13400 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Mon May 20, 2002 2:04pm
Subject: Re: ritual

 
  "Ray Hendrickson"   wrote:

> The other evidence we have about speaking conventally when talking about
> self-control, etc comes from the Suttas themselves.  In the Connected
> Discourse, "A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya" by Bhikkhu Bodhi we
> read on page102 #64

> "No knots exist for one with conceit abandoned;
> For him all knots of conceit are consumed.
> Though the wise one has transcended the conceived,
> He still might say, 'I speak,'
> He might say too, 'They speak to me.'
> Skilful, knowing the world's parlance,
> He uses such terms as mere expressions."

> The Buddha says the same thing about himself in a Sutta from MN, but I
> forget which number, but I am sure others here will know the passage.  So as
> well as the evidence you supplied, there is also this evidence from the
> Canon that the Buddha does use such terms as a "mere expressions."

Thanks, Ray.
My question is:  Why would the Buddha use conventional speech in such a positive
manner.  In your quote above, he is saying that one may casually use 'I' or 'you'
as a mere convention in order to communicate content, such as in the sentence,
'Are you hungry?'  That's my sense of it.  This is different.  Here, he is making
a positive command, saying:  'You should try as hard as you can to exercise
self-control.'  That is not merely using conventional speech, that is promoting
it, if that's what it in fact is. 

If you agree that this is a much more forceful use of such conventions, we have to
ask what the purpose is in saying this?  If we have 'no control' and we are really
to 'let go' and merely study Suttas and discern realities, why on earth would the
Buddha literally exhort people to try as hard as possible to control themselves? 
My only conclusion can be that whether 'self' is a convention or not, he wants
people to make an effort at exercising control.  This seems quite different than
the message he could have given if 'no control' were in fact the doctrine.  He
could have said, as many on this list seem to:  'Give up the effort to control
yourselvew, because in fact there is no self to control, and no way for selfless
kandhas to control them.  Everything arises from a cause, and the most you can do
is try to discern the truth of the way reality functions.'  This would be a very
effective message if this is in fact what the Buddha meant to say, but at least
for these listeners, that is apparently *not* what he wanted them to do.

Best,
Robert Ep.





 
13401 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Mon May 20, 2002 2:10pm
Subject: Re: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Rober...

 
  Dear Howard,
Although I agree that this is an example of the Buddha choosing not to befuddle a
confused seeker's mind, respectfully I don't think that the story would have made
it into the canon except that it represents both the average person's mind as
well, and most important issues of how to deal with annihilationism and
eternalism, the discussion of which is launched on the platform of Vajjragotta's
story.

I think the Buddha's silence represented more than his response to Vajjragotta
himself, but also a strong statement on the misapprehensions of making a direct
statement to holders of either extreme philosophy which can only be understood in
the light of their respective wrong views and assumptions.  In this light, it does
not make a definitive statement about the nature of 'self' or 'not-self' but makes
clear that our common images, not only of 'self', but also of 'not-self', are
deluded.

Which is why Buddha was often silent when confronted with various standpoints to
which people, such as ourselves, were attached.

Best,
Robert Ep.

=================================

--- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Victor -
> 
> In a message dated 5/19/02 11:18:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> Victor writes:
> 
> 
> > 
> > Howard,
> > 
> > For the statement "there is no self"
> > see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Victor
> > 
> > 
> ===========================
>        Yes. This well known sutta is a great example of the Buddha not 
> replying to a person out of kindness and knowledge, knowing that the state of 
> that person's mind is such that any answer will be misunderstood.
> 
> With metta,
> Howard
> 


 
13402 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Mon May 20, 2002 2:12pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities?

 
  --- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Rob -
> 
> In a message dated 5/19/02 3:45:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> Robert Ep writes:
> 
> 
> > 
> > --- Howard wrote:
> > > Hi, Jon -
> > 
> >     Do you 
> > > > see a necessary
> > > > contradiction in these 2 attributes (conditionality vs. own essence)?
> > > > 
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > >        The problem I have here is with the adjectival phrase "of their 
> > own" 
> > > in the sentence "The fact that these phenomena are conditioned and last 
> > for 
> > > only a brief moment doesn't mean that they lack characteristics of their 
> > own 
> > > capable of being discerned by consciousness accompanied by panna (termed 
> > > 'individual essence')." Everything about these phenomena, including their 
> > 
> > > very existence, arises in total dependence on conditions, all of which 
> > are 
> > > equally empty of own-being. What arises in total dependence on other 
> > > conditions does not have own-being, and inasmuch as these other 
> > conditions 
> > > are equally without own-being, the emptiness is thoroughgoing.
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > Dear Howard,
> > I would really like to pay a little more attention this important point of 
> > yours. 
> > Do the terms paramatha dhamma, own-being and dhammas having their own 
> > independent
> > characteristics not imply a substantial quality these fleeting appearances? 
> >  Is
> > there not an implication of substantiality, and is it not inherent in the 
> > terms
> > and the feeling that is created around them?
> > 
> > I keep seeing these terms as a kind of hidden life-raft within the 
> > philosophy of
> > Abhidhamma, and it is as much their implied feeling as it is their explicit
> > definition.  When you say 'the emptiness is thoroughgoing' it makes me 
> > heave a
> > sigh of relief, because the sense of own-being and independent 
> > characteristics
> > seems laden with the burden of substantiality.  It just carries that 
> > flavor.  One
> > can explain it differently, but why do those ideas exist? 
> > 
> > What is the sense of own-being if not a sense of substantiality?  What 
> > other
> > purpose does it serve?  It seems to implicitly undercut emptiness and 
> > anatta.  If
> > something has own-being, it has entity.  And if it has entity, it does not 
> > partake
> > of anatta.   Own-being seems to me to be nothing other than another way of 
> > saying
> > 'entity' or 'being'.  It even has the word 'being' in it, and 'own', which 
> > means
> > that it belongs to one, ie, the entity in question.  Together with 
> > Buddhaghosa
> > saying that the paramatha dhammas are the 'final irreduceible entities of
> > experience', it really makes me feel that there is a hidden substantiality 
> > and
> > entity at play in these words.  How can something have an 'individual 
> > essence' and
> > not be identified as an entity?
> > 
> > Otherwise, why not just say that these experiences are insubstantial and
> > momentary, which would be in the direction of anatta and anicca?
> > 
> > Can you have something that is solid and empty at the same time?
> > 
> > Best,
> > Robert Ep.
> > 
> =============================
>        I agree that terminology is *very* important. How we think is strongly 
> influenced by the descriptive terms used. I will not second-guess the 
> motivation of using sabhava-like terminology in some Theravadin writings - 
> there may be no substantialist motivation at all, and the intention may be, 
> as Robert K points out, nothing more than the ascription of characteristics 
> to elements of experience. However, I do think that the pragmatics of such 
> language use is harmful, controversial, and misleading.

