissected, corrected, or > > whatever else is necessary. > > > > Robert Ep. 12224 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 9:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep Dear Jon, With great respect and continued interest in this subject [don't you hate it when someone says that before they're about to disagree with you?] I don't see the great value in outlining a path that is so unified in nature that all the elements must spontaneously arise together whether one has done any work on any of them or not. Why not just call it the Noble Onefold Path and talk about the factors that lead to its arising, if it is so unified as one 'Eightfold' event? If the Eight Factors which make up the Eightfold Path are not to be cultivated as individual factors which are amenable to a kind of benign effort, then they are in fact not the factors that lead to Enlightenment, but merely its first fruit. To me, this seems to greatly put the cart before the horse in terms of the way the Buddha talks in the limited readings which I can confess to. He talks extensively, does he not?, of each factor in turn, describing what it consists of and how it is to be cultivated. How can this kind of progressive and element-specific talk about each factor be ignored in favor of a vision which leaves the arising of the Eightfold factors completely out of the hands of the practitioner? If Abhidhamma has any seeming prejudice [and I would contend that every single system, including every system of Buddhism does, including my own 'favorites'] it is the idea that discernment of realities alone is really of utmost value, and that other efforts or practices are either distracting or ineffectual. For instance, there have been discussions lately about Right Concentration and whether it is constituted of the jhanas. Although the Buddha seems to explicitly state that it is constituted by the jhanas, this is interpreted in an indirect way to mean something else, because cultivation would take the factor out of the exclusive realm of the stages of enlightenment. It is also pointed out that the difficulty of attaining the jhanas is beyond the capability of most people, enormously difficult. But I would say that the discernment of namas and rupas is equally hard, and so why not cultivate the former as well as the latter? However many lifetimes it may take, if we are to follow the Buddha's advice, we should be cultivating all that he advises, and let the process begin at the stage that we're at. In the description that makes sense to me, the factors have a dual nature, prior to enlightenment and during the cultivation of enlightened stages. It is progressive. One cultivates the eight separate factors and develops skill in their practice. One engages in a job that allows for the other factors to be developed. One meditates to engage progressive stages of concentration. One reads the Suttas to learn about the correct way to cultivate the path and what the fruit of different actions are. One acts accordingly, cultivating right action, to avoid creating more kamma and more suffering, and to create merit and happiness. These sorts of cultivation make a lot of sense, and define a good Buddhist lifestyle and practice. When the cultivation has reached the point that one has a skillful relationship to Right Understanding, Concentration, Livelihood, Action and Speech, etc., one is living with a decent degree of mindfulness and insight, and one is able to apprehend impermanence and non-ego to a decent extent. At this point, one becomes a stream-entrant and the eight factors solidify into a person who becomes the expression of the Eightfold Path. It then becomes the Noble Eightfold Path and becomes the journey of one who has basic realization of reality, and is cultivating it into the higher stages in a more or less natural or spontaneous way, since the eight factors are no longer a mystery to this person, or a struggle, but are somewhat reflexive. This vision makes sense to me, and it seems to be indicated by the things the Buddha says about each quality to be developed, whether this development should be merely through awareness of the factors, or through direct cultivation and effort. I don't see how this could be contrary to the Buddha's sense and intention. Best, Robert Ep. ==================== --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > "What is the stream? > > > "This Noble Eightfold Path is the stream; that is, right view, right > > > intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, > > > fright mindfulness, right concentration. > > > "What is a stream-enterer? > > > "One who possesses this Noble Eightfold Path is a stream-enterer: > > this > > > venerable one of such a name and clan." > > > > Jon, > > I think another interpretation of this section of the Sutta is one that > > makes > > sense to me: That the Noble Eightfold Path is the 'stream' which all > > Buddhists > > approach through attempting to cultivate various aspects of the eight > elements; > > and that a 'Stream Enterer' is one who 'possesses' this Noble Eightfold > Path, in > > other words, one who has accomplished, mastered, these eight elements to > an > > adequate extent. They are no longer trying to enter the stream, but > > have entered > > that same stream and will then be carried along by it. > > Interesting, Rob. I don't recall ever having seen the stream used in the > context you suggest, but I'll keep this possibility in mind when reading > the texts. > > However, I'm not sure that it makes any difference, since even on this > interpretation, the factors for attaining stream-entry, as given in the > same sutta in the passage just before the passage you quote, are not the > individual factors of the Noble Eightfold Path but another set of factors > altogether (namely, association with superior persons, hearing the true > Dhamma, careful attention, and practice in accordance with the Dhamma). > > It's true that the 4th Noble Truth (the Noble Eightfold Path) is a truth > that is 'to be developed', but this refers to the path itself rather than > the individual factors. I do not recall seeing in the texts reference to > the development of the factors of the Noble Eightfold Path -- the > reference is always to the development of the path i.e., the path as an > eightfold entity. > > There is an important distinction to be made here between a *single entity > comprising a number of factors* and a *grouping of separate factors that > share a common feature or function*. An example of the latter would be > the 37 bodhi-pakkhiya dhamma (factors pertaining to enlightenment). The > Noble Eightfold Path is an example of the former. The style of the name > ('eightfold') gives a clue to its nature. > > Jon > > > I think it makes sense to say that we are all fumbling around with the > eight > > elements of the Noble Eightfold Path as long as we have not mastered > them. > > Certainly, if the Jhanas are the definition of Right Concentration, > > which I'll > > take as given just for this example, we know it is exceedingly difficult > to > > accomplish the first jhana, and even harder to get into the second, > > third or > > fourth. So we are struggling with one or another element, both > > progressively and > > sporadically. When we have enough mastery to be able to accomplish > these > > elements, we 'possess' the Path and enter the Stream. This view is both > > progressive and ultimate. It neither necessitates nor denies the idea > of the > > elements all taking place at the same time or separately, but allows for > gradual > > cultivation, as well as skillful accomplishment, when the eight elements > all come > > together. > > To me, this makes the most sense and seems to satisfy the sense of what > I read in > > the Sutta. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. 12225 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2) Dear Larry, Concepts are certainly unreal. People doubt this but they can prove it to themself if there is direct insight. That is what the development of satipatthana reveals - that it is only ignorance that takes concepts for realities. As the Abhidhammathasangaha says about concepts like human, person, man, chariot that "All such different things , though they do not exist in the ultimate sense , become objects of consciousness in the form of shadows of ultimate things (paramattha dhammas)"(bodhi p.326 Just to be explicit: the thinking process consists of different cittas and cetasikas all arising and passing away rapidly. These are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. let us consider a couple of thinking. 1. Think of a flying purple elephant. The process of thinking that imagines this, whether a graphic visualisation or your no-frills, idea only version, consists of cittas and cetasikas. The object of this thinking is a concept, not real. 2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not real. 3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours are real, the sounds are real, but mother and father is concept. Obviously example 1 is easily understood. It is number 2 and especially number 3 that in daily life we get confused by. Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas directly even during the processes of thinking that take concepts for objects. Now there is thinking happening that is trying to comprehend what was just read. The process of thinking is real and it might be rooted in lobha (desire) that wants to understand. The lobha is real - is it seen as just a dhamma , not you. There is also feeling; if you liked what was written this will be pleasant feeling - is it seen as just a conditioned dhamma, not you. And if you didn't like it there was unpleasant feeling, not you. These present objects must be seen wisely otherwise there will always be doubt and one will not gain confidence. Or one will settle for attachment to the Dhamma rather than insight. Or worse become someone whose aim is to look for little flaws thinking that this is proper investigation. I just heard on a tape from bangkok where someone said he rarely studies because he doesn't like reading (from childhood)- yet it is clear to me that he understands the heart of Dhamma. This, I believe, is because he sees how to apply it in the present moment. best wishes robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hello Robert E, > > Another element to add to this discussion of concept. In my very limited > reading I have not yet seen where concept is explicitly said to be > unreal. Rather, usually it is said that concept obscures the experience > of paramattha dhammas which I take to mean wholeness obscures partness. > I have yet to see "unreality" established as a category nor have I seen > any discussion of truth and illusion or true and false. Perhaps someone > could give us some insight into "adhamma", if it is a word. Also I would > like to point out that impermanence must be a concept; there isn't an > impermanence citta or impermanence cetasika or impermanence rupa. The > only thing left is concept. I'm hoping there will be an indepth > discussion of the functioning of mind sense in ADL. I think that would > go a long way toward clarifying the nature of concept. > > Larry 12226 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samatha bhavana - Rob Ep --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Hi Jon! > > I know I've been absent lately, but I always intend to pop back in, and > > here I am, > > manifesting my intention!! [no one to do that of course, but it's an > > awkward way > > of saying 'it happens'.] > > > > This probably sounds like an old record, but if one can indeed > > 'cultivate > > tranquility', why not do so through samatha meditation? > > 'Cultivate tranquillity' and 'samatha meditation' are terms that are often > used as a translation for the same Pali term, 'samatha bhavana'. So the > question, as ever, is what exactly *is* samatha bhavana? > > > There's no doubt that > > breathing meditation, slowing and lengthening the breath, etc., creates > > 'tranquility'. You could even say it 'cultivates' it. > > Like all terms used by the Buddha, samatha bhavana has a very specific > meaning. The tranquillity ('samatha') is the tranquillity that comes from > the *quality of kusala*, and the cultivation ('bhavana') connotes the fact > that the kusala in question is *accompanied by panna*. > > Now when it comes to breathing meditation, there is nothing *necessarily* > kusala about focussing on one's breath. Focussing on the breath is not > like, say, metta which is something intrinsically kusala (if it's not > kusala then it's not metta). It's something that anyone can do at any > time. So if breathing meditation is to be samatha bhavana, one needs to > know where the kusala and the panna come in (you cannot just equate > breathing meditation with samatha bhavana). I'd be interested to hear > your thoughts on this. I agree with you. In fact one can focus on the breath in a way that explicitly causes more tension, pain and delusion. The breath in and of itself is no guarantee of anything. However, the breath is a worthy object for calming the body and mind, because when it is slowed, relaxed and extended, there is a physiological mechanism which induces calm and peacefulness through the autonomic nervous system with which the breath is associated. Beyond this, the concentration of the mind *in a relaxed and released manner* tends to slow down thoughts, enhance perception and create a mind and nervous system that is more available for discernment and intelligent reflection. This in itself is not enlightenment, is not even insight. It is just setting up positive conditions. Can we know whether the state thus achieved is kusala or akusala? This is one of the arguments we have had before. You say that we can be misled into thinking it's a kusala state because it's calm. I say that's no reason not to do it, as we will get more skillful and more discerning if our intention is to keep looking into the matter and become more skillful at it. Because it is like any other skill. Eventually, one can tell that it either works or doesn't work. If we are not cultivating true peacefulness, we may suppress a lot of junk for a while and think it is true peacefulness, but the human feedback system is such that those things don't stay down for long. They will spring up with an expression of negativity and give us a sign that we are on the wrong track. Accompanied by suttas, spiritual friends and continued self-questioning to look at what the state is really like, I see no reason why a person would not make gradual progress. The idea that one would follow the Buddha's teachings, seek spiritual advice, do concentrated breathing meditation with the intention to reach a state of peace where greater insight becomes possible, because a lot of errant thoughts and feelings have been gotten out of one's?face for a while, allowing us to concentrate better, and in a less restless and reactive state of mind, and that with all this one could consistently still be going down the wrong path and in fact cultivating akusala states, seems unnecessarily pessimistic. And I don't see why the gradual cultivation of another path, namely reading suttas and discerning the present reality in everyday life, is going to have any greater chance of success, if akusala is *that* devious that we have no hope of discerning it, even with repeated efforts. So it seems like a false argument that somehow the breath is not a worthy object for achieving samatha because if used wrongly it may *not* lead to a kusala state. That's true of everything. That's all for now. I will be interested to hear back from you. I know I was pretty direct, so I'm braced for an 'equal and opposite reaction', as someone once said. Best, Robert Ep. ===================== 12227 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Formal sitting meditation/Enlightenment --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Rob Ep, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > Holy catfish! You're going to drive me back underground!!! > > Oh no!!! I thought that as you'd just read 300 in reverse AND followed the > links, that an extra 20 would be a 'piece of cake' to you;-) > > > But seriously, thanks. I will try to look into these, and indeed am > > fascinated by > > what may be discussed on this subject. > > Pls do. If it's really chore, let me know and I'll do some > spoon-feeding;-) if you have the chance......... Best, Robert Ep. ======================================== > Thanks for your other questions which I'll look at later. I know Howard > will also be glad to have your input. > > We've just got back from a big hike and swim and I really shouldn't let > you distract me here before I've attended to boring chores;-) > > Sarah 12228 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:35pm Subject: Re: reviews, comments on abidhamma book? Dear Frank, I'm a bit late replying to your post, but you may like to look at a four page review of "Abhidhamma Studies: Buddhist Explorations of Consciousness and Time" by Douglas W. Shrader of the State University of New York at Oneonta. http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/pew/50.4shrader.pdf "This book is essential reading for any serious student of Buddhism. Additionally, it will appeal to those interested in a wide variety of both phenomenological and ontological issues: the manifold of experience, the nature of consciousness, the analysis of time, concepts of anatta (ego selflessness) and paticca-samuppada(dependent originiation), and so forth. An intermediate to advanced level of familiarity and understanding of basic Buddhist doctrines is recommended. It will prove particularly useful to scholars and students who have been intimidated by the vast, often cryptic, Abhidhamma literature." He then reviews each of the chapters, and ends by saying "I heartily recommend reading this relatively brief text from cover to cover." Also, while on Abhidhamma and Ven. Nyanaponika - much of "The Abhidhamma Philosophy" by Ven. Nyanaponika Thera is on-line at: http://www.buddhanet.net/abhidh01.htm metta, Christine Its estimation in the past and its value for the present from the book Abhidhamma Studies: Researches in Buddhist Psychology, by Ven. Nyanaponika Thera High Esteem of Abhidhamma in Buddhist Tradition The Abhidhamma as System and Method Clarification of Terms Analysis of Consciousness The Anatta Doctrine Abhidhamma