13000 From: Lucy Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 3:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 5 (1-7) Hi Larry > > Recently I've been thinking about mudita. It is specifically described > as rejoicing at the success and prosperity of others, but 'sympathetic > joy' sounds a lot like 'love' to me. > You may be right in the sense that we rejoice spontaneously at the success of people we love or like. Complete strangers aren't too hard either. But it's not easy to develop mudita towards people we dislike or see as competitors. Also, it seems easier to develop compassion (karuna) than metta or mudita towards those we don't like ... All 4 work as good "antidotes" to dosa, but perhaps only equanimity helps to neutralise lobha, at least that's my impression. Lucy 13001 From: Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 4:36pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Thanks Kom, I see my mistake. I was equating satipatthana with vipassana but that's not quite correct. I think I found the source of the controversy over objects of satipatthana, but first here are some interesting snippets from "A Comprehensive Manual Of Abhidhamma". ch. 2, guide to #5 The word sati derives from a root meaning "to remember," but as a mental factor it signifies presence of mind, attentiveness to the present, rather than the faculty of memory regarding the past. It has the characteristic of not wobbling, i.e. not floating away from the object. Its function is absence of confusion or non-forgetfulness. It is manifested as guardianship, or as the state of confronting an objective field. Its proximate cause is strong perception (thirasanna) or the four foundations of mindfulness. ch.2, #5 Faith, mindfulness, shame, fear of wrongdoing, non-greed, non-hatred, neutrality of mind, tranquility of (mental) body, tranquility of consciousness, lightness of (mental) body, lightness of consciousness, malleability of the (mental) body, malleability of consciousness, wieldiness of (mental) body, wieldiness of consciousness, proficiency of the (mental) body, proficiency of consciousnss, rectitude of the (mental) body, and rectitude of consciousness; these nineteen mental factors are termed the universal beautiful factors. [Larry: in other words, whenever sati arises all these other qualities also arise]. ch.7, #24 In the compendium of requisites of enlightenment, there are four foundations of mindfulness: (1) the foundation of mindfulness in contemplation of the body; (2) the foundation of mindfulness in contemplation of feelings; (3) the foundation of mindfulness in contemplation of consciousness; (4) the foundation of mindfulness in contemplation of mental objects. Larry: 'contemplation of mental objects' is a translation of 'dhammanupassana.' So the controversy is, does this 'dhamma' mean paramattha-dhamma or dhammarammana. I would think something would have to prevent sati from taking concepts as object, but I don't see what it would be. Do you have a source or reason for your interpretation? Larry 13002 From: Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 6:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 5 (1-7) Hi Lucy, I messed up the definition of mudita. It's appreciative joy, not sympathetic joy. My mindfulness is operating on a three hour delay and it didn't occur to me until the middle of the night. What I find interesting about mudita is that it seems to open the door to liking people (and things). That's different! Larry 13003 From: Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 6:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re:anicca (do concepts arise and fall?) Hi Goglerr, I've decided the most soothing way for my brain to understand concepts is if something is impermanent it is a reality (possibly an erroneous one). If it is not impermanent, it is as concept. So mathematics is a concept, but solving a mathematic problem is a reality. Also kings, and even governments, are realities. However, it would be very difficult to be mindful of a government. What do you think? Larry 13004 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 7:45pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Dear Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > ch. 2, guide to #5 > The word sati derives from a root meaning "to remember," but as a mental > factor it signifies presence of mind, attentiveness to the present, > rather than the faculty of memory regarding the past. It has the > characteristic of not wobbling, i.e. not floating away from the object. > Its function is absence of confusion or non-forgetfulness. It is > manifested as guardianship, or as the state of confronting an objective > field. Its proximate cause is strong perception (thirasanna) or the four > foundations of mindfulness. I think we will have to remember also that sati rises with all kusala (and sobhana vipaka and kiriya), even when sati is not itself satipatthana. There is sati at the sila level, at the dana level, at the tranquil meditation level, at satiipatthana level, at vipassana level, at magga level, etc. Does the manual say any more abou what the strong perception (thirasanna) is? > > ch.2, #5 > Faith, mindfulness, shame, fear of wrongdoing, non-greed, non-hatred, > neutrality of mind, tranquility of (mental) body, tranquility of > consciousness, lightness of (mental) body, lightness of consciousness, > malleability of the (mental) body, malleability of consciousness, > wieldiness of (mental) body, wieldiness of consciousness, proficiency of > the (mental) body, proficiency of consciousnss, rectitude of the > (mental) body, and rectitude of consciousness; these nineteen mental > factors are termed the universal beautiful factors. [Larry: in other > words, whenever sati arises all these other qualities also arise]. Yes. These are sobhana-sadarana-cetasikas. Sadrana means public (readily available to all sobhana), pretty much the same as in Pali as in Thai. > > ch.7, #24 > In the compendium of requisites of enlightenment, there are four > foundations of mindfulness: (1) the foundation of mindfulness in > contemplation of the body; (2) the foundation of mindfulness in > contemplation of feelings; (3) the foundation of mindfulness in > contemplation of consciousness; (4) the foundation of mindfulness in > contemplation of mental objects. > > Larry: 'contemplation of mental objects' is a translation of > 'dhammanupassana.' So the controversy is, does this 'dhamma' mean > paramattha-dhamma or dhammarammana. I would think something would have > to prevent sati from taking concepts as object, but I don't see what it > would be. Do you have a source or reason for your interpretation? I will have to pass here to others. However, as you don't appear to have problems with abhidhamma, I urge you to continue reading to find out what objects of Satipatthana could be. Let me give you the following observations: 1) B. Bodhi mentioned that there are at least 10 different meanings of the word dhamma, with some differences very subtle 2) Dhamayatana also includes only paramatha dhamma, and not concepts, but dhammaramana include concepts. 3) Concepts, as far as I know, have no ti-lakkhana (other members disagree, but I think you should read on), and since the object of the cittas immediately prior to magga citta is one of the ti-lakkhana, it does also make sense that concepts cannot be part of dhamma-nupassana (since concept doesn't have ti-lakkhana as its characteristics). 4) When you read satipathanna sutta, in the dhammayatna section, I believe all that are mentioned are paramatha dhammas: so this raises no confusion. The usual confusion comes in the kaya-nupassana, because it seems to include many conceptual objects. kom 13005 From: Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 8:38pm Subject: ADL ch.6 (1-6) from: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life chapter 1, paragraphs 1-6 THE CHARACTERISTIC OF DOSA 1. When we are angry with other people we harm ourselves by our anger. The Buddha pointed out the adverse effects of anger (dosa). We read in the 'Gradual Sayings' (Book of the Sevens, Ch.VI, par. 10, Anger) about the ills a rival wishes his rival to have and which are actually the ills coming upon an angry woman or man. The sutta states: ...Monks, there is the case of the rival, who wishes thus of a rival: 'Would that he were ugly!'. And why? A rival, monks, does not like a handsome rival. Monks, this sort of person, being angry, is overwhelmed by anger; he is subverted by anger: and however well he be bathed, anointed, trimmed as to the hair and beard, clad in spotless linen; yet for all that he is ugly, being overwhelmed by anger. Monks, this is the first condition, fostered by rivals, causing rivals, which comes upon an angry woman or man. Again, there is the case of the rival, who wishes thus of a rival: 'Would that he might sleep badly!' And why? A rival, monks, does not like a rival to sleep well. Monks, this sort of person, being angry, is overwhelmed by anger... and in spite of his lying on a couch, spread with a fleecy cover, spread with a white blanket, spread with a woollen coverlet, flower embroidered, covered with rugs of antelope skins, with awnings above; or on a sofa, with crimson cushions at either end; yet for all that he lies in discomfort, being overwhelmed by anger. Monks, this is the second condition.... 2. We then read about other ills a rival wishes for his rival, which come upon an angry woman or man. We read that a rival wishes his rival to be without prosperity, wealth and fame. Further we read that a rival wishes a rival to be without friends and this happens to someone who is an angry person. 3. The text states: 'Monks, this sort of person, being angry... whatever friends, intimates, relations and kinsmen he may have, they will avoid him and keep far away from him, because he is overwhelmed by anger...' 4. A rival wishes his rival to have an unhappy rebirth and this can happen to an angry person. We read: ' ... ..Monks, this sort of person, being angry... he misconducts himself in deed, in word and thought; so living, so speaking and so thinking, on the breaking up of the body after death he is reborn in the untoward way, the ill way, the abyss, hell....' 5. We would like to live in a world of harmony and unity among nations and we are disturbed when people commit acts of violence. We should consider what is the real cause of war and discord between people: it is the defilements which people have accumulated. When we have aversion we think that other people or unpleasant situations are the cause of our aversion. However, our accumulation of dosa is the real cause that aversion arises time and again. If we want to have less dosa we should know the characteristic of dosa and we should be aware of it when it arises. 6. Dosa has many degrees; it can be a slight aversion or it can be more coarse, such as anger. We can recognize dosa when it is coarse, but do we realize that we have dosa when it is more subtle? Through the study of the Abhidhamma we learn more about the characteristic of dosa. Dosa is an akusala cetasika (mental factor) arising with an akusala citta. A citta rooted in dosa is called in Pali: dosa-mula.citta. The characteristic of dosa is different from the characteristic of lobha. When there is lobha, the citta likes the object which it experiences at that moment, whereas when there is dosa, the citta has aversion towards the object it experiences. We can recognize dosa when we are angry with someone and when we speak disagreeable words to him. But when we are afraid of something it is dosa as well, because one has aversion towards the object one is afraid of. There are so many things in life we are afraid of: one is afraid of the future, of diseases, of accidents, of death. One looks for many means in order to be cured of anguish, but the only way is the development of the wisdom which eradicates the latent tendency of dosa. 13006 From: Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 9:14pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Hi Kom, Good reminders about what arises with sati; this is one very good cetasika! One possibility I thought of about reading 'dhamma' as 'paramattha-dhamma' in satipatthana is that it could simply be a rule, a part of the proceedure of a formal practice that leads somewhere. As you say, sati can arise in other situations outside satipatthana. Mostly I'm still a little puzzled about how to understand concept. Hopefully this will clear up as we go along. I couldn't find any more info on thirasanna. Maybe Nina has something. best wishes, Larry 13007 From: Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 9:23pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Hi Kom, one more thought. I forgot about discursive thought during mindfulness practice. You're definitely not supposed to dwell on it. That probably factors in to the paramattha-dhamma 'rule'. Larry 13008 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 10:00pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Dear Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > Hi Kom, > > One possibility I thought of about reading 'dhamma' as > 'paramattha-dhamma' in satipatthana is that it > could simply be a rule, a > part of the proceedure of a formal practice that > leads somewhere. As you As far as I know, this is not a trick or a technique. It's simply just the truth. Only realities exist (even if infinitesmally briefly, even if it is dependently conditioned). > say, sati can arise in other situations outside > satipatthana. Mostly I'm > still a little puzzled about how to understand > concept. Hopefully this > will clear up as we go along. I understand this is really hard to understand (even intellectually, much harder in reality), even though I believe it is the most important distinction one could make. I am sure it will be easier if you keep reading and considering the different distinctions. The amount of explanation of the dhammas, both the tipitika and the commentaries themselves, is just mind boggling: this really shows the compassion of the Buddha. Let me summarize some points about realities and concepts: 1) Realities are directly known, without additional thinking. A baby doesn't know what a table is, but the baby can as well see what appears through the eye-door. Table requires thinking. Visible objects appear directly. 