Dear Howard,
Thanks for your reply.

best,
Robert Ep.




 
13403 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Mon May 20, 2002 2:23pm
Subject: Re: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K.]

 
  Dear Howard,
Thanks for your reply, which is both intelligent and personal.  What I would say,
along your lines, is that I have no belief in a self 'as such' at this point, a
personal self, anything that we would call self in the conventional sense.  But I
differ in seeing 'only' fleeting phenomena rolling by.  To me, there is both the
continuous changes of content that mark human experience, and also a constant: 
consciousness, which has an ever-changing content but itself is everpresent. 
Consciousness has proved to be impersonal as well:  it does not constitute a self,
and the sense of self which you speak of is also merely an arising sensation
within consciousness, but the sense of always being mindful, conscious, aware, of
something is always there.  This leads this consciousness to conclude that the
property of awareness is the underlying reality within which all phenomena occur,
and this is the sticking point between many Buddhists of various orientiations. 
Is awareness merely a mechanical property of causation, which arises with causes
and subsides at death?  Or at least at the death of an arahant?  Or is it
impersonal, beyond the ordinary consciousness we experience in the world of human
objects, and does it have a life beyond the self?  At times in the past you have
agreed with me that there seems to be something like an impersonal awareness that
is not annihilated at death. Now you seem to have grown beyond that, and that is
fine.  I have not, and it is still an issue for me.  It is not an issue because I
am worried about what will happen at death.  I am concerned about the focus of
present practice.  Is it correct to discern the 'sense', not of self, but of
'being aware' as merely another mechanical arising, or is it a constant to be
realized as one's actual basis for the experience of the kandhas and this life?  I
tend to think the latter, and by viewing all arisings as merely mechanical that
perhaps something essential is lost in the practice of realization.

These are my thoughts and as someone who I know has progressed at least to the
point of letting go of concepts of self, I am wondering what you think about this
these days.

Best,
Robert Ep.

====================


--- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Rob and Victor -
> 
>        We use conventional expressions all the time that have meaning, but 
> not literal meaning. If we say that our alarm clock turns itself on at the 
> preset time or that a VCR turns itself off after recording, we are not 
> assuming a "self" in these things. It is clear what we DO mean, and it is not 
> a philosophical assertion.
>        Whether or not there is something in, about, identical with, 
> associated with, or underlying the khandhas which is properly called a "self" 
> may be asserted or denied. However, so far no one seems to encounter such 
> when looking for it. It not being found, a pragmatic approach takes it to be 
> at least irrelevant, and, for all practical purposes, nonexistent. Moreover, 
> the Buddha *did* teach that with stream entry a *belief* in 'self' is gone, 
> and that with arahatta even any odor of 'self' is gone. Inasmuch as these are 
> states of liberation and enlightenment, it certainly suggests to me that 
> while *beliefs* in 'self' and in 'no-self' are just that - beliefs, the 
> *fact* of the matter is that there is no self. 
>        At this point, I have no belief in a self at all. All I find is 
> impersonal, empty phenomena "rolling on". Included among these phenomena is 
> the frequently arising "sense" of self, but that is all it seems to be, this 
> "sense" - one more impersonal condition arising and ceasing from time to time 
> as part of the ongoing flux of conditioned experience.
> 
> With metta,
> Howard
> 
> 
> In a message dated 5/19/02 3:07:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> Robert Ep writes:
> 
> 
> > 
> > --- yuzhonghao  wrote:
> > > TG,
> > > 
> > > For the statement "there is no self",
> > > see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html
> > > 
> > > For the statement "there is no control", I would like to share this 
> > > verse with you:
> > > 
> > > 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train 
> > > others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is 
> > > self-control.
> > 
> > Dear Victor,
> > Here we have a clear description of the Buddha advocating self-control.  
> > Now, I
> > wonder if those who believe there is 'no control' because there is no 
> > 'self' will
> > explaint that this is merely conventional speech and does not refer to 
> > either a
> > 'self' or an actual imperative to 'exercise control' over oneself?
> > 
> > One can always say that something the Buddha said was not actually what he 
> > meant
> > because it is merely conventional speech, while when the Buddha says 
> > something
> > that is in accord with what one regards as the path, one will say that the 
> > Buddha
> > meant it literally.  
> > 
> > It is a slippery slope, because it means that we are making distinctions 
> > between
> > different suttas, or even different statements in the same sutta, based on 
> > our
> > prior beliefs.
> > 
> > It is an equally slippery slope to maintain the opposite, that the Buddha 
> > was
> > being literal when he says that we should maintain self-control, but 
> > metaphoric or
> > conventional when he says something else that we disagree with.  To make 
> > these
> > kinds of distinctions at all is fraught with danger.
> > 
> > So what is the correct view?  We do not want to wind up like some 
> > interpreters of
> > the Bible who conclude based on taking it literally [according to their
> > interpretation of what is literal] that the earth is only 5,000 years old, 
> > in the
> > face of all scientific evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, we do 
> > not want
> > to wind up in the position of those who insist that the only experiences 
> > that are
> > believeable are those which can be scientifically tested.
> > 
> > It seems to me that in general, we should take the Buddha literally, unless 
> > we
> > have some evidence to the contrary.   What is the evidence that 'one should
> > practice self-control' is merely conventional, and not a true imperative?  
> > Well,
> > since Buddha states clearly that none of the five khandas can be considered 
> > to
> > have the property of 'self', there are two possibilities:  what he 
> > considers
> > 'self' is beyond the five kandhas, or:  he is asking practitioners to 
> > attempt to
> > control certain arising phenomena, in the understanding that such attempt 
> > will
> > have certain results which will be beneficial to their progress.  
> > 
> > I think it may satisfy both camps if we say that he is addressing the 
> > conventional
> > self and asking his listeners to attempt to exercise control over akusala
> > conditions, even though such control may not be possible, in the 
> > understanding
> > that this will have certain effects, though they are not caused directly by 
> > the
> > practitioner.  
> > 
> > This is very similar to other Buddhist practices.  If one practices 
> > meditation,
> > the worst form of such practice is to struggle directly with the mind and 
> > attempt
> > to control it, which leads to tension and frustration.  One follows certain
> > practices, trusting that eventually they will yield the fruit.  The 
> > practice is
> > voluntary, but the results are involuntary.  If one practices discernment 
> > in daily
> > life, it is the same thing:  one pays attention to the attempt to discern 
> > namas
> > and rupas, knowing that most of the time he or she will fail, but 
> > eventually the
> > attempt to do so will yield fruit.  There is intention, but not control. It
> > explains why the sutta is useful, without falling into the fallacy of an 
> > atta
> > which can take action.
> > 
> > Best,
> > Robert Ep.