and Meditation Abhidhamma: Requirement for the Teachers of Dhamma Evaluation of Abhidhamma & Question of its Authenticity Concluding Remarks and a Warning Originally pubished by Buddhist Publication Society - Sri Lanka --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., frank kuan wrote: > > I'm thinking about getting this. Anyone have comments, > recommendations on this? > > http://wisdompubs.org/productsZoom/0861711351.cfm > > Abhidhamma Studies > Buddhist Explorations of Consciousness and Time > Nyaponika Thera, Author > Bhikkhu Bodhi, Introduction > Science of Mind / Philosophy / Theravadan Buddhism > List Price: $16.95 > Discount Price: $13.56 (20% Off!) > Size: 6 x 9 > Binding: Paper > ISBN: 0-86171-135-1 > Available > > > Add to Cart! 12229 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 0:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & realities (was, ADL ch 1 (2)-Lucy) Lucy (and somewhat unintentionally, Howard and Sarah, and later Victor) [Health warning: Long and technical, possibly headache-inducing] --- Lucy wrote: > > Hi Larry & all > Are these "paramattha dhamma" like building blocks of experience - > that's why they're "irreducible"? Yes, I think this is exactly how the Abhidhammattha Sangaha and its commentaries describe paramattha dhammas. The *irreducibility* of these dhammas has quite a part to play in that description and seems to be what earns them the label of *ultimate*. As I think you appreciate, 'irreducibility' here has nothing to do with size (like the atom), but rather refers to the fact that dhammas are phenomena that, from the viewpoint of our experience, appear in their most basic form and accordingly are not capable of being broken down into further component parts. With apologies in advance for the repetition, I would like to quote again what the CMA says about 'paramatthato' ('ultimate realities') : [from Ch I, Guide to para 2 -- the *emphasis* is mine] "Ultimate realities are things that exist by reason of their own extrinsic nature (sabhaava). These are the dhammas: the final, *irreducible components of existence*, the *ultimate entities*. "Such existents *admit of no further reduction*, but are themselves the *final terms of analysis*, the true constituents of the complex manifold of experience (and hence the word ‘paramattha’ is applied to them, which is derived from ‘parama’ = ultimate, highest, final, and ‘attha’ = reality, thing)." Ultimate realities are contrasted with 'conventional (saammuti) realities'. Note that both are called 'realities', so it is perhaps not necessary to be concerned too much about that term alone. Rather it is the distinction that is being drawn between the so-called ultimate and the so-called conventional/conceptual that is the important thing to note. Here is the passage on conventional realities: "Conventional realities are the referents of ordinary conceptual thought (pannatti) and conventional modes of expression (vohaara). They include such entities as living beings, men, women, animals, and the apparently stable persisting objects that constitute our unanalyzed picture of the world. "The Abhidhamma philosophy maintains that these notions do not possess *ultimate validity*, for the objects which they signify [Jon: i.e. the living beings, men, women, animals etc] do not exist in their own right as *irreducible realities*. "They are products of mental construction (parikappanaa), not realities existing by reason of their own nature." So to summarise, conventional realities such as people and things are the product of mental construction and are not realities that exist by reason of their own nature. This observation is I think easier to understand if considered from the perspective of the present moment of experience, and not as a cosmological truth (although neither is it wrong in that sense, I would suggest). Considered in this light, I would suggest that concepts that have conventional objects (i.e., people and things) as their referents cannot be distinguished from concepts that have ultimate phenomena (e.g., hardness, visible object) as their referents or concepts with entirely imaginary or abstract 'things' (e.g. flying elephants, [no] satisfaction) as their referents. All are equally 'mental constructions' in the sense that at that particular moment of thinking no paramattha dhamma is the object of the consciousness, and the referents are at that very moment equally 'products of mental construction'. So on a purely moment-to-moment basis, there is no difference to be found between the thought moments that are more 'grounded' in reality and those that are not. On a more general note, I suggest that the distinction between 'realties' and 'concepts' as so defined is crucial to the insight that the teachings are all about. To my understanding, satipatthana and vipassana deal exclusively with the development of awareness of and insight into realities, not concepts. I appreciate that this is a controversial statement, especially perhaps to those coming from a Mahayana background, but I wish only to say that it does represent the orthodox Theravadin point of view, as I think can be seen from the extract from 'Buddhist Dictionary' pasted below**. [As to whether concepts have any characteristic capable of being the object of panna/insight, this is an interesting question for discussion but one which I think I should leave for another post!] > And then there are all the different ways of > classification : 4 paramattha dhamma, OR five khandha (aggregates) OR > dhattu OR etc. It may be like classifying what makes up a building into > frames, walls and space OR into bricks and mortar OR into steel, wood, > sand, cement.. > All 4 "realities" are anatta. Three of them are conditioned / caused, > impermanent, dukkha. The 4th, nibbana, is unconditioned / uncaused, > unchanging, not-dukkha - it's an altogether different sort of > "experience". > What's common to all 4? Or, why is nibbana in the same classification > system as nama & rupa ? Is it because they can all be experienced > directly > (outside the flow of conceptual thought - like in a meditative state)? > [yes, better leave Nibbana till last !!! ] As I understand it, what's common to all 4 is that all are 'sabhaava' (having individual essence) and have the characteristic of being anatta. My apologies for going well beyond your original point. I have drifted into Howard and Sarah territory and touched on a Victor point (and will amend the salutation accordingly), but one thing somehow seemed to lead to another … Jon PS Got a headache to nurse now? Well, you can't say you weren't warned. **Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' "paramattha : "(As in paramattha-sacca[truth], -vacana[term], -desaná[exposition] "'Truth (or term, exposition) that is true *in the highest (or ultimate) sense*', as contrasted with the 'conventional truth' (vohára-sacca), which is also called '*commonly accepted* truth' (sammuti-sacca). "The Buddha, in explaining his doctrine, sometimes used conventional language and sometimes the philosophical mode of expression which is in accordance whith undeluded insight into reality. … "Thus, whenever the suttas speak of man, woman or person [Jon: or parts of the body], or of the rebirth of a being, this must not be taken as being valid in the ultimate sense, but as a mere conventional mode of speech (vohára-vacana). … "In the Sutta Pitaka there are many expositions in terms of ultimate language (paramattha-desaná), namely, wherever these texts deal with the groups (khandha), elements (dhátu) or sense-bases (áyatana), and their components; and wherever the 3 characteristics (ti-lakkhana) are applied. The majority of Sutta texts, however, use the conventional language, as appropriate in a practical or ethical context … "The two truths - ultimate and conventional - … are implied in a sutta-distinction of 'explicit (or direct) meaning' (nítattha) and 'implicit meaning (to be inferred)' (neyyattha). "Further, the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect One (Tathágata) uses without misapprehending them." > These "realities" are also said to be universal. For an ant, a little > mound > of earth would be a "mountain" (concept), for a human it's a "little > mound > of earth" (concept) - so a same object is different for the ant and the > human, the common thing is that the object is "rupa" - and it would be > rupa > for any other being. Or, my cat: for me she's a "friend" (concept), for > another human, she's a "cat" (concept), for a flea she's "lodging and > food" (concept), the cat believes she's a "self" (concept) --- the > concepts > are very different, but what's common to all observers and observed > objects > is : nama-rupa... > > Off to read more messages and nurse a headache. > > Lucy 12230 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 1:27am Subject: anatta and kamma Dear All, Anatta still seems such a hard thing to consider ...truth, yes,.... reality, yes,.... but such a lonely doctrine. (I wonder if anyone has turned back from it for that very reason...) Can anyone remind me of how 'results of kamma' and 'no-self go' together? As well, any links to suttas and articles would be appreciated. I've found some on them separately, but not together. In the Visuddhi Magga it is said: "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found. The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there. Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it. The path is, but no traveller on it is seen," "No doer of the deeds is found, No being that may reap their fruits. Empty phenomena roll on! This is the only right view." metta, Christine 12231 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Noble Eightfold Path and Right Concentration - Nina Nina --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Jon, > Your post is wonderful for considering. I had read this sutta, but now I > understand more the deep meaning, especially with regard to the Noble > Eightfold Path. > Howard is very sincere saying that we all read in a text what we like to > read. Still, this can be cured, at least partly, by reading the > commentaries, and also reading all of the scriptures, not only a few > suttas, and studying the Abhidhamma. I'm glad you found something useful in my comments. There are many gems within the suttas that go unnoticed, until one day you suddenly see a new significance in a familiar passage. Thanks very much for the information from the commentaries (below). I particularly enjoyed reading about the kalla-citta and sayambhu-nana (both new to me). It's interesting I think to consider exactly what brought about the kalla-citta, the state of a mind that was 'prepared, pliant, free from obstacles, elevated and lucid' and so ready to hear about the Four Noble Truths. Listening to a talk on giving, virtue, the heavens, the danger in sensual pleasures and the blessing of renunciation may not meet our conception of final preparation for enlightenment (speaking for myself, anyway), but perhaps we should take that as a reflection of some mis-conception on our part as to what the development of the path is all about (a useful bit of 'contrary evidence'!). Also we see in the progressive instruction a working example of the 4 'factors for enlightenment' (sotapattiyanga) that I mentioned recently in another post -- association with superior persons, hearing the true Dhamma, careful attention, practice in accordance with the Dhamma. This shows I think how these factors are not just for the beginner but have relevance right up to the moment of enlightenment. Jon > I looked up the Co to this sutta (in Thai), about the gradual teaching, > anupubbikathaa. It shows the order of the different subjects, and heaven > coming after sila. The Co states: they do > not last.> In short and in my own words, it explains that one should not > aim > for them by desire for them. Therefore the Buddha spoke after that about > the > disadvantages of kaama, sense pleasures and the benefit of nekkhamma, > detachment. The Co mentions from the sutta the word . > This > means pure or ready. The Buddha speaks by saya.mbhuu ~naana, and this is > his > self dependent wisdom, an epithet used with reference to the Buddha. > This > wisdom is not common to other people. noble Truths>. The Co states that Upali became a sotapanna. > As I said, it is helpful to compare other parts of the teachings. A > similar > passage in Dialogues of the Buddha I, no. 5, Kutadanta Sutta, at the > end: > Then the Blessed One discoursed to Kutadanta the Brahman in due order:.. > in > similar words. Here the Buddha spoke in the context of sacrifices: what > is > the highest sacrifice. On the preceding page we find the explanation on > sila, guarding of the doorways, mindfulness, contentment , solitude, the > five hindrances, the jhanas, and the highest sacrifice: destruction of > the > asavas. > My own comments: here is a similar wording as in the Fruits of > Recluseship. > The jhanas are included here, this concerns the monk who strives after > arahatship, the ideal recluse. > In the case of Upali and in the case of Kutadanta, the four noble Truths > are > realized at the attainment of enlightenment. This means that dukkha must > be > penetrated, the characteristic of impermanence of all conditioned > realities. > At which moment? Now. The eye, seeing, contact, feeling, they arise and > fall > away. No matter someone develops jhana or not, the impermanence of > realities > must be penetrated. > We read in the Co to the end of the Kutadanta Sutta: > vikkhambhita-niivara.nata.m sandhaaya vutta.m> And again, it is said, > kalla-citta, the citta that is ready. This is said with reference to > having > discarded the hindrances, beginning with the experience of the gradual > teaching. (I do like to be corrected, it is a coarse translation of the > Pali text I have). > With appreciation, Nina. > > > op 22-03-2002 11:53 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: > > > > As you know, I believe the teaching on Right Concentration and all the > > other factors of the Noble Eightfold Path can only be understood by > > properly understanding the nature of the Noble Eightfold Path itself. > > > > In this regard I thought the following passage might be of interest. > It > > is a passage I'm sure you're familiar with, as it appears quite often > in > > the suttas. It's known as the 'gradual/progressive instruction' > > (aanupubbii-kathaa), and it's the instruction given by the Buddha to > those > > who were ready for enlightenment. > > > > This particular example comes from MN 56 'To Upaali' (trans. 'Middle > > Length Discourses of the Buddha' BB) > > > > "18. Then the Blessed One gave the householder Upaali progressive > > instruction, that is, talk on giving, talk on virtue, talk on the > heavens; > > he explained the danger, degradation, and defilement in sensual > pleasures > > and the blessing of renunciation. When he knew that the householder > > Upaali's mind was ready, receptive, free from hindrances, elated, and > > confident, he expounded to him the teaching special to the Buddha's: > > suffering, its origin, cessation, and the path." > > > > The sutta goes on to say that even as Upaali sat there, 'the spotless, > > immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in him: "All that is subject to > > arising is subject to cessation."' and he attained stream-entry. > > > > What I find interesting here is the fact that the Four Noble Truths > are > > the very culmination of the progressive instruction, and the teaching > > about them is given only when the listener's understanding is so > highly > > developed that he is ready for immediate enlightenment. > > > > Specifically, it is the Buddha's teaching of the Noble Eightfold Path > (as > > the 4th Noble Truth) that is the last part of the progressive > instruction > > heard by the listener before attaining enlightenment. > > > > I don't know if you've ever considered the significance of this > passage as > > regards the nature of the Noble Eightfold Path. To me, it very much > puts > > the Noble Eightfold Path as a description of the moment of path > > consciousness about to be attained by the listener, rather than as an > > 8-step program for development towards that (very imminent) path > moment. > > > > Also of interest in the progressive instruction is the reference to > the > > listener's mind being 'free from hindrances'. This I believe is a > freedom > > brought about by the kusala engendered by the preceding part of the > > progressive instruction on dana, sila and renunciation of > sense-desires > > (and does not refer to the suppression of the hindrances as a result > of > > the concentration associated with samatha bhavana). > > > > Jon > > > 12232 From: Sarah Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 4:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 2 outline Hi Larry and ADL corner, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Num, > > I got a little bit ahead because I had some free time today. I think > we're still going with one chapter per week. I don't know about the > outline. Is it useful? should we do it differently? do something else? > its all kamma!!! What do the ladies think? I think there are a couple (read Rob Ep and Herman) who are already in chapters 22-24 mode (jhanas and enlightenment), then there are a bunch of us ( inc. Howard, Lucy, Sukin, myself ) who will probably keep plodding away in chapter 1 indefinitely (but at least we're not taking a long nap....) and then there are the well-behaved students (Christine, Num and yourself) who are following the schedule, doing their homework and setting a fine pace and example to the rest of us;-) I looked at your outline and it was excellent, so just keep it all up and we'll follow along as best we can;-) Many thanks, Sarah ========== 12233 From: Sarah Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 4:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Formal sitting meditation/Enlightenment Hi Rob Ep, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Pls do. If it's really chore, let me know and I'll do some > > spoon-feeding;-) > > > > > if you have the chance......... I feared that might be your response...see how well we know you now;-) First of all, you have to do just a little work for the spoon (ask Emmy;-))- How about telling us what the specific questions are. (If you ask what the abhidhamma says about jhanas, it's hard not