2) Realities have its own characteristics (visesa lakkhana) (including the ti-lakkhana). Concepts don't (again, controversial, at least in this group!). When realities appear through the mind door, it is quite different when concepts appear through the mind door. 3) For most suttas that are apparently about Satipatthana, the Buddha only mention realities (the 5 kandhas). When we compare something that doesn't directly relate to realities, like freedom, this may be easy to see. kom 13009 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 11:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mind Objects and Satipatthana Hi Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > I took the following from Nyanatiloka's dictionary: > > *********************************** > > Dhamma, as object of mind (dhammáyatana, s. áyatana) may be anything > past, > > present or future, corporeal or mental, conditioned or not (cf. > sankhára, > > 4), real or imaginary. > ************************** It's a good point and it was mentioned when we were discussing ayatanas. I think Nyantiloka's dictionary is excellent but there are a few errors. He equates dhammayatana with dhammarammana without any distinction and this doesn't accord with the text as we discussed. Dhammayatana (mind object base) consists of 16 sukhuma rupa (subtle rupa), 52 cetasika (mental factors) and nibbana. I believe this was quoted from Abhidhamatha Sangaha and other source after Num raised the question of pannatti (concepts). Nyantiloka doesn't give any reference to any contrary sources to support his comment. Let me know if you'd like the reference again. Dhammarammana (objects of consciousness) on the other hand, also include objects of sense experience and pannatti (concepts) and the quote above regarding 'real or imaginary' applies to them. Not all arammana are real and can be objects of satipatthana. > dhammánupassaná: 'contemplation of the mind-objects' is the last of > the 4 > foundations of > > mindfulness (satipatthána, q.v.) > > ************************************ > > This says to me that the last of the 4 foundations of mindfulness > is > the contemplation, as object of mind, of "anything past, present or > future, > corporeal or mental, conditioned or not (cf. sankhára, 4), real or > imaginary > ". Does this not seem to go well beyond so-called "realities"? Again, this seems to be a description of dhammarammana and not of dhammanupassana which only refers to any paramattha dhammas which can be objects of satipathana. I haven't seen any evidence or reference in the texts to the contrary, i'll be happy to look at any you find. I agree that the comment in the dictionary is surprising. Kom (I believe) wrote a clear post defining these different terms before. Pls let me know if you'd like me to repost this also. The terms can be very confusing, I know. Sarah ====== 13010 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 11:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samatha bhavana - Rob Ep Dear Rob Ep, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > Well I may have ruined our agreement with my latest rant, but do me a > favor and > pick out the points worth addressing in that thing. I am running away > from it, as > one would if discovering that they had given birth to an elephant. I have no idea about your agreement with Jon (hope you know about agreements with lawyers;-)), but I appreciate your 'rant' with your carefully considered comments and sincere expressions of your understanding of dhamma to date. I'm glad you share them with us all and don't worry about giving birth to elephants (as long as they're not white elephants);-) I'm also enjoying your discussion with Sukin and I think it's very useful and practical. Thanks to you both. No need to run...(leave it to Num), Sarah ===== 13011 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 0:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Study/Meditation Dear Christine, I read your post with great interest and also appreciated Howard’s points on the prison escape;-). --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Sarah and All, > > Your on-list reply to my query about further suggestions for study > seemed a little negative to me at first, and rather startled me. > Then your words mentioning that I've probably read all there is to > read on Paticcasamuppada stimulated further reflection. Though I > have been reading lots and enjoying it, and 'feeling' that it is > helping understanding to grow by seeing the same teaching presented > in different ways - I now wonder if perhaps it was really just an > attempt at creating a structure, a feeling of 'doing' something. > Something to replace the sitting meditation I had ceased to practice. ..... I certainly didn’t mean to discourage any further study or reading and like you, I find it helpful to read different details. I think the point I was making, though, is whether we are studying, sitting in formal M or working in the hospital at this moment, it is the present state of mind that counts. I think we all agree on this. I think we all agree as well that while it is important, even essential, to hear and read the Teachings, the fomal S is not the same as the direct awareness of the realities we’ve just read about. We can never say how much it is useful for anyone to read about Paticcasamuppada or any other aspect of the Teachings. So much depends on our different inclinations and habits. Just as we can see that you and Lucy study maps a little differently from many others, so we all study the Tipitaka differently too. For all of us, though, the test of the study is always at this moment, just like the test of our map-reading is always whether it has helped or hindered at any given time. ..... > Time and again on other lists study is described by sincere, > experienced meditation practitioners as 'clinging to old books', > avoiding 'real' practice; that studying is fine as a small part of > buddhist life (mainly the suttas), but the 'real work' is done in > formal meditation, 'on the cushion'. ..... I think we’re all familiar with these ideas and have mostly thought the same at one time or other. I think it’s also clear that there are many different ideas of what M is. According to Goglerr’s use of the term, with reference to the texts and according to Rob Ep’s wide definition, then we’re all M practioners here. We have to know what ‘real practice’, ‘real work’ and ‘formal M’ are and where the definitions are supported in the Tipitaka as being the Teachings of the Buddha. I don’t think anyone would say that any followers in the Buddha’s life did not listen to the Teachings. Why would the Buddha have taught so extensively if it wasn’t necessary to hear and consider carefully? We seem to be discussing two opposite points here;-) ..... > It has always felt a little frustrating and 'unnatural' not to have > a method - everything else in life from academic learning to cooking > to driving a car, has a method that teaches one to first do this, > then that, and afterwards the next thing, until various milestones > and, eventually, the goal is reached, - except, it seems, in the > gaining of insight. In hindsight, I see that probably 'study' became > my 'method'. ..... I think you’ve understood the point beautifully. We like to be given a method, just as we like to cling to an idea of self and ‘control’ the progress. ..... > You mention the importance of 'developing awareness now and > understanding more about anatta'. I get confused between being > encouraged to 'develop' qualities like awareness, and being told that > these states will be arising regardless of any wishes....and I was > discouraged by my inability to ever fully comprehend 'anatta'. ..... Good points. There is a difference, however, between understanding the value of useful or wholesome qualities and having the idea of self doing something to increase them. You felt discouraged about *your* inability to comprehend anatta. May I suggest that it is discouraging only when there is still the clinging to the idea of *my* ability. or lack of. ..... > Recently though, I have corresponded with experienced people who have > pointed out to me that 'anatta' is not as difficult or complicated to > understand as I believe, or as some imply. That I may have been > making things more difficult for myself, and that increasing > concentration by meditation practice may do away with a lot of > unnecessary ruminating. That I will begin to 'know'.... ..... With all respect to those who have suggested the opposite, we read again and again in the texts about the just how deep in meaning the teaching is, how it cannot be comprehended without the help of the Buddha, how it is only for the very wise and so on. Rob K recently quoted this passage on this point: “in the Mahanidana sutta atthakatha it says that this is such a deep matter: "Its depth of penetration should be understood ..Deep is the meaning of consciousness as emptiness, abscence of an agent.." The tika continues: "Consciousness's meaning of emptiness is deep because consciousness is said to be the distinctive basis for the misapprehension of self. As it is said "for a long time the uninstructed worldling has been attached to this, appropriated it, and misapprehended it thus; 'This is mine this I am , this is self'"(samyutta XII 61 ii94)(bodhi p66)” ***** > When I was doing sitting meditation ( Mahasi), there was always > something to 'watch' and 'label', and be aware of. There was > seemingly some organisation, some structure, some method, some > purpose, something to do .... {- and, I know, some feeling of > some 'one' who is doing..}. I guess I am one of those people who > feel more secure with structure and a task to accomplish - feeling I > have 'some' influence on the way that my life will go. > I wouldn't regard 'becoming an abhidhamma scholar' as any part of my > aim. My learning style is simply to 'hear' or 'read' the Teachings > in many different ways (in print, in person, on tape). Perhaps I am > a little slow, but one presentation of a particular topic doesn't > often 'take'; my experience has been that understanding creeps up on > me, something I couldn't grasp initially, appears fairly simple a few > months later. ..... Chris, I find your comments and considerations here to be very pertinent and useful and there seems to be a clear recognition of the clinging to structure and task and ‘doing’, a recognition of the “’one’ who is doing”, and the way understanding develops naturally, unfolding in its own time. ..... > And so, I am wondering what the point of the last year's work has > been, I feel I have come in a giant loop and I am back at the > beginning again......wondering at the 'gathering of theories, > opinions and book knowledge', wondering why the majority of western > buddhists are involved in sitting meditation and wondering why a very > few aren't. ..... In a way, I think the development of understanding and awareness is rather like a ‘giant loop’ and being ‘back at the beginning again’. We begin to see that the realities and phenomena to be known are just as they’ve always been in ordinary daily life which is just as it is, having been ‘formed up’ by so many different factors. So some of our former ideas and methods may have given the illusion of another kind of daily life or a different set of phenomena or a kind of ‘running away’ from the baby elephant (Rob Ep). I’m not at all poetic, but I want to suggest that there can be the illusion of running or escaping for so long, following all sorts of maps, methods or escape routes, but sooner or later, panna has to develop and know the real phenomena and the roots of dukkha, regardless of the ‘situation’. I’d like to finish with a quote from a post of Kom’s (26 Feb) which I found helpful on the same point: “One understands that when the intricate conditions completely culminates, then the dhamma arises. One understands that one cannot control ANY of the condition as each condition is complexly conditioned by more than a few other dhammas. Pratice (pati-pati, well-rounded comprehension of the dhamma) works in similar ways. No conventional effort is required. When there is enough of other levels of panna, then panna at the pati-pati level rises effortlessly, without the self (tanha, mana, and dithi) directing one to do things to achieve specific results.” ***** Understanding anatta takes courage, sincerity, patience and many other qualities which are often lacking. If we underestimate the difficulty of the path, I believe we make it harder still. Many thanks, Chris, for your open and helpful comments. I fully appreciate that you have probably been diplomatic (read-self moderated) in the comments on your reactions to much of what you read in my earlier post, but please feel free to disagree or raise any discouragement or credulity you feel at anytime. You’ll be doing us all a favour as there will always be others who share similar reactions. metta, Sarah ======= 13012 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 0:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Study/Meditation Hi Christine (and Ken H) --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear KenH, > Did I hear they'd seen the Irukanji > in large numbers off Noosa? :-) :-) > > metta, > Chris Ok...I won't discuss the universal metta now as I'm out of time, but I'd like you to know that the Irukanji reference has been noted...hmmmm:-( :-( According to a short note in our Sunday papers here (for the none-too-wise on this subject), two tourists "have been killed by jellyfish while swimming in NE australian waters..." It seems the Irukanji are highly venomous and very hard to spot as they are only the size of a thumbnail, but with long stinging tentacles. "The Irukandji may habe been responsible for numerous unexplained fatalities, or supposed heart attacks, at sea." Chris, remember when you're sitting snuggly with your hot choc that you're also on lifeguard rescue call. Hope it's not called for. I suppose we could always consider visiting Frank in Hawaii with all the Ss and hopefully no Irukanji...Hmm... As I was saying about present moment realities and proliferations.... Sarah p.s Frank - best wishes in your new spot of dukkha and hope you keep grinning;-) ========= 13013 From: goglerr Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 1:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] re:anicca (do concepts arise and fall?) Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: Hi Goglerr, L:I've decided the most soothing way for my brain to understand concepts is if something is impermanent it is a reality (possibly an erroneous one). If it is not impermanent, it is as concept. G: In my opinion, I would say it in this manner. If it is a concept, it does no have an intrinsic nature (sabhava lakkhana), and without intrinsic nature it's beyond impermanent, unsatisfactorines and non- self. Little addition, Nibbana is still reality, because it has some intrinsic nature but it is beyond the three universal characteristics. L:So mathematics is a concept, but solving a mathematic problem is a reality. G:You're right, the changing mind which is 'working and thinking' trying to solve the problem is reality. But this mind is a very discursive and too 'energetic', they cloud the realities of the mind. The true nature of the mind cannot be seen b'cos it's too 'unstable'. That what happen to us almost every moment of the waking hours where the mind 'wants' to be filled with all kinds of concept. L:Also kings, and even governments, are realities. However, it would be very difficult to be mindful of a government. What do you think? G: On the contrary, kings and goverments are not realities. How could that be? King is a human (concept) but a human is made up of mind and materiality, other words is 5 Aggregates (realities). G: When we see (or hear or read) a 'king', conceptualization takes place. It gives a notion of a 'form' (of a human), aided by memory and perception, mental factor of sanna. This sanna which are already conditioned countless of time since we are born, perceives that form as a 'human' (or a king). Without understanding of the ultimate realities, we are actually dwelling in the world of concepts. G: Of course, in the everyday usage, or in conventional usage, we use these concepts for the sake of communication. It is perfectly OK, nothing wrong with that. The important point is that we should not grasp on these concepts. G: The differentiation between concepts and realities can be achived by vipassana. When we know what is real and what is not-so-real, then letting go will start to take place. Larry Best wishes, goglerr 13014 From: Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 2:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Hi, Kom (and Larry) - In a message dated 4/30/02 1:03:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kom@a... writes: > Let me summarize some points about realities and concepts: > > 1) Realities are directly known, without additional > thinking. A baby doesn't know what a table is, but the baby > can as well see what appears through the eye-door. Table > requires thinking. Visible objects appear directly. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm, maybe so. A baby also doesn't know what brown-wood-color is either, but sees it directly through the eye door. Brown-wood-color, at the sa~n~na level, requires thinking (or, better, mind involvement), though the visible object per se appears directly, without mental involvement. So, there is concept involved with a level of apprehension, the sa~n~na level, even of elementary experiences such as brown-wood-color, just as there is concept involved at the sa~n~na level of compounded experiences such as that of a table. The difference, it seems to me, is that the experience of a table is fabricated by mental functions from more elementary experiences, and involves not only the more elementary experienced objects, but also relations among them. It would seem that concepts of such alleged entities as tables are the standard means that humans have for apprehending patterns and relations. These concepts are powerful mental constructs with much genuine knowledge built in. They have "predictive capacity", to coin a term. By recognizing a pattern of direct experiences as a single "thing" called a table, we can, generally correctly, predict, for example, that carrying out the action we call "touching the table" will result in a feel of hardness. A baby, without that concept, likely would not make such prediction. The problem with concepts is that they are concepts of unitary "things", with separate own-being and identity, whereas the insight of an arahant is superior, giving knowledge and also being free of such reificational error. ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > 2) Realities have its own characteristics (visesa lakkhana) > (including the ti-lakkhana). Concepts don't (again, > controversial, at least in this group!). When realities > appear through the mind door, it is quite different when > concepts appear through the mind door. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: By concepts here, I presume what you are talking about is not concepts-as-ideas, such as the generic idea of 'table', but rather observed instances of such ideas, such as the table I see right now as I look into my living room. Now, in what sense does that table have no characteristics? It is brown, circular with scalloped edge, three-footed, about 3' 6" tall, and about 2' in diameter. It is also true that that table very gradually ages, becomes duller in color, etc, etc. So, it has characteristics, including the tilakkhana. A big difference that I see between that alleged table and the paramattha dhammas from which it is mentally constructed is that the paramattha dhammas are "internal" experiences of hardness, colors, etc, whereas the "table" is mentally projected as being "out there", a seemingly real, unitary "thing" outside of and independent of being discerned. So there is a greater degree of ignorance involved in our apprehension of such a thing as a table. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > 3) For most suttas that are apparently about Satipatthana, > the Buddha only mention realities (the 5 kandhas). When we > compare something that doesn't directly relate to realities, > like freedom, this may be easy to see. > > =========================== 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) 13015 From: Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 6:43am Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Hi Kom, I see what we are talking about now. I was confusing sati with manasikara (attention). I agree it is not a rule; sati cannot have concept for an object. However, isn't it also true sati cannot have any akusala citta for an object? Also, except for impermanence, what is the difference between kusala citta and nibbana? have a nice day, Larry 13016 From: wynn Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 7:58am Subject: Iddhi Hi, Sorry to interupt. Also, I am not sure this is the right place to ask these questions. Before answering my questions, please take note that I am aware that supranormal power is NOT a pre-requisite for enlightenment and it is not necessary to have it all. I am just being curious after readings several passages about it in several books. First Question. Are the KASINA MEDITATION mentioned in the Tipitaka? Second Question Visudhimagga do teaches how to develop supranormal powers. (see Visudhimagga Chapter XII & Chapter V, verse 27 onwards) But does the Tipitaka tell us how? I have never come across it. The nearest is this: ".......And what is the miracle of psychic power? There is the case where a monk wields manifold psychic powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds........." (Kevatta Sutta etc.) Third Question I understand that to have the supernormal power, one must have mastery over the 4 jhanas, right? But, the Visudhimagga said we must have mastery of all the 8 jhanas. But if this is true, does that mean that those who have supranormal powers have mastery of all the 8 jhanas? How do you explain the levitation perform by the yogis of TM (Transcendental Meditation) Regards, Wynn 13017 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 8:38am Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Dear Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 6:43 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom > > > Hi Kom, I see what we are talking about now. I > was confusing sati with > manasikara (attention). I agree it is not a > rule; sati cannot have > concept for an object. However, isn't it also > true sati cannot have any > akusala citta for an object? For satipatthana, any reality can be its object, including akusala citta. Otherwise, we can't tell the difference between kusala and akusala cittas. For non-satipatthana, concepts can be an object of sati. When we have metta, karuna, mudita, or upekkha toward other people, the object is a person or an animal, which is concept (thinking that the visible we see is a person, or a sound we hear belongs to a person, etc.). > Also, except for > impermanence, what is the > difference between kusala citta and nibbana? > 1) Nibbana is an unconditioned reality. Its characteristics doesn't depend on other realties. 2) Nibbana has neither impermanence nor dukkha as its characteristics. When we say something is conditioned, it means a variety of factors bring something else into existence, although very briefly. For example, we may feel compassionate toward other people when they are suffering. Seeing and hearing, along with our accumulations, condition the thinking about the person in a compassionate way. When we see something unfolding in our daily life, and we think of how the dhamma applies to the situation, having listened to the dhamma, our accumulations, and seeing or hearing (etc.) condition the consideration. When we are aware of the characteristic of a reality, having listened to the dhamma and considered the dhamma, firm memory of the teaching, and seeing/hearing (etc.) condition the rising of awareness. There is no self that does, no single factor that brings about. When conditions are ripe, the result of those conditions occurs. Even right now, can we force ourself to understand what other people are saying? Can we force ourself to have kusala or akusala? I am hearing a voice outside my condo, I feel slight anger because I dislike loud noises. Hearing conditions unwise reflection which conditions akusala states. This is despite the knowledge that akusala is not good, and the fact that we are dicussing dhammas! Nibbana has no such property. Nothing conditions nibbana, although nibbana can be an object of the citta. Because nibbana is unconditioned, it also doesn't fall away. This is why nibbana is the supreme reality (bliss?). No other dhamma can be truely relied on, because they all fall away (including jhana, panna, kusala, etc.), but nibbana can be truly relied on. Nina has explain that when we say we take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, the dhamma here ultimately means nibbana, for it is an unconditioned reality. kom 13018 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 8:59am Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Dear Howard, > -----Original Message----- > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > > 1) Realities are directly known, without additional > > thinking. A baby doesn't know what a table is, > but the baby > > can as well see what appears through the > eye-door. Table > > requires thinking. Visible objects appear directly. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Mmm, maybe so. A baby also doesn't know > what brown-wood-color is > either, but sees it directly through the eye > door. Brown-wood-color, at the > sa~n~na level, requires thinking (or, better, > mind involvement), though the > visible object per se appears directly, without > mental involvement. So, there > is concept involved with a level of apprehension, > the sa~n~na level, even of > elementary experiences such as brown-wood-color, > just as there is concept > involved at the sa~n~na level of compounded > experiences such as that of a > table. Thank you for the additional details adding depth to the discussions. The example of a table, and baby not cognizing table, and that we do are usually an effective example to explain the high-level differences between concepts and realities. The abhidhamma gives further explanation that even if the baby doesn't cognize the concept of a table (being a place to put things on, having 4 legs, being hard, called a table, etc.). By cognizing shape and form (this I have seen in the past, it is different from other shapes, it is located in such and such places, etc.), the baby is already cognizing a concept. When a visible object appears to the mind door, it also appears to the mind door that immediately follows afterward. After the repetition of the visible objects, elementary concepts form even without the knowledge of utility or a language. Animals also have concepts of things and selves. A full-grown human has more elaborate concepts (that more often mislead them) about a table because of the knowledge of utilities, language, etc. We mistake the concept as being real, identifying the concept with what just appeared through the eyedoor, and meanwhile missing all the sign of impermanence, dukkha, and non-self. > The difference, it seems to me, is that > the experience of a table is > fabricated by mental functions from more > elementary experiences, and involves > not only the more elementary experienced objects, > but also relations among > them. It would seem that concepts of such alleged > entities as tables are the > standard means that humans have for apprehending > patterns and relations. Agreeing with you so far. > These concepts are powerful mental constructs > with much genuine knowledge > built in. They have "predictive capacity", to > coin a term. By recognizing a > pattern of direct experiences as a single "thing" > called a table, we can, > generally correctly, predict, for example, that > carrying out the action we > call "touching the table" will result in a feel > of hardness. Yes, conventionally, this is a very useful knowledge. The problem is we take these tables as being what they are not: tables, without knowing that is a construct of realities (and beyond), and miss all the useful (dhammic) signs of visible objects as realities. > A baby, without > that concept, likely would not make such > prediction. The problem with > concepts is that they are concepts of unitary > "things", with separate > own-being and identity, whereas the insight of an > arahant is superior, giving > knowledge and also being free of such reificational error. I think we do agree quite a bit here, Howard. This conditions much joy and lobha. kom 13019 From: Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 0:34pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Hi Kom, How about this. Sati arises with all kusala cittas. Sati cetasika cannot arise with an akusala citta. However, a kusala consciousness stream practicing satipatthana can cognize an akusala consciousness which interrupts the satipatthana. This is called mindfulness of mind (cittanupassana-satipatthanam). This citta of cittanupassana which interrupts the satipatthana can be cognizing anything, even concepts as in discursive thinking. Also, I think panna must be present in satipatthana but not necessarily arise with all kusala cittas. Sati by itself is just presence of mind; panna brings the understanding. back to you, Larry 13020 From: Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 0:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re:anicca (do concepts arise and fall?) Hi Goglerr, I don't know if it does much good to distinguish between concept and reality since they both can be the object of lobha-dosa-moha. Conceit (mana) and personality belief (sakkaya-ditthi) are realities, not concepts; how can that be? The main difference I see is that we can see the arising and dissolution of paramattha dhammas, but we can also see the arising and dissolution of a cookie. What about that??? Larry 13021 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 1:42pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Dear Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > > Hi Kom, > How about this. Sati arises with all kusala cittas. Sati cetasika cannot Sati also rises with sobhana vipaka and kiriya cittas. > arise with an akusala citta. However, a kusala consciousness stream Yes. > practicing satipatthana can cognize an akusala consciousness which > interrupts the satipatthana. This is called mindfulness of mind > (cittanupassana-satipatthanam). Yes, when there is satipatthana cognizing the citta as akusala (and as dhamma, not-self), this is called cittanupassana-satipatthanam. > This citta of cittanupassana which > interrupts the satipatthana can be cognizing anything, even concepts as > in discursive thinking. Yes. > > Also, I think panna must be present in satipatthana but not necessarily > arise with all kusala cittas. Yes. Panna is a necessary component in satipatthana, but panna doesn't rise with all kusala cittas (because we can give dana without any wisdom associated with it). In fact, not all panna is at the satipatthana level. There must be also panna in tranquil meditation, but it is panna that knows the differences between kusala and akusala states, and what brings about the kusala and akusala states. This is not panna at the satipatthana level, which requires the teaching of anattaness by a sammasam-Buddha (except for all the buddhas, of course!). > Sati by itself is just presence of mind; > panna brings the understanding. Yes. One thing that I notice is that you word it that Satipatthana is interrupted. In a person who just begins to develop satipatthana, it is more like satipatthana interrupting the stream of akusala, and not otherwise. kom 13022 From: Lucy Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 5 (1-7) Hi Larry You didn't mess it up. I've seen it as sympathetic joy too --- somehow, I think one has to like people at least a little to be able to develop mudita. Perhaps that's why it comes after metta and karuna. Reading the description of metta practice in the Vismg., it seems like hardly anyone I know qualifies as an object to start with (apart from myself!!!) - can't be a teacher or a close friend or someone from the opposite sex or a sick or dead person or ... so, to be on the safe side, I started by cultivating metta on animals : ) Lucy ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:03 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 5 (1-7) > Hi Lucy, I messed up the definition of mudita. It's appreciative joy, > not sympathetic joy. My mindfulness is operating on a three hour delay > and it didn't occur to me until the middle of the night. > > What I find interesting about mudita is that it seems to open the door > to liking people (and things). That's different! > > Larry 13023 From: Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 4:06pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Thanks Kom,I didn't know that panna at the satipatthana level includes recognition of anatta. Good to know. I have a much better appreciation of sati now. Thanks Larry 13024 From: Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 4:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 5 (1-7) Hi Lucy, regarding the develoment of metta, there's always regarding all beings as your mother from a previous life. I did that for a while but got some very funny looks. Larry 13025 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 7:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samatha bhavana - Rob Ep --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob Ep, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > > Well I may have ruined our agreement with my latest rant, but do me a > > favor and > > pick out the points worth addressing in that thing. I am running away > > from it, as > > one would if discovering that they had given birth to an elephant. > > I have no idea about your agreement with Jon (hope you know about > agreements with lawyers;-)), but I appreciate your 'rant' with your > carefully considered comments and sincere expressions of your > understanding of dhamma to date. I'm glad you share them with us all and > don't worry about giving birth to elephants (as long as they're not white > elephants);-) > > I'm also enjoying your discussion with Sukin and I think it's very useful > and practical. Thanks to you both. > > No need to run...