 
13404 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Mon May 20, 2002 2:25pm
Subject: Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Re: [dsg] Sitting and mindfulness [Anders]

 
  Okay Howard.
Hope I don't sound too disrespectful.  I have a tendency to fight hard in this
particular debate, and so I apologize if that leads me to step on anyone's toes.

Best,
Robert Ep.

====================

--- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Robert -
> 
> In a message dated 5/19/02 2:55:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> Robert Ep writes:
> 
> 
> > 
> > Dear Howard,
> > Re. your nice breakdown of the sutra below: Interesting, that the noble 
> > eightfold
> > path is clearly announced as a path of practice, and not merely a 
> > description of
> > what occurs under the right conditions, wouldn't you agree?
> > 
> -----------------------------------------------------
>        I don't want to come on too strong, Rob. The sutta speaks for itself - 
> I'm just putting it out there.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
> > 
> > I would like to hear what Jon has to say about this:  is it descriptive or
> > prescriptive?
> > 
> > Best,
> > Robert Ep.
> > 
> ==========================
> With metta,
> Howard



 
13405 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Mon May 20, 2002 5:35pm
Subject: Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta

 
  Howard

Many thanks for the interesting sutta below which I look forward to
discussing with you.

Before I do, however, we need to clarify something on the translation,
which concerns the particular passage you have highlighted.

I refer to the passage in the ATI translation that reads:
> "And what is the path of practice to the development of the frames of 
> reference? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve,
right 
> speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness,
> right concentration. This is called the path of practice to the
development 
> of the frames of reference." 

In the Bhikkhu Bodhi translation (CDB, Wisdom), this appears as:
"And what is the way leading to the development of the establishment of
mindfulness?  It is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, Right View … Right
Concentration.  This is called the way leading to the development of the
establishment of mindfulness."

The rendering in the CDB version is fairly standard stuff.  I am wondering
where the words "path of practice" in the ATI translation come from.  Do
you have any thoughts on this?  Can anybody help us with the Pali here?

Jon

--- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon (and all) -

>        I found a not-too-long sutta which I think is interesting in a
> couple 
> ways. The sutta is the following:
> 
> ***********************
> 
> Samyutta Nikaya XLVII.40
> Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta
> Analysis of the Frames of Reference
> 
> Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
> For free distribution only.
>  
> "I will teach you the frames of reference, their development, and the
> path of 
> practice leading to their development. Listen & pay close attention. I
> will 
> speak. 
> 
> "Now, what are the frames of reference? There is the case where a monk 
> remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful
> -- 
> putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains 
> focused on feelings in & of themselves... mind in & of itself... mental 
> qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting
> aside 
> greed & distress with reference to the world. "This is called the frames
> of 
> reference.
> 
>  "And what is the development of the frames of reference? There is the
> case 
> where a monk remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with
> regard to 
> the body, remains focused on the phenomenon of passing away with regard
> to 
> the body, remains focused on the phenomenon of origination & passing
> away 
> with regard to the body -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside
> greed & 
> distress with reference to the world. "He remains focused on the
> phenomenon 
> of origination with regard to feelings, remains focused on the
> phenomenon of 
> passing away with regard to feelings, remains focused on the phenomenon
> of 
> origination & passing away with regard to feelings -- ardent, alert, & 
> mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.
> "He 
> remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the
> mind, 
> remains focused on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the
> mind, 
> remains focused on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with
> regard 
> to the mind -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed &
> distress 
> with reference to the world. "He remains focused on the phenomenon of 
> origination with regard to mental qualities, remains focused on the 
> phenomenon of passing away with regard to mental qualities, remains
> focused 
> on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to mental 
> qualities -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress
> with 
> reference to the world. "This is called the development of the frames of
> 
> reference.
>  
> "And what is the path of practice to the development of the frames of 
> reference? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve,
> right 
> speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness,
> 
> right concentration. This is called the path of practice to the
> development 
> of the frames of reference." Revised: Mon 10 September 2001 <A
> HREF="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn47-040.html">
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn47-040.html</A>
> *******************************

…
>        Most interesting to me is the final section which defines "the
> path of 
> practice to the development of the frames of reference," as specifically
> the 
> noble eightfold path. The straightforward reading of this takes
> satipatthana 
> more as something which "comes later", penultimate to liberation, rather
> than 
> as a technique to be practiced "all along". It would seem, on this
> reading, 
> that the entire eight-factored path is the path of practice culminating
> in 
> satipatthana (and then in awakening and liberation).
> 
> With metta,
> Howard



 
13406 From: Sukinder   
Date: Tue May 21, 2002 8:39am
Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: 'no control', kamma of the fourth kind, MN117

 
  Hi Rob,

Nice to hear from you.

.........  I agree with a lot of what you say.

Happy to hear that.

I think one of the main areas where we may disagree, as I find a similar
disagreement with Jon, is whether or not certain practices can be assumed to
eventually lead to kusala, sati, panna, and all the other positive
qualities.

I think the quality of citta is the important thing, not the activity
itself. Giving
importance to 'activity' will I feel lead to some form of silabbataparamasa
or the
other. Kusala is encouraged and accumulation of parami does support the
development of panna, but this must be natural. By natural I mean, without
the
interference of an idea, that certain activities would condition kusala and
that
would in turn engender the development of panna. Even kusala cannot be
forced and it has already fallen away by the time we think about doing
something.

And I definitely do not believe that practices of other religions, such as
yoga,
can lead to sati and panna. Kusala was and is recognized by all other
religions
and I do believe that some level of kusala can be developed by performing
activities such as yoga and tai chi, but not sati and panna. The kusala they
all encourage is with some sense and form of self or the other. They
have no idea of anatta, or even anicca. Their conception of impermanence
is basically conceptual, not having perceived the rise and fall of
individual
dhammas. Conceptual understanding of impermanence cannot lead to
detachment from what buddhists know to be the momentary arising of
phenonmenon, which is 'now', let alone detachment from the sense of self,
which is constantly being reinforced through tanha, ditthi and mana.

The Buddha was equally perfect in wisdom the first moment he attained
enlightenment till the moment before he attained parinibbana. The wisdom
of the arahants all combined do not equal to a small part of the Buddhas.
And I do not believe any person outside the buddhist tradition in human
history, will have the wisdom close to a sotapanna.
Wisdom cannot be added and improved upon by sucessive generations.
A system of practice like yoga which has been worked upon and changed
through time can only result in getting people cling to the superficial
aspect of it.
My conclusion thus is, such practices not only do not help in buddhist
practise, but if seen instead as being a support, can be extremely
detrimental to development of panna.