to direct you to the entire abhidhamma pitaka). Maybe if you ask one or two specific questions at a time and the reasons for asking them, that would be best. If you mention KOM's name in the greeting and subject heading at the top, you may get a very helpful reponse indeed;-) Always fun, having you and Emmy around, Rob. Sarah p.s. Apologies, Kom;-) ================= 12234 From: Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 2:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 3/29/02 8:43:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, I agree the reality status of impermanence is a puzzle. One > clue could be that it is a kind of relationship so all "real" > relationships (conditional relationships for example) would be in the > same boat. > > Larry > > ======================= You might be onto something about their being in the same boat, at least if mathematicians see things at all correctly. Mathematicians sometimes *represent* properties as special cases of relations. // The mathematics involved: An n-ary relation among members of a set (for n = 1, 2, 3, 4, ...) is represented by a collection of n-tuples of elements from that set (each n-tuple indicating the holding of the relation among its n elements in the given order); a property of objects in a set is represented by a subset of that set (the members of the subset being those that have that property). These two representations coincide for n-ary relations with n = 1. // That is, mathematicians identify properties with 1-ary relations. In any case, leaving mathematics aside, characteristics and relations are certainly basic aspects the various realms of conditioned dhammas, and certainly anicca, anatta, and conditionality (as in paticcasamuppada) are among the things that are discernable by wisdom. So that would seem to rule them out as pa~n~natti according to (at least some) orthodox Abhidhammic interpretation. However, I haven't seen them described as cittas or cetasikas either. So .. it is a puzzlement! ;-)) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 12235 From: frank kuan Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 7:56am Subject: yahoo email/groups scumback spamming tactic alert yahoo scum tactics -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i'm passing on this public service announcememnt by a recent poster on the now moribund yahoo ashtanga site: I am sending this message to all of my groups. If you have ever registered at Yahoogroups, or have a Yahoo email address, or WERE in a Yahoogroup at any time in the past, this will effect you. I have personally checked this out for myself, and it is true. Yahoo made a change in your personal accounts. This is an advertising change that effects you with email, phone soliciting, and advertisements that come through the U.S. mail. Yahoo has made a sneaky change and if you had selected to not receive ads, or spams, etc., or didn't even know there was a choice (like me), Yahoo has changed this setting without even telling you what they have done. They have marked "yes" to several advertising opportunities for you to receive. You will need to change this marketing strategy to "NO" if you do not want to get all kinds of spams and ads through email, phone, and U.S. mail.' Your listowner cannot do this for you. It must be done individually. Here is how to make the change. It took me a few minutes to find this, so when you get going, look hard at the pages to find what I'm talking about: 1. Go to Yahoo Groups (groups.yahoo.com) and sign in. If you can't remember your password, you'll need to follow the guidelines to get your password. I don't have your password. If you were a member of any of my em ail groups BEFORE we switched our lists off of Yahoo, Yahoo automatically registered you. You will need to choose a password in order to get to your settings. When you enter your password, DO NOT put in your zip code (it is still optional), or you will get ads in the U.S. mail. 2. Click on "My Groups" 3. After you click on "My Groups", up in the very top right hand side of the screen, in tiny letters, is "Account Info". Click on it. 4. It will take you to a screen where they ask for your password, again. Type in your password. 5. Another screen comes up. It will say, "Yahoo ID card". Click on 'Edit your Marketing Preferences'. This is located under "member information" and a bit under a yellow strip of color. It is written in blue ink. 6. A screen saying, "Special offers and Marketing Communications". YOu will need to change all of the boxes marked "YES" to "NO". At the very bottom under "delivery options" are two more boxes. U.S. Mail, and Phone. Click "no". If your name and address/phone appear to the right of these boxes, you will need to go and click on "edit" to the right of your name and address. My husband changed his address to "somewhere" for the road, and "anywhere" for the city, and he couldn't change or remove the state. He also had to put 00000-0000 for his zip code and the same for his phone number. It wouldn't allow him to take these off. 7. If you make a change to your address and phone, you will need to go back to the "Special Offers and Marketing Communications" and change the boxes back to "NO". You MUST save all of your changes, or it will automatically flip back. Don't forget, press "save changes" when you are finished. Good Luck and pass the word!! Julia 12236 From: Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 10:07am Subject: ADL ch. 2 (1-6) Abhidhamma in Daily Life http://www.abhidhamma.org/abhid.html Chapter 2 THE FOUR PARAMATTHA DHAMMAS 1. The Buddha discovered the truth of all phenomena. He knew the characteristic of each phenomenon by his own experience. Out of compassion he taught other people to see reality in many different ways, so that they would have a deeper understanding of the phenomena in and around themselves. When realities are classified by way of paramattha dhammas (absolute realities), they are classified as: citta, cetasika, rupa, nibbana. 2. Citta, cetasika and rupa are conditioned realities (sankhara dhammas). They arise because of conditions and fall away again; they are impermanent. One paramattha dhamma, nibbana, is an unconditioned reality (visankhara dhamma); it does not arise and fall away. All four paramattha dhammas are anatta, not self. 3. Citta, cetasika and rupa which are conditioned realities, can be classified by way of the five khandhas. Khandha means 'group' or 'aggregate'. They are: 1. Rupakkhandha, which are all physical phenomena. 2. Vedanakkhandha, which is feeling (vedana). 3. Sannakkhandha, which is perception (sanna). 4. Sankharakkhandha, comprising fifty cetasikas. 5. Vinnanakkhandha, comprising all cittas. 4. The fifty-two kinds of cetasika are classified as three khandhas: a cetasika which is feeling (vedana) is classified as one khandha, the vedanakkhandha; a cetasika which is perception (sanna) is classified as one khandha, the sannakkhandha; as regards the other tiny cetasikas, they are classified all together as one khandha, the sankharakkhandha. For example, in sankharakkhandha are included the following cetasikas: 'intention' (cetana), attachment (lobha), aversion (dosa), ignorance (moha), lovingkindness (metta), generosity (alobha) and wisdom (panna). Sankharakkhandha is sometimes translated as 'activities' or 'mental formations'. 5. As regards citta, all cittas are one khandha: vinnanakkhandha. The Pali terms vinnana, mano and citta are three terms for the same reality: that which has the characteristic of knowing or experiencing something. When citta is classified as khandha the word vinnana is used. Thus, the five khandhas are grouped as one rupakkhandha, and four namakkhandha. Three namakkhandhas are fifty-two cetasikas; the other namakkhandha is eighty-nine or one hundred and twenty-one cittas. 6. Nibbana is not a khandha; it is void of khandha (in Pali: khandha-vimutti). 