(leave it to Num), > > Sarah > ===== > thanks, Sarah, very much for your reassurance. sometimes I frighten myself a bit when I read my own posts. now let's see if Jon is equally forgiving of my baby elephant. : ) best, Robert 13026 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 7:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re:anicca (do concepts arise and fall?) this is very interesting. thanks! robert ep. --- goglerr wrote: > Hi Robert, Howard and all, > > Knock! Knock! I would like to barge in for a moment, if u don't > mind? > > The discussion on `concept' caught my eye. I have checked out a few > things from some books to add in, just to make the discussion more > interesting (or perhaps more confusing!). smile > > We understand that the 4 ultimate realities (paramattha dhamma) are > consisting of materiality, consciousness, mental factors and Nibbana. > And the `nature' of concepts (which are `natureless') are explained > from the by the excellent attachment posted by Robert > entitled`Philosophical Cornerstone of the ABHIDHAMMA' by Y. > Karunadasa, The Wheel Publication No. 412/413. > > Pa~n~nati (translated as concepts, idea or notion) are divided into > two categories. > > A. Concept which is made known (pa~n~napiyatiti) > It makes or fabricates a meaning for the mind. For e.g. the notion > of `a piece of machine with lighted screen which you're starring at', > therefore that `notion' begins to fabricate a meaning for the mind. > In other word a notion is born. This concept is also known as attha > pa~n~nati (concept-as-meanings or meaning-concept) > > B. Concepts which makes known (pa~n~napetiti) > It means labeling the notion with a name or a designation. For e.g. > the above notion `a piece of machine with lighted screen which > you're starring at', is mentally labeled as `monitor'. This > concepts is also known as nama pa~n~nati (concept-as-name or name- > concept). So the notion (attha pannati) is designated as `monitor' > (nama pannati). Then, this mental labeling is translated into > speech/words (sadda pannati), that means we actually say it out or > write it down. Just like what I understand (attha pannati) right now, > I put in down in words (nama/sadda pannati). Also we can translate > the notion into action like hand-sign. > > Let's go back to Atthapannathi. There are 6 classes of concept-as- > meaning. > > 1) Formal concepts (santhana pannati) > They correspond to form or configuration of things or the continuity > of things. They correspond to the 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional > world. For e.g. land, mountains, rivers etc. > > 2) Collective concept (samuha pannati) > They correspond to a collective or group of things. For e.g. house, > car, computer, man, woman, a being (satta pannati) etc. > > 3) Directional concepts (disa pannati) > They correspond to a locality or direction, the relationship from one > thing to another. For e.g. east, west, there, up, down, upward, > right, left etc. > > 4) Time concepts (kala pannati) > They correspond to periods or unit of time. They also built upon > recurrent and continuous flow of material and mental phenomena. For > e.g. morning, noon, week, months etc. In material sense, they involve > light and darkness (as in day or night). In mental sense, they > involve mental activities such as sleeping time, lunch time, working > time etc. (There is a book `Abhidhamma Studies: Buddhist > exploration of consciousness and time' by Nyanaponika Thera give wide > coverage on the idea of time from the Buddhist perspective). > > 5) Space concepts (akasa pannati) > They correspond to open spaces or to spatial regions void of > perceptible matter. For e.g. well, cave, hall, window etc. > > 6) Sign concepts (nimitta pannati) > They correspond to visualized images such the learner's sign and > mirror image of tranquility meditation (such as color kasina). Many > hallucination and imageries also come this category. > > Now we go to nama pannati (concept-as-name). They are also 6 ways of > labeling. > > 1) A (direct) concept of what is real. (vijjamana pannati) > Materiality, feelings, consciousness, greed, anger, mental factors, > Nibbana etc. really exist in ultimate sense, which can be directly > experienccs without conceptualisation. The concepts that designate > them (as in words) are called direct concepts of what is real. A > direct experience of the continous arising and ceasing of a real > phenomena (for e.g a painful feeling) is ultimate reality and terming > them as `impermanent' is a direct concept (of that painful feeling). > We have to convey the `activity' of a real phenomena to somebody, > therefore we have to the term `impermanent'. > > 2) A (direct) concept of what is unreal. (avijjamana pannati) > Land, river, hill, person, man, woman, etc. are not ultimate > realities but conventional entities established conceptually through > mental construction. Though these concepts are based on ultimate > realities, the meanings they convey are not things that are > themselves ultimate realities since they do not correspond to things > that exist of their own intrinsic nature (sabhavato). > > 3) A concept of the unreal by means of the real (vijjamanena > avijjamana pannati) > The following no. 3, 4, 5 and 6 will be a combination of no 1 and 2. > E.g. the meditator (person) is mindful. The `meditator' is not real > but `mindful' (with mindfulness) is something real. > > 4) A concept of the real by means of the unreal. (avijjamanena > vijjamana pannati) > E.g. the voice of a man. The `voice' is real but the 'man' is not > real. > > 5) A concept of real by means of real (vijjamanena vijjamana pannati) > E.g. the consciousness of greed. The `consciousness' and 'greed' are > real. > > 6) A concept of unreal by means of unreal (avijjamanena vijjamana > pannati) > E.g. Today is my birthday. `Today', `my', and 'birthday' are not real > ultimately. > > There is also another 6 ways of description of concepts but they are > actually a mixture of both type of concepts (attha and nama pannati) > which are presented above. > > So we may see from here how concepts are formed and conveyed to each > other. The world of concepts, without a doubt, still important in our > everyday life as we need to communicate with each other. We also need > to remind ourselves not to be too engrossed with them. Instead, we > need to look for the world of realities where the end of suffering > lies. > > There are some references for `concepts'. Visuddhimagga (trans by > Nanamoli, VII, footnote 18), Comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma > (trans by B. Bodhi, VIII, pg 325-328), The psychology & philosophy of > Buddhism (by Jayasuriya), Compendium of Philosophy (PTS, 1979 > Anuruddha), Essentials of Insight Meditation (Sujiva) > > Ok. That all for now. > > Goglerr > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > > Hi, Robert - > > > > > > In a message dated 4/26/02 3:11:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: 13027 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 7:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Supportive spiritual practices (was, what is extreme? ...) Dear Jon, For me personally, I tend to judge practices by their effects rather than by their designation. I tend to see Buddhist thought as the clearest expression of the true human condition, but do see other philosophies as having a place on the continuum of the spiritual life of our species. As regards yoga, I think that it has positive effects, and that it is a practice that can create conditions for the development of peacefulness, concentration, perceptual clarity, the ability to observe thoughts and calm emotions. While I appreciate the possibility you have mentioned several times that such practices can give 'false readings' through suppressing akusala without eradicating it, or create pleasant feelings with attachment that are not really kusala but seem to be [see, I do pay attention at times], I think the overall effect of yoga is positive. To me, the overall state of the body and mind, including the condition of the nervous system, and the psychic energy channels which correspond to what an acupuncurist would talk about, all have an influence on how capable someone is to view realities clearly as they arise, and distinguish thought from object, concept from thought, etc., all the things that denote mindfulness and the development of wisdom. I do not think that yoga by itself can take a person to an understanding of anatta and anicca, but I do think that yoga has a lot to teach about the changing nature of phenomena, control, dissatisfaction, all of which are confronted every time someone works through a pose. In other words, I think it is a positive conditioning agent and a powerful aid on the path. Like any corrolary medicine, it can take one in the wrong direction if used incorrectly. When the friend/teacher I mentioned did his Vipassana retreats, he was used to doing a little yoga inbetween sittings. This was generally discouraged at the retreat center, but they decided in his case to approve it, because the way that he used the yoga was to deal with his body in a way that promoted discernment. He had some medical conditions that the yoga handled to some extent. Anyway, if one has Buddhist principles and path in mind, and uses yoga as a corrolary agent, I think its preparation of the body and mind can be very helpful. Best, Robert Ep. ========================== --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E > > I note your impassioned (and articulate) arguments in favour of 'supportive > spiritual practices' from outside the teachings (for example, yoga) in the > development of the understanding that is the heart of the teachings. > > Just to clarify where you stand on this issue, would you say that the view > that, 'There is no connection between the practice of yoga and the development > of insight' is in accordance with, or is contrary to, the teachings as you > understand them. > > I ask this not to be picky or anything like that, but to draw out a point ;-). > > Jon > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > hi. > > I am one of those strange people who think that supportive spiritual > > practices do > > increase one's spiritual state. That is one of the reasons I keep arguing in > > favor of meditation, and I would also argue in favor of yoga. To me, the > > path > > involves understanding Dhamma, everyday discernment and skillful practices > > that > > increase one's Right Energy, Right View, etc. When the mind is cleared of > > obscuring concepts in meditation, or the body made more relaxed and the > > nerves > > cleared out through yoga, to me these create conducive conditions for > > understanding and insight. > > > > I have never been able to put the Dhamma in a box where there is one right > > interpretation and one right practice. Has my knowledge of Hindu Advaita > > Vedanta > > or Zen or Tibetan Dzogchen been inconsequential to my understanding of > > Dhamma? To > > me, having a cross-reference of enlightened knowledge is a great asset which > > serves as an underlying commentary to rightly understand teachings. > > > > The fact that the 'modern' father of Yoga, Patanjali, wrote of an Eight-fold > > Path > > [Ashtanga], does not seem totally coincidental to me with the Buddha's Noble > > Eightfold Path. One who has a sense of history will see that there are often > > more > > than coincidences in these sorts of synchronies. Sometimes they mean > > something, > > sometimes they don't. But I don't personally find it helpful to see > > Theravadan > > Buddhism, or Abhidhamma in particular, or whatever one adopts as one's main > > approach to Realization, as an isolated study, an island in the middle of a > > sea of > > inconsequential things that are all thoroughly 'other'. I personally like a > > synergistic approach, as I believe that there is a dialectic in the history > > of > > thought, philosophy and even enlightenment, which comes up in different forms > > throughout history. > > > > The idea that there is a fixed 'Buddhism' which is the only right one, and > > that it > > is not developed but either found as a whole or lost as a static whole, does > > not > > seem right to me. Rather, it seems to me that the principles of Buddhism are > > the > > core that doesn't change, but that the outer form does change, and not only > > changed after the Buddha's parinibbana, but even during the Buddha's > > lifetime, as > > he spoke to different groups, and to my mind, probably became more skillful > > and > > precise at expressing the Dhamma throughout his long career. To see the > > Buddha as > > a static entity who was 'perfect' and thus fixed in stone from the moment of > > his > > Enlightenment, to me also turns the Buddha into a Godhead, and takes away the > > practical skillful development which he himself always praised, and which all > > Buddhist teachers have partaken of throughout their careers. > > > > So for me, the ultimate state of Realization may be a very definite > > experience and > > may not be variable, the principles of Buddhism may be unique, particularly > > Buddha's teaching of Anatta, but the evolution of Buddhism and many of its > > elements are not only shared by various forms of Buddhist practice, but even > > have > > elements in common with other traditions, and which may shed light on the > > true > > nature of the Dhamma. > > > > I know this is not a popular standpoint, but I thought I would take the > > occasion > > to speak my mind. Of course I will go back to the Dhamma, and attempt to be > > in > > the presence of its true meaning, but I will not erase my sense that the > > world is > > in a state of spiritual evolution, and that it is something that all of us > > share > > in various forms. > > > > If Frank *had* meant that his yoga had an influence on his spiritual opening > > or > > understanding of Buddhism, I personally would accept it as a good and > > worthwhile > > possibility. I don't want to be dogmatic about Buddhism, and assume that > > anything > > that isn't expressly from the official version of Buddhism as we imperfectly > > understand it at this time, is the only area from which to draw valuable > > experiences along the path. > > > > Take Care, > > Robert Ep. 13028 From: Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 8:23pm Subject: ADL ch. 6 (7-17) from: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life chapter 6, paragraphs 7-17 7. Dosa is conditioned by lobha: we do not want to lose what is dear to us and when this actually happens we are sad. Sadness is dosa, it is akusala. If we do not know things as they are, we believe that people and things last. However, people and things are only phenomena which arise and fall away immediately. The next moment they have changed already. If we can see things as they are we will be less overwhelmed by sadness. It makes no sense to be sad about what has happened already. 