Satipatthana is the *only* way. With this in mind, it is counter productive
to investigate and try out any other teachings. Panna being the aim of
Buddha's teachings, why give preference to development of other kinds
of kusala rather than understanding what is appearing at this moment?

Robert:
Another point is whether putting forth intentions implies that there is a
self,
and that the only way to acknowledge anatta is by admitting that nothing can
be
done to either speed or slow the path.  One has to kind of sneak in Sutta
study
and discernment in a passive, natural way, so that the notion of self won't
get in
and ruin it.  [Hope you don't mind me being a little facetious to highlight
the
point.]

Sukin:
Yes the sense of self is all pervading. Almost every moment of being awake
there is a sense of self via ditthi, tanha or mana. Especially when we are
not aware no? The sneaking in to study and paying attention to the teachings
can be done or at least have many moments where lobha is ruling no?;-)
I think this should alert us to how much the sense of self would then
overshadow activities we do intentionally to overccome the sense of self.

Robert:
I personally think [for whatever that's worth -- not much, I hear Jon
saying...my
God, I've internalized him!] that sitting with attention to the breath or to
the
present moment will eventually yield increased discernment, and lead to sati
and
panna.  I add that of course if one does this in an unskillful way it may
not lead
to any such results, but the practice itself, done with some reasonable
understanding and instruction, tends to lead in the right direction.  I
think that
most Abhidhammists will tend to disagree with this, and say that we cannot
possibly predict the arising of kusala based on any given practice.

I also believe that intention can be put forth by cittas and that this
cumulative
intention will eventually tend to yield positive fruit.  And I think some
take
this to imply that there must be a self being posited that will both put
this
effort forth and yield the fruit of that intention.  I contend that this is
not
necessarily so, and that intention can be put forth, just as we put forth
this or
that cause through the production of consciousness.  We have a moment of
anger and
the intention arises to either hold it back and take a deep breath or to
yell and
scream.  There is a moment of decision there as well.  There may also be a
moment
where we say, 'okay, let's not act on this anger in future' and eventually
this
may have an effect in that direction.  Can we choose to have an intention
and then
have it?  I don't know.  But I do think the putting forth of intention can
yield
an eventual result that arises from that intention.  My own life seems to
give
evidence for this.

Sukin:
Rob, turn your attention to the frame of your monitor, now to other parts of
your
computer, next scan your room, if there is sound, sound. Do you see the
diversity
and range of sense impressions, can you appreciate that it all involves a
complexity
of conditions (one of which being my prompting you to)? Sitting down to
observe
your breath, does this involve any more favourable set of conditions( for
the
development of panna) than standing and staring out into the open? Do you
know
exactly what is going on at any given moment and can you give a correct
interpretation of your experience to you meditation teacher? Can your
meditation teacher know what are the conditions any given moment?

I think it very important to distinguish between concept and reality, or
else we are
likely to end up getting caught in some form of practise, not recognizing
our
projections.

Sorry I have to go out somewhere. I feel I have not addressed your precise
points.
Had some other points in mind after I read your post earlier today, but
forgot what
they were. But will wait for your reply to see if anything else could be
said.

Best wishes,

Sukin.

 
 
13407 From: onco111   
Date: Mon May 20, 2002 7:23pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K]

 
  Robert,
> Understanding (panna) knows the object in the way stated, and it 
> brings about by endeavouring, the manifestation of the path." This  
> perhaps ties up with your excellent series on silabataparamasa; as 
> you indicated this is actually an aspect of wrong view, it is not 
> the action per se that is the clinging to rule and ritual but the 
> wrong view that feels one is somehow controlling and directing the 
> various khandas. In the quote from the visuddhimagga we see that 
> citta(without panna) can know the characteristic of dhammas, it can 
> perceive subtle feelings  colours, sounds, hardness, heat - but if 
> panna is not present nothing is gained, one may be developing 
> silabataparamasa.

Interesting perception, Robert. As you say, central to the effort is 
knowing not just the difference between sati and samadhi but also the 
difference between sati with panya and sati without panya, and 
knowing not just in a theoretical sense, but knowing as the dhammas 
arise and pass away. Silabbataparamasa is not necessarily akusala, 
but neither is it liberating. 

Dan

 
13408 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Mon May 20, 2002 7:28pm
Subject: Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta

 
  Howard

I've now had a chance to look at this sutta, and I see the point you are
raising about the final section.  Here the Noble Eightfold Path is
described as "the path [of practice] to the development of the frames of
reference" or, in the Bh. Bodhi translation, as "the way leading to the
development of the establishment of mindfulness".

I admit I am puzzled by this and have no thoughts on it as yet.  I am only
familiar with the Noble Eightfold Path being described as the path leading
to nibbana.  This is something entirely new to me.

As you know, I rely heavily on the commentaries for my interpretation of
the suttas, but unfortunately there is no English translation of the
Saaratthappakaasini or its tika.  I don't know if our Thai members (e.g.
Jaran, Kom or Num, or others) would be able to throw any light on this
point from the Thai translation which as I understand it includes the
commentary also.

I've noted your comments on the 'straightforward' meaning, Howard, but I
prefer not to speculate at this stage.

Very interesting, and thanks for bringing it up.  Any comments from others
most welcome.

Jon


--- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon (and all) -
>        I found a not-too-long sutta which I think is interesting in a
> couple 
> ways. The sutta is the following:
> 
> ***********************
> 
> Samyutta Nikaya XLVII.40
> Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta
> Analysis of the Frames of Reference
> 
> Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
> For free distribution only.
>  
> "I will teach you the frames of reference, their development, and the
> path of 
> practice leading to their development. Listen & pay close attention. I
> will 
> speak. 
> 
> "Now, what are the frames of reference? There is the case where a monk 
> remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful
> -- 
> putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains 
> focused on feelings in & of themselves... mind in & of itself... mental 
> qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting
> aside 
> greed & distress with reference to the world. "This is called the frames
> of 
> reference.
> 
>  "And what is the development of the frames of reference? There is the
> case 
> where a monk remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with
> regard to 
> the body, remains focused on the phenomenon of passing away with regard
> to 
> the body, remains focused on the phenomenon of origination & passing
> away 
> with regard to the body -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside
> greed & 
> distress with reference to the world. "He remains focused on the
> phenomenon 
> of origination with regard to feelings, remains focused on the
> phenomenon of 
> passing away with regard to feelings, remains focused on the phenomenon
> of 
> origination & passing away with regard to feelings -- ardent, alert, & 
> mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.
> "He 
> remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the
> mind, 
> remains focused on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the
> mind, 
> remains focused on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with
> regard 
> to the mind -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed &
> distress 
> with reference to the world. "He remains focused on the phenomenon of 
> origination with regard to mental qualities, remains focused on the 
> phenomenon of passing away with regard to mental qualities, remains
> focused 
> on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to mental 
> qualities -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress
> with 
> reference to the world. "This is called the development of the frames of
> 
> reference.
>  
> "And what is the path of practice to the development of the frames of 
> reference? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve,
> right 
> speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness,
> 
> right concentration. This is called the path of practice to the
> development 
> of the frames of reference." Revised: Mon 10 September 2001 <A
> HREF="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn47-040.html">
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn47-040.html</A>
> *******************************