12237 From: Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 9:50am Subject: Re: impermanence and reality Dear Howard and Larry, After lurking for quite a while and now having gotten up to date (somewhat), I'd like to add my 2 cents worth to your discussion about impermanence. Impermanence is not a reality (paramatha dhamma). It is, however, one of the characteristics of 3 of the paramatha dhammas: citta, cetasika and rupa (Nibbana, the 4th paramatha dhamma, does not have these characteristics). The other 2 main characteristics of these dhammas are anatta (non-self) and dukkha (unsatisfactoriness). This you already know. But, obviously, when we talk about them, we talk in terms of concepts; for it is only on the pannatti (concept) level that "we" (also a concept) can talk about them. Even the paramatha dhammas are pannatti, as is Dhamma, when we talk about them. However, panna (a cetasika) does not need words nor concepts to understand anicca (impermanence), anatta and dukkha and the paramatha dhammas; it just performs its function, that of understanding, when it arises (when the conditions are there for it to arise). As understanding deepens (it is incremental), it increasingly comprehends the nature of the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and non-self, the nature of the paramatha dhammas, as well as the "nature" of the concepts created by the "mind". As these are more deeply understood, increasing detachment from kilesas (defilements) can take place as a result. If something is illusory, it cannot be reality; nor can it actually exist. even for an instant. The concept of it seems to exist only because our "minds" created it; it does not exist in reality and is illusion. The various aramana received/experienced by citta through the 5 sense doors (and the "mind" door) are the sole realities that "we" (cittas and cetasikas) actually perceive. However, in order to function in a pannatti world, "we", "our minds", form concepts about these realities and in avijja (ignorance), "we" think the concepts are real and therefore exist. "We" are usually not aware of the actual realities that are picked up/experienced by cittas and cetasikas, but instead we think the concepts are the realities. Therefore, the "practice" taught by the Buddha, is "developing" the increasing arising of sati (awareness-also a cetasika) of the aramana which come through the sense doors and mind door not as concepts, but as realities, types of rupa and nama. When sati is aware of them in this way, then it conditions panna, understanding, to arise and comprehend these at increasingly deeper and more subtle levels. Please forgive the rambling, but in having to put this into words (concepts again), it at least helped me to understand it better, but on the pariyati (intellectual) level of understanding. When deeper levels of understanding arise, the concepts, the words, are irrelevant. I hope that may help clear up some confusion about what is impermanence and reality, but I hope it also provokes more discussion. Howard, amvery much looking forward to meeting you in NY; will call you when I arrive on the 29th of April (late evening) or the next morning. with metta, Betty _______________________ Mom Bongkojpriya Yugala 38 Soi 41 Phaholyothin Road Bangkok 10900, Thailand tel: 662-579-1050; 661-826-7160 e-mail: beyugala@k... > Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:10:50 EST > From: upasaka@a... > Subject: Re: BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2) > >> epsteinrob@Y... writes: > > > > I would say that it's incorrect to think that concepts have 'no reality > > whatsoever'. If you take a look at what this means, it would mean that > > they do > > not even come into being as concepts. But since we refer to them, and can > > be > > fooled by them into thinking they are realities, isn't it more accurate to > > say > > that 'concepts exist momentarily as concepts, but they claim to represent > > realities which they do not'. In other words, they are illusory, but not > > non-existent. . . > > > > . . .Now I think the way that concepts are looked at in Abhidhamma is a little > > more > > confusing and technical, because it is said that concepts do not have a > > characteristic which can be experienced as a reality, while thoughts I > > believe do > > have an identifiable 'actual' characteristics -- I'm ready for more > > correction on > > this one -- but I don't think anyone would say that the occurence of a > > concept as > > a part of a thought *does not actually take place*. The thought refers to > > the > > concept and references it in either language or image, so as the referent > > in a > > thought or sentence, the concept exists. The reason it doesn't have its > > own > > characteristic, I am guessing, is because a concept disguises itself as > > something > > other than what it is. Therefore it falls apart on closer inspection, in > > terms of > > what it claims to be. If I say 'I'm thinking of a rock', the 'rock' in > > that > > thought pretends to be an actual rock in the thought. The thought will > > think that > > it is indeed thinking of a rock. In fact it is thinking of an image or > > idea of a > > rock, not a real rock, and so the rock referred to is a concept, not a > > 'reality'. > > When these concepts are confused with the reality they are trying to talk > > or think > > about, we are thrice removed from the reality of experience: 1/ we are > > removed > > from knowing that we are dealing with a concept not a reality; 2/ we are > > removed > > from the reality itself by dealing with a substitute image or definition as > > represented in the concept; and 3/ we are removed from the rupa that is > > occuring > > in the moment by looking at the reality as an object beyond the moment. > > > > But the concept is still only illusory, not nonexistent. It arises as part > > of a > > thought, a part of a thought that makes thought think it is more or other > > than > > merely a fabrication in the moment. > > > > I'm now ready to be deconstructed, reconstructed, dissected, corrected, or > > whatever else is necessary. > > > > Robert Ep. > > > > > ======================== > I'm not sure that I'm satisfied that the breakdown of dhammas into the > two classes of paramattha dhammas and pa~n~natti (which we can take to mean > concepts and their reducible referents, I suppose) is really complete. > Impermanence is a characteristic of (conditioned) dhammas, a lakkhana. There > *is* the concept of impermanence, but impermanence and the concept of > impermanence can't be the same. Impermanence isn't listed in the Abhidhamma > as either citta or cetasika, is it? Yet impermanence is one of the chief > things to be known by wisdom! (And it is claimed that pa~n~natti cannot be > known by wisdom!) So this is a bit of a conundrum, no? Something's got to be > WRONG here! ;-)) > > With metta, > Howard 12238 From: Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 5:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: impermanence and reality Hi, Betty (and Larry) - In a message dated 3/30/02 1:10:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, beyugala@k... writes: > > Dear Howard and Larry, > After lurking for quite a while and now having gotten up to date > (somewhat), > I'd like to add my 2 cents worth to your discussion about impermanence. > Impermanence is not a reality (paramatha dhamma). It is, however, one of > the > characteristics of 3 of the paramatha dhammas: citta, cetasika and rupa > (Nibbana, the 4th paramatha dhamma, does not have these characteristics). > The other 2 main characteristics of these dhammas are anatta (non-self) and > dukkha (unsatisfactoriness). This you already know. > > But, obviously, when we talk about them, we talk in terms of concepts; for > it is only on the pannatti (concept) level that "we" (also a concept) can > talk about them. Even the paramatha dhammas are pannatti, as is Dhamma, > when > we talk about them. However, panna (a cetasika) does not need words nor > concepts to understand anicca (impermanence), anatta and dukkha and the > paramatha dhammas; it just performs its function, that of understanding, > when it arises (when the conditions are there for it to arise). As > understanding deepens (it is incremental), it increasingly comprehends the > nature of the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and non-self, the > nature of the paramatha dhammas, as well as the "nature" of the concepts > created by the "mind". As these are more deeply understood, increasing > detachment from kilesas (defilements) can take place as a result. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The nature of anicca still remains unclear. If it is not a paramattha dhamma, what is left (according to orthodox view) is pa~n~natti. Yet (according to orthodox view) pa~n~natti is not discernable with wisdom. I see a problem here. ------------------------------------------------------ > > If something is illusory, it cannot be reality; nor can it actually exist. > even for an instant. The concept of it seems to exist only because our > "minds" created it; it does not exist in reality and is illusion. The > various aramana received/experienced by citta through the 5 sense doors > (and > the "mind" door) are the sole realities that "we" (cittas and cetasikas) > actually perceive. However, in order to function in a pannatti world, "we", > "our minds", form concepts about these realities and in avijja (ignorance), > "we" think the concepts are real and therefore exist. "We" are usually not > aware of the actual realities that are picked up/experienced by cittas and > cetasikas, but instead we think the concepts are the realities. > > Therefore, the "practice" taught by the Buddha, is "developing" the > increasing arising of sati (awareness-also a cetasika) of the aramana which > come through the sense doors and mind door not as concepts, but as > realities, types of rupa and nama. When sati is aware of them in this way, > then it conditions panna, understanding, to arise and comprehend these at > increasingly deeper and more subtle levels. > > Please forgive the rambling, but in having to put this into words (concepts > again), it at least helped me to understand it better, but on the pariyati > (intellectual) level of understanding. When deeper levels of understanding > arise, the concepts, the words, are irrelevant. > > I hope that may help clear up some confusion about what is impermanence and > reality, but I hope it also provokes more discussion. > > Howard, amvery much looking forward to