8. In the 'Psalms of the Sisters' (Therigatha, 33) we read that the king's wife Ubbiri mourned the loss of her daughter Jiva. Every day she went to the cemetery. She met the Buddha who told her that in that cemetery about eighty-four thousand of her daughters (in past lives) had been burnt. 9.The Buddha said to her: 'O, Ubbiri, who wails in the wood Crying, O Jiva! O my daughter dear! Come to yourself! See, in this burying-ground Are burnt full many a thousand daughters dear, And all of them were named like unto her. Now which of all those Jivas do you mourn?' 10. After Ubbiri pondered over the Dhamma thus taught by the Buddha she developed insight and saw things as they really are; she even attained arahatship. 11. There are other akusala cetasikas which can arise with cittas rooted in dosa. Regret or worry, in Pali: kukkucca, is an akusala cetasika which arises with dosa-mula-citta at the moment we regret something bad we did or something good we did not do. When there is regret we are thinking of the past instead of knowing the present moment. When we have done something wrong it is of no use having aversion. 12. Envy (issa) is another cetasika which can arise with dosa-mula-citta. There is envy when we do not like someone else to enjoy pleasant things. At that moment the citta does not like the object it experiences. We should find out how often envy arises, even when it is more subtle. This is a way to know whether we really care for someone else or whether we only think of ourselves when we associate with others. 13. Stinginess (macchariya) is another akusala cetasika which may arise with dosa-mula-citta. When we are stingy there is dosa as well. At that moment we do not like someone else to share in our good fortune. 14. Dosa always arises with an unpleasant feeling (domanassa vedana). Most people do not like to have dosa because they do not like to have an unpleasant feeling. As we develop more understanding of realities we want to eradicate dosa not so much because we dislike unpleasant feeling but rather because we realize the adverse effects of akusala. 15. The doorways through which dosa can arise are the five sense-doors and the mind-door. It can arise when we see ugly sights, hear harsh sounds, smell unpleasant odours, taste unappetizing food, receive painful bodily impressions and think of disagreeable things. Whenever there is a feeling of uneasiness, no matter how slight, it is a sign that there is dosa. Dosa may often arise when there are unpleasant impressions through the senses, for example, when the temperature is too hot or too cold. Whenever there is a slightly unpleasant bodily sensation dosa may arise, be it only of a lesser degree. 16. Dosa arises when there are conditions for it. It arises so long as there is still attachment to the objects which can be experienced through the five senses. Everybody would like to experience only pleasant things and when we do not have them any more, dosa can arise. 17. Another condition for dosa is ignorance of Dhamma. If we are ignorant of kamma and vipaka, cause and result., dosa may arise very easily on account of an unpleasant experience through one of the senses and thus dosa is accumulated time and again. An unpleasant experience through one of the senses is akusala vipaka caused by an unwholesome deed we perforrned. When we, for example, hear unpleasant words from someone else we may be angry with that person. Those who have studied Dhamma know that hearing something unpleasant is akusala vipaka which is not caused by someone else but by an unwholesome deed we performed ourselves. A moment of vipaka falls away immediately, it does not stay. Are we not inclined to keep on thinking about an unpleasant experience? If there is more awareness of the present moment one will be less inclined to think with aversion about one's akusala vipaka. 13029 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 10:32pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Dear Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > Thanks Kom,I didn't know that panna at the > satipatthana level includes > recognition of anatta. Good to know. I have a > much better appreciation > of sati now. Thanks Regarding cognition of anattaness, it is said that the first time that the anattaness truely appears is when the distinction between nama and rupa (nama-rupa-paricheta-nana) appears. This is when it is (temporarily) clear that there is only nama and rupa, and that there is no self. This is also when it is clear that conditioned realities come into existence because of conditions, and not a self that wills it. kom 13030 From: wangchuk37 Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 11:10pm Subject: buddhist bibliography May update the May update to the Buddhist bibliography is now online at : http://www.cyberdistributeur.com/buddbib.html enjoy your reading ! 13031 From: Buddhist Environmental Network Date: Wed May 1, 2002 1:17am Subject: Buddhist Enironmental Network This month (May 2002) sees the launch of the Buddhist Enironmental Network (BEN). We need subscribers (it's free!) and also volunteers. If you simply want to be kept informed of progress and our campaigns, please reply, inserting the word "News" in the subject field. We aim to be an active, fully engaged network and are keen to recruit volunteers to help in BEN's development or to be more actively involved in campaigning work. If you think you could help then please reply to this email substituting the word "Help" in the subject field. (You will also automatically receive our update and campaign mailings.) In addition to working through email, we hope to set up local groups where members can meet and network on environmental issues. Below you will find more information in the form of BEN's Mission Statement MISSION STATEMENT The Buddhist Environmental Network (B-E-N) works with Buddhists from all traditions to create environmental solutions that are rooted deeply within the Buddhist Precepts and the acknowledgement of the interdependence of all life. Through public education, publications, practice groups and outreach, B-E-N seeks to link Buddhist teachings of compassion, wisdom, tolerance and non-violence with efforts and campaigns to create a sustainable environment together with a culture of reduced consumption and waste, serving as a catalyst for socially engaged Buddhism." With apologies for any cross-postings. David Meanwell - BEN 13032 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed May 1, 2002 2:41am Subject: A question on enlightenment Dear All, While reading Summary of Paramattha Dhammas, I came across a passage that raised some questions. http://www.dhammastudy.com/paramat.html In SPD Part 1, it is said about the Buddha, " Enlightenment rendered him without defilement, and he manifested the Dhamma so that those who practice accordingly would also eradicate their defilements. Therefore Buddhists should study and examine to know the Dhamma, the truth with which the Buddha became enlightened, and how the latter differs from the truth as we imagine or believe it to be." Would it be possible for a person to think they were following 'right teachings of the Dhamma' and have various experiences they thought were 'right' mindfullness, 'right concentration' and 'right jhana' right up to an experience they felt was 'right' Nibbana - but all the time it was not 'right' but 'wrong' teachings of the Dhamma, 'wrong' mindfullness, 'wrong' concentration, 'wrong' jhana and even (is it possible) to experience 'wrong' nibbana? ....and, if so, how would they ever know? Feelings of peace and delight, and an inner certainty could deceive a person couldn't they? metta, Christine 13033 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 1, 2002 4:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on enlightenment Dear Christine, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > > Would it be possible for a person to think they were following 'right > teachings of the Dhamma' and have various experiences they thought > were 'right' mindfullness, 'right concentration' and 'right jhana' > right up to an experience they felt was 'right' Nibbana - but all the > time it was not 'right' but 'wrong' teachings of the Dhamma, 'wrong' > mindfullness, 'wrong' concentration, 'wrong' jhana and even (is it > possible) to experience 'wrong' nibbana? .... ..... Yes. It's called wrong view which always thinks wrong is right. The Tipitaka is full of references. ..... >and, if so, how would > they ever know? ..... Only panna (wisdom) can know, which is why it is so essential. ..... >Feelings of peace and delight, and an inner certainty > could deceive a person couldn't they? ..... Certainly. Lobha (attachment), mana (conceit), ditthi.(wrong view)..... Sarah ======= 13034 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 1, 2002 5:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samatha bhavana - Rob Ep Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > Well I may have ruined our agreement with my latest rant, but do me a favor and > pick out the points worth addressing in that thing. I am running away from it, as > one would if discovering that they had given birth to an elephant. Well, there was no agreement that said you couldn't have a rant -- feel free any time! I'll certainly get back to you on that post. In the meantime, I hope you don’t mind me picking up on the non-rant side of our discussion ;-)). You said: > > > … being present to the reality of the moment to the greatest extent > > > possible is … something that can be done at any time > > > and which is surely the correct practice in daily life. I'm sure this wasn’t just a throw-away remark on your part, Rob, and I believe it's well worth following up. Regardless of one's view of the relevance or importance of samatha to the development of the path, the fact is that for most if not all of the day we are in a situation other than a 'samatha practice' situation. What is the 'correct practice in daily life' at those times? I believe your characterisation of 'being present to the reality of the moment' is fine, assuming of course that reality here means the same as in the suttas. In the suttas, the emphasis is on the reality of the moment being something quite different from how it appears to us, namely as being the 5 khandhas, the six sets of six, the 'all' etc. In the Satipatthana Sutta, it is given a 4-fold classification. But it comes down to the same dhammas that make up the world as we know it. I would be interested to know whether you draw on these sutta descriptions in your use of the term 'reality of the moment'. Jon PS I would still like to hear your comments on my own attempt at your 'being present to the reality of the moment'. Do you see any major differences here? "> > ………. the crux of the development of > > insight is the knowing of the true nature of the realities of the present > > moment, and that this includes any reality of any present moment, regardless of > > the nature of the reality (nama or rupa, wholesome or unwholesome, internal or > > external), on the basis that all realties are taken as being permanent, > > satisfactory and self (in one of the 3 aspects), yet in reality are not so?" > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Rob E > > > > I particularly liked your remarks that: > > > … being present to the reality of the moment to the greatest extent > > > possible is … something that can be done at any time > > > and which is surely the correct practice in daily life. So that may be > > > something we can all agree on, while we argue about everything else. > > > > As you say, we can keep up the discussion on other (doctrinal) points, but > > let's not neglect giving each other support in understanding the reality of the > > present moment at any time. > > > > Personally, I see this as the most useful thing that can be discussed on this > > list. It is the understanding of the realities ('dhammas') of the present > > moment that leads to the realisation of the Noble Eightfold Path. > > > > In my view this is also by far the most difficult aspect of the teaching to > > come to terms with. > > > > Jon 13035 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 1, 2002 5:43am Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Thanks Kom, I see my mistake. I was equating satipatthana with vipassana > but that's not quite correct. I think I found the source of the > controversy over objects of satipatthana, but first here are some > interesting snippets from "A Comprehensive Manual Of Abhidhamma". … > ch.7, #24 > In the compendium of requisites of enlightenment, there are four > foundations of mindfulness: (1) the foundation of mindfulness in > contemplation of the body; (2) the foundation of mindfulness in > contemplation of feelings; (3) the foundation of mindfulness in > contemplation of consciousness; (4) the foundation of mindfulness in > contemplation of mental objects. > > Larry: 'contemplation of mental objects' is a translation of > 'dhammanupassana.' So the controversy is, does this 'dhamma' mean > paramattha-dhamma or dhammarammana. I would think something would have > to prevent sati from taking concepts as object, but I don't see what it > would be. Do you have a source or reason for your interpretation? The Satipatthana Sutta itself gives a detailed explanation of the things that comprise dhammanupassana. It says (quoting from the translation in 'The Way of Mindfulness', http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html): "And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in mental objects? "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects in the mental objects of the five hindrances, … of the five aggregates of clinging, … of the six internal and the six external sense-bases, … of the seven factors of enlightenment, … of the Four Noble Truths." According to my reading of the texts, these sets are all references to paramattha dhammas, not concepts. The commentary to the sutta (same