…
>        Most interesting to me is the final section which defines "the
> path of 
> practice to the development of the frames of reference," as specifically
> the 
> noble eightfold path. The straightforward reading of this takes
> satipatthana 
> more as something which "comes later", penultimate to liberation, rather
> than 
> as a technique to be practiced "all along". It would seem, on this
> reading, 
> that the entire eight-factored path is the path of practice culminating
> in 
> satipatthana (and then in awakening and liberation).
> 
> With metta,
> Howard


 
13409 From: Jim Anderson   
Date: Mon May 20, 2002 7:42pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta

 
  Jon,

The Pali phrase is "satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii pa.tipadaa". It seems
to me that "the path of practice" is either a translation of "pa.tipadaa"
(the way) or "-gaaminii pa.tipadaa" (the way leading to). It is also worth
noting that the Pali text takes satipa.t.thaana to be in the singular
(satipa.t.thaana.m) which B. Bodhi translates as "the establishment of
mindfulness" while Thanissaro Bhikkhu has "the frames of reference"
(plural).

Best wishes,
Jim Anderson

> Howard
>
> Many thanks for the interesting sutta below which I look forward to
> discussing with you.
>
> Before I do, however, we need to clarify something on the translation,
> which concerns the particular passage you have highlighted.
>
> I refer to the passage in the ATI translation that reads:
> > "And what is the path of practice to the development of the frames of
> > reference? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve,
> right
> > speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness,
> > right concentration. This is called the path of practice to the
> development
> > of the frames of reference."
>
> In the Bhikkhu Bodhi translation (CDB, Wisdom), this appears as:
> "And what is the way leading to the development of the establishment of
> mindfulness?  It is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, Right View . Right
> Concentration.  This is called the way leading to the development of the
> establishment of mindfulness."
>
> The rendering in the CDB version is fairly standard stuff.  I am wondering
> where the words "path of practice" in the ATI translation come from.  Do
> you have any thoughts on this?  Can anybody help us with the Pali here?
>
> Jon




 
13410 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Mon May 20, 2002 8:42pm
Subject: Reminder to trim posts....

 
  Dear All,

Just a reminder to trim those parts of previous posts which are not
necessary for replies. Also when possible, please put your reply at the
beginning rather than at the very end of a long message.

These points assist those reading in digest form, those who print out
messages or those reading in haste.

Thanks,

Jon & Sarah (who also forget at times)
===============================


 
13411 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Mon May 20, 2002 9:17pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta

 
  Jim

Many thanks for coming in here, Jim.

 --- Jim Anderson  wrote: > Jon,
> 
> The Pali phrase is "satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii pa.tipadaa". It
> seems
> to me that "the path of practice" is either a translation of
> "pa.tipadaa"
> (the way) or "-gaaminii pa.tipadaa" (the way leading to). It is also

It would seem that the reference to 'practice' is the translator's own
gloss.

> It is also worth
> noting that the Pali text takes satipa.t.thaana to be in the singular
> (satipa.t.thaana.m) which B. Bodhi translates as "the establishment of
> mindfulness" while Thanissaro Bhikkhu has "the frames of reference"
> (plural).

On this point, Bh. Bodhi notes that the preferred sense would be "the
establishing of mindfulness"

> Best wishes,
> Jim Anderson

I won't ask you to look at the other question that arises with this sutta,
which I mentioned in my subsequent post, and which I think arises
independently of the translation points, as that would be too much of an
imposition (especially as you are away from your home base).  But any
thoughts you may have on it would be most welcome.

Jon


 
13412 From: Howard 
Date: Mon May 20, 2002 7:01pm
Subject: Re: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Rober...

 
  Hi, Rob -

       The following is the initial portion of the article on anatta from 
Nyanatiloka's dictionary:


> anattá: 'not-self', non-ego, egolessness, impersonality, is the last of the 
> three characteristics of existence (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) The anattá doctrine 
> teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, 
> nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could 
> be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding 
> substance. This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding 
> which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible. It is the only 
> really specific Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire Structure of the 
> Buddhist teaching stands or falls. All the remaining Buddhist doctrines 
> may, more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and religions, but 
> the anattá-doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only by the 
> Buddha, wherefore the Buddha is known as the anattá-vádi, or 'Teacher of 
> Impersonality'. Whosoever has not penetrated this impersonality of all 
> existence, and does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this 
> continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental 
> phenomena, and that there is no separate ego-entity within or without this 
> process, he will not be able to understand Buddhism, i.e. the teaching of 
> the 4 Noble Truths (sacca, q.v.), in the right light. He will think that it 
> is his ego, his personality, that experiences suffering, his personality 
> that performs good and evil actions and will be reborn according to these 
> actions, his personality that will enter into Nibbána, his personality that 
> walks on the Eightfold Path. Thus it is said in Vis.M. XVI:
> >> 
>> > 
> > 
> >> "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;
> The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there;
> Nibbána is, but not the man that enters it;
> The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."
> 

       With regard to the sentence "The anattá doctrine teaches that neither 
within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can 
be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a 
self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance.," I'd 
like to emphasize the words "nor outside of them." While I do not have a 
ready reference, I do seem to recall in some sutta the Buddha saying that 
there is no self outside of the khandhas. (And, of course, there *is* the 
sutta entitled The All, in which the Buddha describes the five khandhas as 
being all there is.) Now, of course, there is also nibbana, which is not any 
khandha at all. But the thing is, nibbana is without condition - it is the 
very absence of conditions. Now, can the discernment of absence, a 
thoroughgoing and utterly complete absence of all possible conditions be a 
self? I think not, for a "self", in addition to being unchanging, is also 
*personal*. But a thoroughgoing and utterly complete absence of all possible 
conditions has nothing by which it can be construed as personal.
       Consider, moreover the quoted material:

"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;
The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there;
Nibbána is, but not the man that enters it;
The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."

       The last two lines of this, as well, point to the impersonality of 
nibbana. So, I would say that there is no self to be found, not in the 
khandhas nor outside of them. I also do think that our strong desire that 
there BE a self outside the khandhas is a kind of last-ditch grasping at the 
anchor of self. That has to be let go of as well - or so it seems to me.