meeting you in NY; will call you > when > I arrive on the 29th of April (late evening) or the next morning. --------------------------------------------------- I look forward to meeting you as well. I'm very pleased that I have time available then! --------------------------------------------------- > > with metta, > ======================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 12239 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 11:30am Subject: RE: [dsg] Formal sitting meditation/Enlightenment: Kom Uh, yes, Sarah, I do read messags with my name in the message first (like this one). Writing a response to a message is an entirely different story and is totally subjected to my compulsion (or is that impulsion?) ;-) kom > -----Original Message----- > From: Sarah [mailto:sarahdhhk@y...] > Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 4:49 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] Formal sitting meditation/Enlightenment > be best. If you mention > KOM's name in the greeting and subject heading at > the top, you may get a > very helpful reponse indeed;-) > 12240 From: Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 0:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2) Thanks, Robert K, you made the distinction I was looking for: thinking is real but the object of thinking is not; I would call it the reality of illusion. I'm still interested in learning more about how the mind sense works (good topic for a phd thesis). Larry ---------------- Robert K wrote: Dear Larry, Concepts are certainly unreal. People doubt this but they can prove it to themself if there is direct insight. That is what the development of satipatthana reveals - that it is only ignorance that takes concepts for realities. As the Abhidhammathasangaha says about concepts like human, person, man, chariot that "All such different things , though they do not exist in the ultimate sense , become objects of consciousness in the form of shadows of ultimate things (paramattha dhammas)"(bodhi p.326 Just to be explicit: the thinking process consists of different cittas and cetasikas all arising and passing away rapidly. These are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. let us consider a couple of thinking. 1. Think of a flying purple elephant. The process of thinking that imagines this, whether a graphic visualisation or your no-frills, idea only version, consists of cittas and cetasikas. The object of this thinking is a concept, not real. 2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not real. 3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours are real, the sounds are real, but mother and father is concept. Obviously example 1 is easily understood. It is number 2 and especially number 3 that in daily life we get confused by. Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas directly even during the processes of thinking that take concepts for objects. Now there is thinking happening that is trying to comprehend what was just read. The process of thinking is real and it might be rooted in lobha (desire) that wants to understand. The lobha is real - is it seen as just a dhamma , not you. There is also feeling; if you liked what was written this will be pleasant feeling - is it seen as just a conditioned dhamma, not you. And if you didn't like it there was unpleasant feeling, not you. These present objects must be seen wisely otherwise there will always be doubt and one will not gain confidence. Or one will settle for attachment to the Dhamma rather than insight. Or worse become someone whose aim is to look for little flaws thinking that this is proper investigation. I just heard on a tape from bangkok where someone said he rarely studies because he doesn't like reading (from childhood)- yet it is clear to me that he understands the heart of Dhamma. This, I believe, is because he sees how to apply it in the present moment. best wishes robert 12241 From: Sukin Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 0:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2) Dear Rob, My wife warned me at the dinner party we attended earlier not to have the coffee they were serving saying that I won't be able to sleep. I told her that coffee usually doesn't affect my sleep, so I went ahead and had two cups. Maybe its not the coffee(the rupa), maybe its because I am curious about if anyone would reply to my mail, maybe its lobha/ chanda to read the mails from dsg in general( I did not have the chance to open my mailbox before this). But actually it must be many many factors working together. But thought is linear, it projects only one thing at a time, hence quite unreliable when it comes to understanding conditions( parmattha dhamma), I think. But let me go to your response to my post;( I hope you don't mind if I state something you have already considered. I think you consider things not only deeply but also widely, my consideration is usually a step or two behind yours and so I may be misrepresenting you) > I would say that it's incorrect to think that concepts have 'no reality > whatsoever'. If you take a look at what this means, it would mean that they do > not even come into being as concepts. Would it be more accurate to say that concepts do not have a reality in the same way that citta and cetasikas have ie. they do not have the characteristic of rise and fall and unsatifactoriness therefore they are not considered to be paramattha dhamma? But since we refer to them, and can be > fooled by them into thinking they are realities, isn't it more accurate to say > that 'concepts exist momentarily as concepts, but they claim to represent > realities which they do not'. In other words, they are illusory, but not > non-existent. As I expressed my understanding to Howard, there are paramattha dhammas arising which are responsible for the concept of something out there. But the concept itself is unreal. Not only they misrepresent reality in varying degrees as you stated below, but I think the limit of vitaka? or what ever cetasikas responsible, is in part, to make 'representations' of what is experienced( I think I am going beyond what I know here and I might be very off the mark). Whatever concepts are formed, and here I include non- verbal reaction to the field of awareness even in new born babies before they can recognize anything, depend upon amongst other things, our accumulation of panna and kilesa. Even with accumulations to level of satipatthana, the concept formed would still be, in the words of Rob K. 'shadows' of ultimate realities. Would you say that sati and panna of the level of satipatthana see the same thing as concepts? Suddenly I'm very sleepy( many hours since I last slept). Don't mind my abrupt ending. Perhaps I'll write more tomorrow. Best wishes, Sukin. > In the famous illusion of the rope and the snake, where a rope is mistaken for a > snake, one would normally say that the snake does not exist at all. I would say > this incorrect. The rope exists as an actual object [in conventional terms] while > the snake *does* exist, but only as an image or hallucination. So it is more > correct to say that the snake in this case is an image formed by the mind, or a > trick of the mind, rather than to say that it is non-existent. This is important, > because then we can start to look at the status of the things that arise in the > mind and in the senses, rather than talking about them in a general way. > > Now I think the way that concepts are looked at in Abhidhamma is a little more > confusing and technical, because it is said that concepts do not have a > characteristic which can be experienced as a reality, while thoughts I believe do > have an identifiable 'actual' characteristics -- I'm ready for more correction on > this one -- but I don't think anyone would say that the occurence of a concept as > a part of a thought *does not actually take place*. The thought refers to the > concept and references it in either language or image, so as the referent in a > thought or sentence, the concept exists. The reason it doesn't have its own > characteristic, I am guessing, is because a concept disguises itself as something > other than what it is. Therefore it falls apart on closer inspection, in terms of > what it claims to be. If I say 'I'm thinking of a rock', the 'rock' in that > thought pretends to be an actual rock in the thought. The thought will think that > it is indeed thinking of a rock. In fact it is thinking of an image or idea of a > rock, not a real rock, and so the rock referred to is a concept, not a 'reality'. > When these concepts are confused with the reality they are trying to talk or think > about, we are thrice removed from the reality of experience: 1/ we are removed > from knowing that we are dealing with a concept not a reality; 2/ we are removed > from the reality itself by dealing with a substitute image or definition as > represented in the concept; and 3/ we are removed from the rupa that is occuring > in the moment by looking at the reality as an object beyond the moment. > > But the concept is still only illusory, not nonexistent. It arises as part of a > thought, a part of a thought that makes thought think it is more or other than > merely a fabrication