translation) relates each of the 4 foundations of mindfulness to corresponding dhammas comprising the 5 aggregates (khandhas): "Further, … in the contemplation on the body, the laying hold of the aggregate of corporeality or materiality [J: rupa-khandha] was spoken of by the Master; "in the contemplation on feeling, the laying hold of the aggregate of feeling [J: vedana-khandha]; "in the contemplation on mind, the laying hold of the aggregate of consciousness [J: vinnana-khandha]; "and now [i.e. in the contemplation on mental objects] … the laying hold of the aggregates of perception and formations [J: sanna-khandha, sankhara-khandha], …" To my knowledge, all the ancient texts support the interpretation of the 5 khandhas and dhammanupassana as excluding concepts. Some modern-day commentators, however, assert that concepts are included in these classifications. Jon 13036 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 1, 2002 5:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Antidotes to lobha Lucy --- Lucy wrote: > > > > 3. We should also know the more subtle lobha which arises when we enjoy > > a fragrant smell or beautiful music. It seems that there are no akusala > > cittas when we do not harm others, but also the more subtle lobha is > > akusala; it is different from generosity which is kusala. We cannot > > force ourselves not to have lobha, but we can get to know the > > characteristic of lobha when it appears. > > > > Hi all ! > > One of the "M" antidotes for lobha is to "offer" the object of enjoyment to > the Buddha when we notice lobha has arisen - If I'm mindful (not very > often), a drive from home to anywhere has me constantly piling up > mountains, sheep, colours, flowers, trees etc., etc. on the mental altar - > and then one has to remember dedicating the merit of the offerings... Don't > know whether there's much merit in it or not, but it's an interesting > little exercise because it can serve as a constant reminder of lobha. > > "M" is full of these "antidotes" - are there any similar practices in the > Theravada ? > > Best wishes > Lucy In the Theravada texts, the emphasis is on understanding the dhammas of the present moment as and when they arise, and this includes of course all kinds of lobha, although not especially lobha in preference to any other kind of reality. Seeing dhammas as they truly are is the only 'antidote' of any lasting efficacy. Lobha that has already arisen or has not yet arisen, is not regarded as being capable of being 'dealt with' in any sense, as far as I know. There is, however, a wholesome mental factor of 'wise attention' that has the function described as guarding the sense-doors. Jon 13037 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 1, 2002 5:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? TG --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > In the Samyutta Nikaya the Buddha describes the 5 Khandhas as... > > "...form should be seen as a bursting bubble, feeling should be seen as a > lump of foam, perception should be seen as a mirage, mental formations should > > be seen as a plantian tree (coreless), consciousness should be seen as a > conjurers trick..." > > Doesn't sound to me like the Buddha wants them to be thought of as ultimate > realities. Seems like he wants them to be seen as unsubstantial as humanly > possible. Calling them "ultimate realities" seems to against that grain to > me. I wonder if seeing them as ultimate realities embeds a type of > substantiality and self view that is counter-productive to detaching from > conditions (non-attachment). I understand the reasoning behind describing > them as ultimate realities, I'm just not sure its a very good idea? > > TG An interesting observation -- 'ultimate reality', yet like a bubble or a lump of foam. Well, I suppose it's an example of looking at the same thing from different perspectives. They are 'ultimate' in the sense of being the underlying phenomena of what we take for people and things, yet they also have no intrinsic merit. Both aspects need to be understood. Jon 13038 From: frank kuan Date: Wed May 1, 2002 7:28am Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom the controversy: --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: (4) the foundation > of mindfulness in > > contemplation of mental objects. ...So the controversy is, does > this 'dhamma' mean > > paramattha-dhamma or dhammarammana. > The Satipatthana Sutta... > "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the > mental objects in the mental objects > of the five hindrances, … of the five aggregates of > clinging, … of the six internal and > the six external sense-bases, … of the seven factors > of enlightenment, … of the Four > Noble Truths." > > According to my reading of the texts, these sets are > all references to paramattha > dhammas, not concepts. Can you explain how you read it that way? I've always wondered what the hell is that sutta talking about with the 4th foundation of mindfulness being "mind-objects" when it appears to me dhamma is referring to concepts, specifically buddhist concepts. I mean, come on, 5 hindrances, 7 factors of enlightenment as paramatta ultimate realities? How do you make a case for that? Might as well say Frank is an ultimate reality too. As I see it, one could only make a case for that only if the 4th foundation of mindfulness of dhamma referred exclusively to the 3 marks, 5 aggregates, 6 sense bases. And even so, many buddhists would argue that even the 3 marks are concepts, not ultimate realities to be wrongly grasped. Now I should say that I'm still open to the possibility that the 4th foundtion of mindulness starts with concepts, but there is some special technique where one should contemplate these buddhist dhammic concepts in such a way that their "utlimate realities" can be seen, but where are the details on how this is done? It's not in the sutta. -fk 13039 From: Date: Wed May 1, 2002 4:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on enlightenment Hi, Sarah (and Christine) - In a message dated 5/1/02 7:45:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Dear Christine, > > --- christine_forsyth wrote: > > > > Would it be possible for a person to think they were following 'right > > teachings of the Dhamma' and have various experiences they thought > > were 'right' mindfullness, 'right concentration' and 'right jhana' > > right up to an experience they felt was 'right' Nibbana - but all the > > time it was not 'right' but 'wrong' teachings of the Dhamma, 'wrong' > > mindfullness, 'wrong' concentration, 'wrong' jhana and even (is it > > possible) to experience 'wrong' nibbana? .... > ..... > > Yes. It's called wrong view which always thinks wrong is right. The > Tipitaka is full of references. > ..... > > >and, if so, how would > > they ever know? > ..... > Only panna (wisdom) can know, which is why it is so essential. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: This is certainly true. However, how does one KNOW that what one sees to be the case is a matter of wisdom or of error? As I see it, there is no completely certain independent guarantee on this. I would suppose that one could use certain yardsticks (metre rods?) such as seeing that one has become calmer, more loving, less compulsive, less grasping, less aversive etc, etc. For stream entry and the more advanced stages, the Buddha laid out certain behavioral and personality criteria. All of these, I think, provided, of course, that one has confidence in the Buddha, could be used as indicators that one is moving in the right direction, but I doubt that one can know incontestably. ---------------------------------------------------- > ..... > > >Feelings of peace and delight, and an inner certainty > > could deceive a person couldn't they? > ..... > Certainly. Lobha (attachment), mana (conceit), ditthi.(wrong view)..... > > Sarah > ============================ 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) 13040 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed May 1, 2002 8:20am Subject: RE: [dsg] attachment to concept Hi Kom; > Perhaps another way to "deal" with concept is the fact that we learn > from the Abhidhamma that concepts cannot be objects satipatthana. k: Would you like to share some commentary sayings on this statement. So are we saying that breathing which is a concept is not applicable in the satipatthana sutta or in which Buddha started the sutta by taking breathing at the forefront of satipatthana. To say concepts cannot be objects of satipatthana could be misleading, all of us started with concepts even Buddha. But to say that to obtain enlightment then concepts cannot be objects of satipatthana, it is paramtha that are objects of satipatthana in order to first discard wrong view (to enter stream winner stage)(talking Abidhammically). Hence we cannot conclude that concepts cannot be objects of satipatthana. It can but not effective in last few stages leading to enlightment kind rgds Ken O 13041 From: Date: Wed May 1, 2002 4:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? Hi, Jon (and TG) - In a message dated 5/1/02 8:49:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > TG > > --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > In the Samyutta Nikaya the Buddha describes > the 5 Khandhas > as... > > > > "...form should be seen as a bursting bubble, feeling should be seen as a > > > lump of foam, perception should be seen as a mirage, mental formations > should > > > > be seen as a plantian tree (coreless), consciousness should be seen as a > > conjurers trick..." > > > > Doesn't sound to me like the Buddha wants them to be thought of as > ultimate > > realities. Seems like he wants them to be seen as unsubstantial as > humanly > > possible. Calling them "ultimate realities" seems to against that grain > to > > me. I wonder if seeing them as ultimate realities embeds a type of > > substantiality and self view that is counter-productive to detaching from > > > conditions (non-attachment). I understand the reasoning behind > describing > > them as ultimate realities, I'm just not sure its a very good idea? > > > > TG > > An interesting observation -- 'ultimate reality', yet like a bubble or a > lump of foam. > Well, I suppose it's an example of looking at the same thing from different > perspectives. > They are 'ultimate' in the sense of being the underlying phenomena of what > we take for > people and things, yet they also have no intrinsic merit. > > Both aspects need to be understood. > > Jon > ========================== I think that TG makes an excellent point (as will not surprise you, Jon! ;-) I have long bristled at the term 'paramattha dhamma'. The actual experiences subsumed by the concept of 'paramattha dhamma' are, speaking precisely, actual elements of experience as opposed to imagined self-existent things "out there". For example, the experience of 'red' per se is a function of consciousness, and, when we can isolate it, it *seems* that way. But the experience of 'a red fire engine' always seems to be the experience of some self-existent thing "out there", a thing which has 'red' as a characteristic. A conceptual dhamma is always something imagined to be "out there". But, on close examination of an alleged red fire engine, for example, all that one actually comes upon are the direct experiences of 'red' and other colors, 'hardness', various shapes, etc, plus the thoughts of water, fires, etc. It is these internally experienced phenomena subsumed by 'the red fire engine', actually experienced without additional fabricating activity of the mind, which are the so-called "paramattha dhammas" involved. But the name 'paramattha dhamma' and, even worse, the English 'ultimate reality' do strike me as substantialist and terribly misleading. What these things are are actual elements of direct experience. They are fleeting and conditioned things-in-relation (except for nibbana), more like phantoms and shadows than separate, self-existent "ultimate realities". There's GOT to be a better term! ;-) What's in a name? I think an awful lot. THIS name we are discussing is, in my estimation, injurious to correct understanding, and injurious to the public image of Abhidhamma and, more generally, Theravada. 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) 13042 From: goglerr Date: Wed May 1, 2002 10:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] re:anicca (do concepts arise and fall?) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: Larry said: Hi Goglerr, I don't know if it does much good to distinguish between concept and reality since they both can be the object of lobha-dosa-moha. Conceit (mana) and personality belief (sakkaya- ditthi)are realities, not concepts; how can that be? G: Hi Larry, in every day life, distinguishing between p.dh and concept, can help us to reduce of the attachment/aversion to them especially concept. For instance, when we are in pain (of cancer or something of that sort) we can, at least, understand something like 'this pain is not mine, it just terrible pain/feeling' rather than 'I'm so hurt, I'm in so much in pain, why me? why me?'. They are two totally different minds at work, the former mind are turning an obstacle to a spritual growth which involve wisdom and wise reflection whereas the latter mind are drown in misery and deep sorrow, which involve mana and ditthi and also dosa. Even more so, especially when it comes to developing insight, where fine tuning the bare mindfilness observation between what are the meditation objects or just drowing into conceptualization, thinking, or intellectualizaton. It's a very fine line to distinguish them from practical point of view, not as easy as what we read. We have been so conditioned by concepts since time immemorial. For e.g. when a idea or thought arises, during meditation we may grasp it wrongly thinking that is a p.dh. It happens to a lot of meditators, even those who very well read on the sutta and abhidhamma. In the mindfulness practice, sometimes when the mindfulness unknowingly slipped away, we are sort of drowned into our thoughts, mental images, reflections, concepts or series sensual fantansies. And when the mindfulness arises again, we may notice (if we are keen) that there is a seperation between what is a knowing mind and the thoughts which are running through. Larry said: The main difference I see is that we can see the arising and dissolution of paramattha dhammas, but we can also see the arising and dissolution of a cookie. What about that??? G: Seeing the the arising and passing away between a paramattha dhamma and cookie involve two different kinds of panna. The former one belongs to bhavana maya panna (wisdom arises from insight) whereas the latter one belongs to cinta maya panna (wise reflection). No doubt that the two minds are wholesome. Wisdom from insight will lead to Nibbana, end of suffering, uprooting of defilements and wise reflection will give a deeper understanding of what life is all about, though less suffering but still there. These two panna complement each other. Usually from wise reflection and we will gradually have the wholesome urge to begin to to make an inward journey to truly understand the mind and body. Unless, one wish just to stop at wise reflection. Without the a Buddha's teaching, this special panna of insight cannot arise to uproot the defilement. The cookie may cure the hunger but the seeing the p. dh. may cure the craving!! Your call. ;-) Goglerr 13043 From: goglerr Date: Wed May 1, 2002 11:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., frank kuan wrote: > the controversy: > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > (4) the foundation > > of mindfulness in > > > contemplation of mental objects. > ...So the controversy is, does > > this 'dhamma' mean > > > paramattha-dhamma or dhammarammana. > > The Satipatthana Sutta... > > "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the > > mental objects in the mental objects > > of the five hindrances, … of the five aggregates of > > clinging, … of the six internal and > > the six external sense-bases, … of the seven factors > > of enlightenment, … of the Four > > Noble Truths." > > > > According to my reading of the texts, these sets are > > all references to paramattha > > dhammas, not concepts. Frank: Can you explain how you read it that way? I've always wondered what the hell is that sutta talking about with the 4th foundation of mindfulness being "mind-objects" when it appears to me dhamma is referring to concepts, specifically buddhist concepts. I mean, come on, 5 hindrances, 7 factors of enlightenment as paramatta ultimate realities? How do you make a case for that? Might as well say Frank is an ultimate reality too. G: 5 Hind and 7 F of Enl. are actually mentals factors, cetasika with eventually becomes a 'mind object' when they become prominent to the knowing mind. We can be aware of greed when it arises or aversion, or even that we are calm or even energertic. Mental states are very subtle and swift. Usually meditation teachers will not instruct beginners to take these mind object as the initial object of contemplation. These states of mind will become clear when there are sufficient mindfulness and clarity, also when the mindfulness are 'swift' and 'flexible', as swift as the object flows the knowing mind will flow with it. Frank: As I see it, one could only make a case for that only if the 4th foundation of mindfulness of dhamma referred exclusively to the 3 marks, 5 aggregates, 6 sense bases. And even so, many buddhists would argue that even the 3 marks are concepts, not ultimate realities to be wrongly grasped. G: in my opinion the 3 marks are a 'direct' concept, because we have to 'label' that such and such an actual experince of the paramattha object arising and passing away are 'termed' as anicca, dukkha or anatta. Frank: Now I should say that I'm still open to the possibility that the 4th foundtion of mindulness starts with concepts, but there is some special technique where one should contemplate these buddhist dhammic concepts in such a way that their "utlimate realities" can be seen, but where are the details on how this is done? It's not in the sutta. G: It's may be not in the sutta, Frank, but it is the the actual practice. Take the in-breath out breath at the nostril. Initially, the whole 'form' of the breath will be seen. And when the mindfulness gradually develops, the 'form' sort of dissappear from the knowing but only the different motions, smoothness, tensions, of breath or the heat or coolness of breath remain. Also one may know the knowing mind, which may be clear, steady, energertic yet calm, and so on. These Dhamma are for one to realize for himself. When one actually experince them, then one may know what is the 'hidden meaning' of His words in the sutta. Goglerr 13044 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed May 1, 2002 2:34pm Subject: RE: [dsg] attachment to concept Dear Ken O, > -----Original Message----- > From: Kenneth Ong [mailto:ashkenn@y...] > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 8:21 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [dsg] attachment to concept > > > Hi Kom; > > > Perhaps another way to "deal" with concept is the fact that we learn > > from the Abhidhamma that concepts cannot be objects satipatthana. > > k: Would you like to share some commentary sayings on this statement. So > are we saying that breathing which is a concept is not applicable in the > satipatthana sutta or in which Buddha started the sutta by taking > breathing at the forefront of satipatthana. To say concepts cannot be > objects of satipatthana could be misleading, all of us started with > concepts even Buddha. But to say that to obtain enlightment then concepts > cannot be objects of satipatthana, it is paramtha that are objects of > satipatthana in order to first discard wrong view (to enter stream winner > stage)(talking Abidhammically). Hence we cannot conclude that concepts > cannot be objects of satipatthana. It can but not effective in last few > stages leading to enlightment If you see Jon's previous message on the thread, I think you will see why some members in this group say that only paramatha objects are objects of satipatthana. Breathing in itself has paramatha components too (like hardness, heat, tension). The paramatha components can be objects of satipatthana. Again, as I understand it, only paramatha dhamma can be objects of satipatthana, from the beginning, to the end (magga). As far as references to the commentaries, Jon, Sarah, and Robert K. have posted some related materials in the past archived in the group. Although I have some access (requires lots of efforts) to the Thai commentaries, I am not that diligent to look them up or translate them to prove the point, but I do urge anybody who are interested to look them up themselves because I think this point (which I think you agree; otherwise, you wouldn't ask!) is fairly important (and controversial). Would only snips of passages (which can be selective!) satisfy your skepticism/wise question in this area? On the other hand, there can be wise reflection (with wisdom) on the concepts of realities too. It is just, as far as I know, not at the level of satipatthana, even if it may condition satipathana. kom 13045 From: Lucy Date: Wed May 1, 2002 3:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Antidotes to lobha Hi Jon Looks like we're talking from two different levels. You talk of *seeing* and *understanding*, but I'm barely preparing the ground here, picking up stones, weeding, raking, watering, digging in manure ... all very basic and with an awful lot of preparation work still to be done. Meanwhile, lobha for hills, wild flowers, lambs and May bird songs piles up, making the mind ground even harder to clear for *the* seeing to happen. If I'm not careful, I might forget there's such thing as a Path and a seeing until, whoops, too late!!! I'd be truly lost without my little bag of "upaya" ... No "antidotes" in the real sense, but a useful reminder of the Path, especially in May, blackbirds and thrushes singing among droopy cherry blossoms.... So, I offer all and look forward going out tomorrow looking for more offerings : ) Best wishes (and happy May Day) Lucy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonothan Abbott" > --- Lucy wrote: > > > > > 3. We should also know the more subtle lobha which arises when we enjoy > > > a fragrant smell or beautiful music. It seems that there are no akusala > > > cittas when we do not harm others, but also the more subtle lobha is > > > akusala; it is different from generosity which is kusala. We cannot > > > force ourselves not to have lobha, but we can get to know the > > > characteristic of lobha when it appears. > > > > > > > One of the "M" antidotes for lobha is to "offer" the object of enjoyment to > > the Buddha when we notice lobha has arisen - If I'm mindful (not very > > often), a drive from home to anywhere has me constantly piling up > > mountains, sheep, colours, flowers, trees etc., etc. on the mental altar - > > and then one has to remember dedicating the merit of the offerings... Don't > > know whether there's much merit in it or not, but it's an interesting > > little exercise because it can serve as a constant reminder of lobha. > > > > "M" is full of these "antidotes" - are there any similar practices in the > > Theravada ? > > > > In the Theravada texts, the emphasis is on understanding the dhammas of the present > moment as and when they arise, and this includes of course all kinds of lobha, although > not especially lobha in preference to any other kind of reality. Seeing dhammas as they > truly are is the only 'antidote' of any lasting efficacy. > > Lobha that has already arisen or has not yet arisen, is not regarded as being capable of > being 'dealt with' in any sense, as far as I know. There is, however, a wholesome mental > factor of 'wise attention' that has the function described as guarding the sense-doors. > > Jon > 13046 From: Date: Wed May 1, 2002 4:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re:anicca (do concepts arise and fall?) Goglerr: "The cookie may cure the hunger but the seeing the p. dh. may cure the craving!! Your call. ;-)" Hi Goglerr, actually I started to analyze the cookie and found that a good portion of its experinced identity was a kind of wet hunger sensation located in my mouth. I guess that's both not self and not cookie. Larry 13047 From: Date: Wed May 1, 2002 5:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 6 (7-17) Hi all, With reference to the paragraph below, I find there is even aversion to being in the present. Imagination is a kind of refuge from all the kamma vipaka which is invariably unpleasant. Not to mention boredom or fear of being undefined, fear of not self which is part of aversion to the present. It's good to remember the present is a kusala 'place', sati, even though it is witness to dosa and unpleasant feeling. Larry 17. Another condition for dosa is ignorance of Dhamma. If we are ignorant of kamma and vipaka, cause and result., dosa may arise very easily on account of an unpleasant experience through one of the senses and thus dosa is accumulated time and again. An unpleasant experience through one of the senses is akusala vipaka caused by an unwholesome deed we perforrned. When we, for example, hear unpleasant words from someone else we may be angry with that person. Those who have studied Dhamma know that hearing something unpleasant is akusala vipaka which is not caused by someone else but by an unwholesome deed we performed ourselves. A moment of vipaka falls away immediately, it does not stay. Are we not inclined to keep on thinking about an unpleasant experience? If there is more awareness of the present moment one will be less inclined to think with aversion about one's akusala vipaka. 13048 From: Date: Wed May 1, 2002 9:15pm Subject: ADL ch. 6 (18-23) from: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life chapter 6, paragraphs 18-23 18. When we study the Abhidhamma we learn that there are two types of dosa-mula-citta; one is asankharika (unprompted) and one is sasankharika (prompted). Dosa is sasankharika (prompted) when, for example, one becomes angry after having been reminded of the disagreeable actions of someone else. When dosa is asankharika (unprompted) it is more intense than when it is sasankharika. Dosa-mula-cittas are called patigha.sampayutta, or accompanied by patigha, which is another word for dosa. Dosa.mula-cittas are always accompanied by domanassa (unpleasant feeling). The two type of dosa-mula-citta are: 1. Accompanied by unpleasant feeling, arising with anger, unprompted (Domanassa-sahagatam, patigha-sampayuttam, asankharikam ekam) 2. Accompanied by unpleasant feeling, arising with anger, prompted (Domanassa-sahagatam, patigha-sampayuttam, sasankharikam ekam) 19. As we have seen, there are many degrees of dosa; it may be coarse or more subtle. When dosa is coarse, it causes akusala kamma-patha (unwholesome deeds) through body, speech or mind. Two kinds of akusala kamma-patha through the body can be performed with dosa-mula-citta: killing and stealing. If we want less violence in the world we should try not to kill. When we kill we accumulate a great deal of dosa. The monk's life is a life of non-violence; he does not hurt any living being in the world. However, not everyone is able to live like the monks. Defilements are anatta (not self); they arise because of conditions. The purpose of the Buddha's teachings is not to lay down rules which forbid people to commit ill deeds, but to help people to develop the wisdom which eradicates defilements. 20. As regards stealing, this can either be performed with lobha-mula-citta or with dosa-mula-citta. It is done with dosa-mula-citta when there is the intention to harm someone else. Doing damage to someone else's possessions is included in this kamma-patha. 21. Four kinds of akusala kamma-patha through speech are performed with dosa-mula-citta: lying, slandering, rude speech and frivolous talk. Lying, slandering and frivolous talk can either be done with lobha-mula-citta or with dosa-mula-citta. Slandering, for example, is done with dosa-mula-citta when there is the intention to cause damage to someone else, such as doing harm to his good name and causing him to be looked down upon by others. Most people think that the use of weapons is to be avoided, but they forget that the tongue can be a weapon as well, which can badly wound. Evil speech does a great deal of harm in the world; it causes discord between people. When we speak evil we harm ourselves, because at such moments akusala kamma is accumulated and it is capable of producing akusala vipaka. We read in the 'Sutta Nipata' (the Great Chapter, 'Khuddaka Nikava'): Truly to every person born An axe is born within his mouth Wherewith the fool cuts himself When he speaks evil. 22. As regards akusala kamma-patha through the mind performed with dosa-mula-citta, this is the intention to hurt or harm someone else. 23. People often speak about violence and the ways to cure It. Who of us can say that he is free from dosa and that he will never kill? We do not know how much dosa we have accumulated in the course of many lives. When the conditions are there we might commit an act of violence we did not realize we were capable of. When we understand how ugly dosa is and to what deeds it can lead we want to eradicate it. 13049 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed May 1, 2002 10:54pm Subject: RE: [dsg] attachment to concept Kom Everything has paramatha elements in it. Unless we assume we are able to observe them at this moment, then I would agree that only paramatha are the objects of satipatthana. If concepts are not objects of satipatthana, then Buddha is wasting his time teaching breathing as an object of satipatthana in Maha Satipatthana sutta. Definitely we know that breathing do as paramatha elements but to totally discard the notion of objects as satipatthana is to me far stretch and not in line with the sutta intention. The method of satipatthana is from the easiest to the hardest starting with breathing. Whether or not, or we like it or not, to totally discard the notion that concepts are not objects of satipatthana is not in line with what Buddha says conventionally in Maha Satipatthana. Everything can be intrepretted with Abhidhamma but I believe we should not cling to just what Abhidhamma has said, we got to be open minded to what the sutta says. Another big issue abt control/no control recently, if we read the definition of right effort in the suttas, it indicates there is control. But we stick our concept of Abhidhamma then there is no control. There is control but the control does not mean there is a need to "cling" to a self for control. If there is no control, why would Buddha seek enlightment to get out of the birth-death cycle, isn't it this intention (to get out of the birth cycle) attached to a desire. Buddha knows that we need a goal to relieve ourselve, isn't the goal of Abhidhamma is enlightment. So isn't it fits into our mental image of going to nirvana that let us eventually condition us to practise satipatthana. These are my train of thought, may sound confusing though. Kind regards Ken O --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Ken O, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kenneth Ong [mailto:ashkenn@y...] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 8:21 AM > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: RE: [dsg] attachment to concept > > > > > > Hi Kom; > > > > > Perhaps another way to "deal" with concept is the fact that we learn > > > from the Abhidhamma that concepts cannot be objects satipatthana. > > > > k: Would you like to share some commentary sayings on this statement. > So > > are we saying that breathing which is a concept is not applicable in > the > > satipatthana sutta or in which Buddha started the sutta by taking > > breathing at the forefront of satipatthana. To say concepts cannot be > > objects of satipatthana could be misleading, all of us started with > > concepts even Buddha. But to say that to obtain enlightment then > concepts > > cannot be objects of satipatthana, it is paramtha that are objects of > > satipatthana in order to first discard wrong view (to enter stream > winner > > stage)(talking Abidhammically). Hence we cannot conclude that concepts > > cannot be objects of satipatthana. It can but not effective in last > few > > stages leading to enlightment > > If you see Jon's previous message on the thread, I think you will see > why > some members in this group say that only paramatha objects are objects > of > satipatthana. Breathing in itself has paramatha components too (like > hardness, heat, tension). The paramatha components can be objects of > satipatthana. > > Again, as I understand it, only paramatha dhamma can be objects of > satipatthana, from the beginning, to the end (magga). As far as > references > to the commentaries, Jon, Sarah, and Robert K. have posted some related > materials in the past archived in the group. Although I have some > access > (requires lots of efforts) to the Thai commentaries, I am not that > diligent > to look them up or translate them to prove the point, but I do urge > anybody > who are interested to look them up themselves because I think this point > (which I think you agree; otherwise, you wouldn't ask!) is fairly > important > (and controversial). Would only snips of passages (which can be > selective!) > satisfy your skepticism/wise question in this area? > > On the other hand, there can be wise reflection (with wisdom) on the > concepts of realities too. It is just, as far as I know, not at the > level > of satipatthana, even if it may condition satipathana. > > kom 13050 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 1, 2002 11:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 6 (7-17) Hi Larry, Thanks for all the good questions and comments and the excellent discussion with Kom and others. I think your points below show some real understanding of what we are studying in the book. No one is asking to have aversion, boredom or fear (which are never pleasant), but they arise when there are conditions, even when we’re reading about their uwholesome qualities. I liked Kom’s example about dosa for the noise yesterday, even when he was writing dhamma. It creeps in all the time, doesn’t it? When there is awareness (sati of satipatthana) of these mental states, there is no doubt at that moment that they are paramatha dhammas --whatever we call them-- as opposed to concepts. At that instant of awareness, the consciousness is wholesome and calm and there is no wrong view of self or special effort to have it. Then there is more thinking of concepts, so often accompanied by lobha, dosa or moha again. Isn’t it better to know and recognize, even the fear of anatta, than to continue in ignorance? In appreciation of these comments, Sarah ===== --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi all, > > With reference to the paragraph below, I find there is even aversion to > being in the present. Imagination is a kind of refuge from all the kamma > vipaka which is invariably unpleasant. Not to mention boredom or fear of > being undefined, fear of not self which is part of aversion to the > present. It's good to remember the present is a kusala 'place', sati, > even though it is witness to dosa and unpleasant feeling. 13051 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed May 1, 2002 11:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on enlightenment Howard, I have nothing intelligent to add at the moment, but I wanted to let you know that I think your recent posts, including this one and the one on paramatha dhammas, are very sharp. Robert Ep. ==== --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah (and Christine) - > > In a message dated 5/1/02 7:45:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > > > Dear Christine, > > > > --- christine_forsyth wrote: > > > > > > Would it be possible for a person to think they were following 'right > > > teachings of the Dhamma' and have various experiences they thought > > > were 'right' mindfullness, 'right concentration' and 'right jhana' > > > right up to an experience they felt was 'right' Nibbana - but all the > > > time it was not 'right' but 'wrong' teachings of the Dhamma, 'wrong' > > > mindfullness, 'wrong' concentration, 'wrong' jhana and even (is it > > > possible) to experience 'wrong' nibbana? .... > > ..... > > > > Yes. It's called wrong view which always thinks wrong is right. The > > Tipitaka is full of references. > > ..... > > > > >and, if so, how would > > > they ever know? > > ..... > > Only panna (wisdom) can know, which is why it is so essential. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > This is certainly true. However, how does one KNOW that what one sees > to be the case is a matter of wisdom or of error? As I see it, there is no > completely certain independent guarantee on this. I would suppose that one > could use certain yardsticks (metre rods?) such as seeing that one has become > calmer, more loving, less compulsive, less grasping, less aversive etc, etc. > For stream entry and the more advanced stages, the Buddha laid out certain > behavioral and personality criteria. All of these, I think, provided, of > course, that one has confidence in the Buddha, could be used as indicators > that one is moving in the right direction, but I doubt that one can know > incontestably. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > ..... > > > > >Feelings of peace and delight, and an inner certainty > > > could deceive a person couldn't they? > > ..... > > Certainly. Lobha (attachment), mana (conceit), ditthi.(wrong view)..... > > > > Sarah > > > ============================ > With metta, > Howard 13052 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed May 1, 2002 11:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > TG > > --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > In the Samyutta Nikaya the Buddha describes the 5 > Khandhas > as... > > > > "...form should be seen as a bursting bubble, feeling should be seen as a > > lump of foam, perception should be seen as a mirage, mental formations should > > > > be seen as a plantian tree (coreless), consciousness should be seen as a > > conjurers trick..." > > > > Doesn't sound to me like the Buddha wants them to be thought of as ultimate > > realities. Seems like he wants them to be seen as unsubstantial as humanly > > possible. Calling them "ultimate realities" seems to against that grain to > > me. I wonder if seeing them as ultimate realities embeds a type of > > substantiality and self view that is counter-productive to detaching from > > conditions (non-attachment). I understand the reasoning behind describing > > them as ultimate realities, I'm just not sure its a very good idea? > > > > TG > > An interesting observation -- 'ultimate reality', yet like a bubble or a lump of > foam. > Well, I suppose it's an example of looking at the same thing from different > perspectives. > They are 'ultimate' in the sense of being the underlying phenomena of what we > take for > people and things, yet they also have no intrinsic merit. > > Both aspects need to be understood. > > Jon Which makes Howard's and others' case that the word 'ultimate' is misleading and incorrect. It constantly needs to be re-explained and qualified, because it implies something other than what it means. Ultimate in common parlance means the height of something much more than it means the final particle that cannot be broken down. In math, which is Howard's area, I think there are terms that describe this kind of thing more generically, numbers that can't be broken down any further, equations that cannot be divided down to a lesser amount on either side. The least common denominator which unites equivalent mathematical terms. For myself, I would propose 'primary realities' or even 'basic realities', but primary accomplishes what you would want, it establishes them as indivisible and 'first and foremost' without the baggage of 'ultimate'. Now I may be paranoid, but it does seem like the term 'paramatha', if it is indeed 'ultimate' betrays a kind of idealization of these fleeting actualities, and perhaps is a way in which the idea of entity creeps back into Abhidhamma. Terms have a 'flavor' of meaning, and 'paramatha' seems to have precisely the wrong one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I recall the prefix 'para' as having a sense of something like 'great'. Is this not so? Best, Robert Ep. 13053 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed May 1, 2002 11:48pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Larry > > --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Thanks Kom, I see my mistake. I was equating satipatthana with vipassana > > but that's not quite correct. I think I found the source of the > > controversy over objects of satipatthana, but first here are some > > interesting snippets from "A Comprehensive Manual Of Abhidhamma". > … > > ch.7, #24 > > In the compendium of requisites of enlightenment, there are four > > foundations of mindfulness: (1) the foundation of mindfulness in > > contemplation of the body; (2) the foundation of mindfulness in > > contemplation of feelings; (3) the foundation of mindfulness in > > contemplation of consciousness; (4) the foundation of mindfulness in > > contemplation of mental objects. > > > > Larry: 'contemplation of mental objects' is a translation of > > 'dhammanupassana.' So the controversy is, does this 'dhamma' mean > > paramattha-dhamma or dhammarammana. I would think something would have > > to prevent sati from taking concepts as object, but I don't see what it > > would be. Do you have a source or reason for your interpretation? > > The Satipatthana Sutta itself gives a detailed explanation of the things that > comprise > dhammanupassana. It says (quoting from the translation in 'The Way of > Mindfulness', > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html): > > "And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in mental > objects? > > "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects in the > mental objects > of the five hindrances, … of the five aggregates of clinging, … of the six > internal and > the six external sense-bases, … of the seven factors of enlightenment, … of the > Four > Noble Truths." > > According to my reading of the texts, these sets are all references to > paramattha > dhammas, not concepts. > > The commentary to the sutta (same translation) relates each of the 4 foundations > of > mindfulness to corresponding dhammas comprising the 5 aggregates (khandhas): > > "Further, … in the contemplation on the body, the laying hold of the aggregate > of > corporeality or materiality [J: rupa-khandha] was spoken of by the Master; > "in the contemplation on feeling, the laying hold of the aggregate of feeling > [J: > vedana-khandha]; > "in the contemplation on mind, the laying hold of the aggregate of consciousness > [J: > vinnana-khandha]; > "and now [i.e. in the contemplation on mental objects] … the laying hold of the > aggregates of perception and formations [J: sanna-khandha, sankhara-khandha], Can someone explain to me, please, how 'corporeality', 'materiality', 'feeling', etc., are not concepts? I can understand that a particular experience of corporeality, such as hardness or smoothness, would be a primary reality, and that a particular feeling as well, but it seems to me that these general terms that we are given to contemplate are general categories that are being referrred to, in other words: concepts. If they are concepts, then concepts are included in the objects of contemplation; if they are not concepts, I would like to have an explanation as to how these can be directly perceived in the way that primary realities must be: directly in an actual moment. Paramatha Dhammas must have their own characteristic. But 'corporeality' *is* a characteristic, not an object. It is a category or a quality that attends rupas, but it is not a rupa itself. Neither it is an actual mental event that takes place, so I don't think it can be a nama. In other words, corporeality as a category of the khandas can only be a concept until filled in with a specific example which has it as its characteristic. It will never be the rupa itself, it is the example that has the characteristic that is the rupa. So it will always be a concept as far as I can see. Yet it is an object of satipatthana along with the other kandhas? > To my knowledge, all the ancient texts support the interpretation of the 5 > khandhas and > dhammanupassana as excluding concepts. Some modern-day commentators, however, > assert > that concepts are included in these classifications. > > Jon 13054 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 1, 2002 11:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Antidotes to lobha Dear Lucy, > I'd be truly lost without my little bag of "upaya" ... No "antidotes" > in > the real sense, but a useful reminder of the Path, especially in May, > blackbirds and thrushes singing among droopy cherry blossoms.... So, I > offer all and look forward going out tomorrow looking for more offerings > : ) We had a public holiday in Hong Kong yesterday, so we also went out enjoying the countryside. On an early morning hike up the Peak, there were no lambs here, but squirrels, white cockatoos, other exotic birds and hot, humid, tropical conditions. And then, we came across a beautiful small silver and green snake on the path. It didn’t look injured at all, but it turned out to be dead. I decided to take it home by way of an ‘offering’ for my students, thinking they might enjoy it as much as ‘my’ lobha did. So Jon kindly put it in a bag in his backpack and when we got home, we put it in the freezer I have a group of so-called ‘gifted’ (you know,calculus at age 8,bored by everything at school, enjoy unusual offerings) students coming soon. I Just went to take out my beautiful snake, but instead found what looks like a limp, brown giant worm. Oh dear, how hard we work to try and maintain the illusion of beauty and permanence and how disappointed we are when it doesn't last;-( ..... > Best wishes (and happy May Day) ..... Thanks for the reminders of an English May Day. Actually as well as being a holiday here (thanks to being part of China) , it is also my birthday, so it’s always a happy day;-) I think that any reminders of the Teachings at anytime can be helpful. If your bag of upaya serve as reminders, then continue enjoying Spring, looking for offerings and developing awareness;-)) Sarah ===== 13055 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed May 1, 2002 11:59pm Subject: RE: [