With metta,
Howard



In a message dated 5/20/02 1:55:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Robert Ep writes:


> 
> Hi TG.
> Well I still think it's interesting that the Buddha never says, even to 
> these
> disciples who presumably would *not* become bewildered if he were to say 
> it:
> "There is no Self".  Why does he repeat over and over again that all things 
> within
> the five kandhas - the entire content of *this* life - are 'not self', but 
> refuses
> to ever say that 'there is not a self of any kind'?
> 
> If the reason is in fact that to make such a statement would be adhering to
> annihilationism, one must ask:  What is wrong with the view that the Buddha 
> has
> here said that he wants to avoid?  Why does the Buddha *not* want to 
> promote the
> view that death, to quote the Sutta itself, 'is the annihilation of
> consciousness'.  Certainly there been quite a few discussions on this list 
> in
> which the Buddha's words in other Suttas have been interpeted to mean 
> precisely
> that:  that consciousness is totally annihilated at the death of an Arahant 
> who
> has realized Nibbana.  So is the only view the Buddha wishes to avoid the 
> view
> that the ordinary person has his consciousness annihilated at death?
> 
> It seems to me that the Buddha is saying here that the annihilationists are 
> wrong.
> The eternatlists are wrong too, but we can talk about that after looking at 
> the
> annihilationists a little more closely.  One would hope that if the Buddha 
> were
> merely saying the unenlightened person does *not* have their consciousness
> annihilated at death - because of course the tendencies of the kandhas' 
> karma
> still unresolved will cause him to be reborn - but that the enlightened 
> person's
> consciousness, having no more such tendencies - *is* annihilated at death
> [Parinibbana], he would say so and make this explicit.  If such a 
> distinction
> exists anywhere in the canon, I would appreciate being pointed to it.  This 
> is not
> my sense of what the Buddha is saying.  It seems apparent that he is saying 
> that
> the annihilationists are deluded and that consciousness is *not* 
> annihilated at
> death.  But if the Buddha were to assert that there is no self, this is the
> conclusion that the annihilationists would draw, and he would be leading 
> them into
> deeper delusion.
> 
> The eternalists on the other hand say that there *is* a self, and if Buddha 
> were
> to assert that there *is* a self, he would be leading the eternalists to 
> the
> conclusion that there is an immortal soul which survives death and 
> continues
> beyond the body.  I think it is fair to say that the Buddha does not agree 
> with
> this view and does not want to promote it.  
> 
> There are two possibilities that this allows: One is that there is a self 
> that is
> beyond the kandhas, a very unpopular view in the Theravadin community, but 
> one
> never explicitly ruled out by the Buddha.  I know he has clearly said that 
> there
> is no 'consciousness' that survives death, and that there is no 'eternal
> consciousness' that constitutes a kind of selfless self, but these are all 
> still
> within the limits of the kandhas as we know them in this life.  In other 
> words,
> there is no self that we as human beings can imagine.  Still, the Buddha 
> never
> says:  'There is no self of any kind', and I don't think the implication is 
> that
> he will only not assert this because he doesn't want to confuse the
> annihilationists.  Again, in his conversations with Ananda and other 
> advanced
> Arahants, there is no reason why he could not say:  'Just between us, by 
> the way,
> there is no self of any kind, but please don't tell the annihilationists as 
> they
> will confuse the issue.'  Even if this was the case, saying that 'there is 
> no
> self' does not explain why he refuses to say that consciousness is 
> extinguished at
> death, which he clearly announces here as a wrong view that the 
> annihilationists
> hold.  It seems clear to me that he is saying that the annihilationists 
> view is
> wrong, otherwise, why not support it?  Why not just say:  'yes, 
> consciousness *is*
> extinguished at death'.  But he does not want the annihilationists to think 
> this,
> because it is clearly a wrong view.
> 
> The other possibility is that there is no self of any kind, but that 
> something
> beyhond consciousness and the kandhas survives in a form that is beyond 
> anything
> we can know or imagine.  This seems to be implied by the Buddha's refusal 
> to rule
> out *some* kind of self, or *some* kind of consciousness surviving beyond 
> death. 
> Otherwise, why not just let the eternalists and the annihilationists know 
> the
> truth:  that there is no self, and that there is no consciousness beyond 
> death? 
> In what way would it confuse them or lead them into wrong views if in fact 
> these
> two direct statements were true?  It seems obvious to me that Buddha 
> refrains from
> saying this because to make these blunt statements would be promoting wrong 
> view,
> and that it is not correct to say that there is no self of any kind, and it 
> is not
> correct to say that consciousness is extinguished at death.  These are the 
> exact
> views that he is saying are wrong.
> 
> Now, the two important verses which you say that Victor left out make the
> following points:
> 
> 1/  In the first one Buddha states bluntly that 'all phenomena are 
> not-self'  That
> is that all *phenomena*, everything we experience in this life, are 
> 'not-self'. 
> Again this does not say 'there is no self'.  It says phenomena do not 
> contain a
> self or constitute a self.  So we must not look to phenomena to find a 
> 'self'. 
> The right view of anatta is always stated this way, isn't it?  That when 
> regarding
> phenomena we are not to cling to them and identify with them as 'self'.  
> Isn't
> that right?  Nowhere does the Buddha say: 'Look at yourself and be clear 
> that
> there is no self of any kind that is your self'.  He never rules out the
> possibility, never, of some kind of self beyond phenomena.  Now, I am not 
> saying
> that there is a self, but what I do want to point out is that Buddha's 
> purpose in
> the doctrine of anatta does not seem to be to convince us that there is no 
> self of
> any kind.  Rather it seems to be to direct us to look at all the things of 
> this
> life as 'not-self', 'impermanent' and 'unable to grant satisfaction' and 
> thus not
> worthy of clinging to.  When we stop clinging to all of these 'not-self'
> phenomena, we become free to travel the Noble Eightfold Path to liberation. 
>  And
> this seems to be Buddha's intent.  
> 
> I think this is why Victor keeps pointing out the form in which the Buddha
> addresses the subject of anatta, because many of us draw the conclusion, 
> perhaps
> erroneously, that Buddha is preaching a kind of delayed annihilationism.  
> If we
> say that 'there is no self and no property of self that exists beyond 
> death, and
> only the kandhas' tendencies keep consciousness from dying out', then we 
> aim for a
> kind of annihilationism that is delayed until Parinibbana, but is still 
> directly
> in line with the view of the annihilationists none-the-less, that 
> 'consciousness
> is extinguished at death', the view that the Buddha here explicitly 
> rejects.  how
> can we adopt a view that is explicitly rejected by the Buddha, and say that 
> it is
> Buddhist doctrine?
> 
> 2/ In the second verse that you have added to the post, Buddha makes it 
> clear that
> the self one thinks one has is not real, and is not annihilated by the 
> doctrine of
> anatta:
> 
> > "And if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self 
> -- 
> > were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would 
> become 
> > even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'" 
> 
> The most that we can draw from this is that our *idea* of self is totally 
> wrong. 
> Vacchagotta is bewildered - he has the wrong idea of self.  If told there 
> is no
> self, he would think, well, 'I know I *do* have a self', and he has a fixed 
> idea
> of what that self is, so if he were to accept the Buddha's assurance that 
> there is
> 'no' self, he would become more bewildered and think the self he knows he 
> has has
> been challenged, annihilated, by the Buddha's teaching.  This is how many 
> of us
> take the doctrine of anatta.  We try to see that we have no self, and it is 
> like a
> self struggling to annihilate itself.  Instead of letting go of our wrong 
> views
> about self, which Buddha says have to be completely let go - he says to let 
> go of
> every last view we have, because every conceptual view is inherently wrong, 
> an
> overlay on the truth - we think we really *do* have a self, and that we 
> have to
> somehow destroy it in order to realize the goal of Buddhism.  This is like
> fighting with a shadow, because our idea of what our self is is conceptual 
> and
> based on mental and emotional attachments to ideas and objects.
> 
> So Buddha is definitely saying that our *idea* of self is wrong, but he 
> nowhere
> states either positively or negatively that is no self of any kind, just 
> that we
> don't know and that we don't get it.  
> 
> In fact, isn't the point of what Buddha is saying here that 'everything we 
> think
> we know is wrong', and that he doesn't want to feed any of our tendencies 
> to
> falsely conceptualize about self and not-self?  If we accept that as the 
> premise,
> then we will focus on our own views of self, and let them go.  My 
> experience in
> the moment is that I am conscious of phenomena.  I know this consciousness 
> is
> present, and that it has one or another object.  That is my present 
> reality. 
> There is a sense of self, which I do not what to make of, and cannot until
> enlightenment.  I should neither accept nor reject this sense of self, but 
> focus
> on letting go of false concepts that may arise about this sense of self, 
> while
> trying to discern truly the functions of mind and the nature of arising 
> objects to
> gain insight and wisdom, gradually refraining from creating new kammic 
> tendencies,
> and letting go of attachments.  
> 
> But I think that Victor's basic view that the Buddha is telling us what to 
> let go
> of, since it is 'anatta', that is:  phenomena, is correct.  And to think 
> that
> Buddha has made any statement as to whether there is in fact some kind of 
> self or
> not, or that consciousness is completely extinguished in all forms at 
> death, is
> wrong.
> 
> Best,
> Robert Ep.
> 
> 