in the moment. > > I'm now ready to be deconstructed, reconstructed, dissected, corrected, or > whatever else is necessary. > > Robert Ep. 12242 From: Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 0:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samatha bhavana - Rob Ep Hello Robert E, you wrote: "Can we know whether the state thus achieved is kusala or akusala?" I think "kusala" is largely conceptual, a reference point, a goal to strive toward. Unless we are arahats we are infected with lobha, dosa, and moha and if we are arahats neither kusala nor akusala dwells in our "house". Larry 12243 From: Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 1:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta and kamma Hello Christine, I feel exactly the same and I don't have any advice that actually works. With that disclaimer I would say just look at those feelings. Don't particularly try to reason them away. See what happens. Larry ps: I'm going to borrow your quote to answer a question I will be asking about nibanna in ADL ch. 2 ----------------------------------- Christine wrote: Dear All, Anatta still seems such a hard thing to consider ...truth, yes,.... reality, yes,.... but such a lonely doctrine. (I wonder if anyone has turned back from it for that very reason...) Can anyone remind me of how 'results of kamma' and 'no-self go' together? As well, any links to suttas and articles would be appreciated. I've found some on them separately, but not together. In the Visuddhi Magga it is said: "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found. The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there. Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it. The path is, but no traveller on it is seen," "No doer of the deeds is found, No being that may reap their fruits. Empty phenomena roll on! This is the only right view." metta, Christine 12244 From: Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 1:36pm Subject: Re: Is Anicca a concept or a reality? (was: Re: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2)) Greetings all, Here's one answer from Vsm XXI note 4: "These modes, [that is, the three characteristics,] are not included in the aggregates because they are states without individual essence (asabhava-dhamma); and they are not separate from the aggregates because they are unapprehendable without the aggregates. But they should be understood as appropriate conceptual differences (pannatti-visesa) that are reason for differentiation in the explaining of dangers in the five aggregtes, and which are allowable by common usage in respect of the five aggregates" (Pm.825) 12245 From: Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 1:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2) Thanks Howard, I think this deserves a special place in the Useful Posts File. Sarah, what do you think??? Larry ------------------------ Howard wrote: You might be onto something about their being in the same boat, at least if mathematicians see things at all correctly. Mathematicians sometimes *represent* properties as special cases of relations. // The mathematics involved: An n-ary relation among members of a set (for n = 1, 2, 3, 4, ...) is represented by a collection of n-tuples of elements from that set (each n-tuple indicating the holding of the relation among its n elements in the given order); a property of objects in a set is represented by a subset of that set (the members of the subset being those that have that property). These two representations coincide for n-ary relations with n = 1. // That is, mathematicians identify properties with 1-ary relations. 12246 From: Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 2:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 2 (1-6) "All four paramattha dhammas are anatta, not self." Hi all, Why is nibanna not self you might ask. The only answer I could find relates to this passage in Vsm XVI 90: [concerning the 4 noble truths] Hence this is said; 'For there is suffering, but none who suffers; doing exists although there is no doer; extinction is but no extinguished person; although there is a path, there is no goer'. Or alternatively: So void of lastingness, and beauty, pleasure, self, is the first pair, and void of self the deathless state, and void of lastingness, of pleasure and of self is the path too; for such is voidness in these four. In XVI note 25: It may be noted in passing that the word "anatta" (not self) is never applied direct to nibbana in the Suttas (and Abhidhamma), or in Bh. Buddaghosa's commentaries. ....in the Saddhammappakasini: '....[Thirdly] all dhammas formed and unformed, are void of self because of the non-existence of any person (puggala) called "self (atta)".' endquote My take on this is that the Buddha's usual reasons for anatta are impermanence and no control which obviously wouldn't apply to nibbana. Taking a cue from madhyamaka (mahayana philosophy) I would say the above quotes point to the fact that a self is not found when a seeming-self (feeling for example) is rigorously analyzed. More simply, a person is not found. Nibbana is obviously not a person, neither is a feeling. It should be noted that both nibbana and samsara are without self, but samsara doesn't know it. So there is plenty of "apparent" company here. There is said to be a kind of bliss in nibbana. Who knows? The question one might ask is, is company a good (satisfactory) thing? Larry 12247 From: Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 9:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 (2) Heh, heh, heh!! ;-)) I do love your sense of humor, Larry!! ;-)) With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/30/02 4:41:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Thanks Howard, I think this deserves a special place in the Useful Posts > File. Sarah, what do you think??? > > Larry > ------------------------ > Howard wrote: > You might be onto something about their being in the same boat, at least > if mathematicians see things at all correctly. Mathematicians sometimes > *represent* properties as special cases of relations. // The mathematics > involved: An n-ary relation among members of a set (for n = 1, 2, 3, 4, > ...) is represented by a collection of n-tuples of elements from that > set (each n-tuple indicating the holding of the relation among its n > elements in the given order); a property of objects in a set is > represented by a subset of that set (the members of the subset being > those that have that property). These two representations coincide for > n-ary relations with n = 1. // That is, mathematicians identify > properties with 1-ary relations. > > /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) 12248 From: Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 9:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 2 (1-6) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 3/30/02 5:39:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > "All four paramattha dhammas are > anatta, not self." > > Hi all, > > Why is nibanna not self you might ask. The only answer I could find > relates to this passage in Vsm XVI 90: [concerning the 4 noble truths] > > Hence this is said; > > 'For there is suffering, but none who suffers; doing exists although > there is no doer; extinction is but no extinguished person; although > there is a path, there is no goer'. > > Or alternatively: > > So void of lastingness, and beauty, pleasure, self, is the first pair, > and void of self the deathless state, and void of lastingness, of > pleasure and of self is the path too; for such is voidness in these > four. > > In XVI note 25: > > It may be noted in passing that the word "anatta" (not self) is never > applied direct to nibbana in the Suttas (and Abhidhamma), or in Bh. > Buddaghosa's commentaries. ....in the Saddhammappakasini: '....[Thirdly] > all dhammas formed and unformed, are void of self because of the > non-existence of any person (puggala) called "self (atta)".' > > endquote > > My take on this is that the Buddha's usual reasons for anatta are > impermanence and no control which obviously wouldn't apply to nibbana. > Taking a cue from madhyamaka (mahayana philosophy) I would say the above > quotes point to the fact that a self is not found when a seeming-self > (feeling for example) is rigorously analyzed. More simply, a person is > not found. Nibbana is obviously not a person, neither is a feeling. > > It should be noted that both nibbana and samsara are without self, but > samsara doesn't know it. So there is plenty of "apparent" company here. > There is said to be a kind of bliss in nibbana. Who knows? The question > one might ask is, is company a good (satisfactory) thing? > > Larry > > ============================== I think the following might be also be said: 1) Nibbana does not have control, and is not an agent, these being conditions - and nibbana is beyond all conditions, and 2) A self, in traditional Indian philosophy, is (or has) true being, true essence, but nibbana is the ultimate emptiness. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 12249 From: Michael Newton Date: Sat Mar 30, 2002 5:27pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Formal sitting meditation/Enligh