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         

 
13413 From: Howard 
Date: Mon May 20, 2002 7:40pm
Subject: Re: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Rober...

 
  Hi, Robert -

In a message dated 5/20/02 2:23:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Robert Ep writes:


> 
> Dear Howard,
> Thanks for your reply, which is both intelligent and personal.  What I 
> would say,
> along your lines, is that I have no belief in a self 'as such' at this 
> point, a
> personal self, anything that we would call self in the conventional sense.  
> But I
> differ in seeing 'only' fleeting phenomena rolling by.  To me, there is 
> both the
> continuous changes of content that mark human experience, and also a 
> constant: 
> consciousness, which has an ever-changing content but itself is 
> everpresent. 
> Consciousness has proved to be impersonal as well:  it does not constitute 
> a self,
> and the sense of self which you speak of is also merely an arising 
> sensation
> within consciousness, but the sense of always being mindful, conscious, 
> aware, of
> something is always there.  This leads this consciousness to conclude that 
> the
> property of awareness is the underlying reality within which all phenomena 
> occur,
> and this is the sticking point between many Buddhists of various 
> orientiations. 
> 
-----------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       There is, of course, vi~n~nana. It is inseparable from its objects. 
They arise together and are interdependent. Vi~n~nana is a separative 
awareness - separative in partaking of subject-object duality, and separative 
in the sense of separating out objects from the field of possibilities based 
on interest and inclinations. Vi~n~nana is conditioned, and it deals in 
conditions. Nibbana, on the other hand, is unconditioned, has no relation to 
conditions, but deals in absence, and is utterly impersonal. So, where is 
there a self? If one wishes to say that nibbana is of the genus "awareness", 
I would not disagree, but such awareness is so radically "other", that for us 
to just say that it is a mode of awareness and think we have supplied some 
real content in saying so, is, I believe, to be mistaken.
------------------------------------------------------------

> Is awareness merely a mechanical property of causation, which arises with 
> causes
> and subsides at death?  Or at least at the death of an arahant?  Or is it
> impersonal, beyond the ordinary consciousness we experience in the world of 
> human
> objects, and does it have a life beyond the self?  At times in the past you 
> have
> agreed with me that there seems to be something like an impersonal 
> awareness that
> is not annihilated at death. Now you seem to have grown beyond that, and 
> that is
> fine.
> 
-----------------------------------------------------
Howard: 
       No, I haven't "grown" beyond anything. Perhaps I've refined my 
understanding a bit. No more.
-----------------------------------------------------

   I have not, and it is still an issue for me.  It is not an issue because I> 
> 
> am worried about what will happen at death.  I am concerned about the focus 
> of
> present practice.  Is it correct to discern the 'sense', not of self, but 
> of
> 'being aware' as merely another mechanical arising, or is it a constant to 
> be
> realized as one's actual basis for the experience of the kandhas and this 
> life?  I
> tend to think the latter, and by viewing all arisings as merely mechanical 
> that
> perhaps something essential is lost in the practice of realization.
> 
> These are my thoughts and as someone who I know has progressed at least to 
> the
> point of letting go of concepts of self, I am wondering what you think 
> about this
> these days.
> 
> Best,
> Robert Ep.
> 
==============================
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)                    
            
                                         



 
13414 From: Howard 
Date: Mon May 20, 2002 7:42pm
Subject: Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Re: [dsg] Sitting and mindfulness [Anders]

 
  Hi, Rob -

In a message dated 5/20/02 2:26:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Robert Ep writes:


> Okay Howard.
> Hope I don't sound too disrespectful.  I have a tendency to fight hard in 
> this
> particular debate, and so I apologize if that leads me to step on anyone's 
> toes.
> 
> Best,
> Robert Ep.
> 
========================
You are always respectful, and exhuberance is only to be admired! :-)

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)                    
            
                                         



 
13415 From: Howard 
Date: Mon May 20, 2002 7:53pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta

 
  Hi, Jon -

In a message dated 5/20/02 7:28:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
<> writes:


> Howard
> 
> I've now had a chance to look at this sutta, and I see the point you are
> raising about the final section.  Here the Noble Eightfold Path is
> described as "the path [of practice] to the development of the frames of
> reference" or, in the Bh. Bodhi translation, as "the way leading to the
> development of the establishment of mindfulness".
> 
> I admit I am puzzled by this and have no thoughts on it as yet.  I am only
> familiar with the Noble Eightfold Path being described as the path leading
> to nibbana.  This is something entirely new to me.
> 
> As you know, I rely heavily on the commentaries for my interpretation of
> the suttas, but unfortunately there is no English translation of the
> Saaratthappakaasini or its tika.  I don't know if our Thai members (e.g.
> Jaran, Kom or Num, or others) would be able to throw any light on this
> point from the Thai translation which as I understand it includes the
> commentary also.
> 
> I've noted your comments on the 'straightforward' meaning, Howard, but I
> prefer not to speculate at this stage.
> 
> Very interesting, and thanks for bringing it up.  Any comments from others
> most welcome.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
==========================
       It may very well turn out that there is a way of understanding this 
sutta which accords with your perspective. Whatever the case may be, I'd just 
like to say that I really admire your intellectual honesty and your 
willingness to face whatever the facts may be! Most people cling strongly to 
long-held views, and your openness to other possibilities is really 
impressive!

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)                    
            
                                         



 
13416 From: yuzhonghao   
Date: Tue May 21, 2002 2:50am
Subject: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Rober...

 
  Howard and all,

"Thus, monks, any body whatsoever that is past, future, or present; 
internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or 
near: every body is to be seen as it actually is with right 
discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not 
what I am.' 

"Any feeling whatsoever... 

"Any perception whatsoever... 

"Any fabrications whatsoever... 

"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; 
internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or 
near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right 
discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not 
what I am.' 

"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows 
disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted 
with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with 
consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through 
dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the 
knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is depleted, the 
holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this 
world.'" 

See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html

Regards,
Victor

---  <> wrote:
> Hi, Rob -
> 
>        The following is the initial portion of the article on 
anatta from 
> Nyanatiloka's dictionary:
> 
> 
> > anattá: 'not-self', non-ego, egolessness, impersonality, is the 
last of the 
> > three characteristics of existence (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) The anattá 
doctrine 
> > teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of 
existence, 
> > nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate 
sense could 
> > be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other 
abiding 
> > substance. This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without 
understanding 
> > which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible. It 
is the only 
> > really specific Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire 
Structure of the 
> > Buddhist teaching stands or falls. All the remaining Buddhist 
doctrines 
> > may, more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and 
religions, but 
> > the anattá-doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only 
by the 
> > Buddha, wherefore the Buddha is known as the anattá-vádi, 
or 'Teacher of 
> > Impersonality'. Whosoever has not penetrated this impersonality 
of all 
> > existence, and does not comprehend that in reality there exists 
only this 
> > continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily 
and mental 
> > phenomena, and that there is no separate ego-entity within or 
without this 
> > process, he will not be able to understand Buddhism, i.e. the 
teaching of 
> > the 4 Noble Truths (sacca, q.v.), in the right light. He will 
think that it 
> > is his ego, his personality, that experiences suffering, his 
personality 
> > that performs good and evil actions and will be reborn according 
to these 
> > actions, his personality that will enter into Nibbána, his 
personality that 
> > walks on the Eightfold Path. Thus it is said in Vis.M. XVI:
> > >> 
> >> > 
> > > 
> > >> "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;
> > The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there;
> > Nibbána is, but not the man that enters it;
> > The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."
> > 
> 
>        With regard to the sentence "The anattá doctrine teaches 
that neither 
> within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of 
them, can 
> be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a 
> self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding 
substance.," I'd 
> like to emphasize the words "nor outside of them." While I do not 
have a 
> ready reference, I do seem to recall in some sutta the Buddha 
saying that 
> there is no self outside of the khandhas. (And, of course, there 
*is* the 
> sutta entitled The All, in which the Buddha describes the five 
khandhas as 
> being all there is.) Now, of course, there is also nibbana, which 
is not any 
> khandha at all. But the thing is, nibbana is without condition - it 
is the 
> very absence of conditions. Now, can the discernment of absence, a 
> thoroughgoing and utterly complete absence of all possible 
conditions be a 
> self? I think not, for a "self", in addition to being unchanging, 
is also 
> *personal*. But a thoroughgoing and utterly complete absence of all 
possible 
> conditions has nothing by which it can be construed as personal.
>        Consider, moreover the quoted material:
> 
> "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;
> The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there;
> Nibbána is, but not the man that enters it;
> The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."
> 
>        The last two lines of this, as well, point to the 
impersonality of 
> nibbana. So, I would say that there is no self to be found, not in 
the 
> khandhas nor outside of them. I also do think that our strong 
desire that 
> there BE a self outside the khandhas is a kind of last-ditch 
grasping at the 
> anchor of self. That has to be let go of as well - or so it seems 
to me.
> 
> With metta,
> Howard
> 
> 
> 
> In a message dated 5/20/02 1:55:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> <> writes:
> 
> 
> > 
> > Hi TG.
> > Well I still think it's interesting that the Buddha never says, 
even to 
> > these
> > disciples who presumably would *not* become bewildered if he were 
to say 
> > it:
> > "There is no Self".  Why does he repeat over and over again that 
all things 
> > within
> > the five kandhas - the entire content of *this* life - are 'not 
self', but 
> > refuses
> > to ever say that 'there is not a self of any kind'?
> > 
> > If the reason is in fact that to make such a statement would be 
adhering to
> > annihilationism, one must ask:  What is wrong with the view that 
the Buddha 
> > has
> > here said that he wants to avoid?  Why does the Buddha *not* want 
to 
> > promote the
> > view that death, to quote the Sutta itself, 'is the annihilation 
of
> > consciousness'.  Certainly there been quite a few discussions on 
this list 
> > in
> > which the Buddha's words in other Suttas have been interpeted to 
mean 
> > precisely
> > that:  that consciousness is totally annihilated at the death of 
an Arahant 
> > who
> > has realized Nibbana.  So is the only view the Buddha wishes to 
avoid the 
> > view
> > that the ordinary person has his consciousness annihilated at 
death?
> > 
> > It seems to me that the Buddha is saying here that the 
annihilationists are 
> > wrong.
> > The eternatlists are wrong too, but we can talk about that after 
looking at 
> > the
> > annihilationists a little more closely.  One would hope that if 
the Buddha 
> > were
> > merely saying the unenlightened person does *not* have their 
consciousness
> > annihilated at death - because of course the tendencies of the 
kandhas' 
> > karma
> > still unresolved will cause him to be reborn - but that the 
enlightened 
> > person's
> > consciousness, having no more such tendencies - *is* annihilated 
at death
> > [Parinibbana], he would say so and make this explicit.  If such a 
> > distinction
> > exists anywhere in the canon, I would appreciate being pointed to 
it.  This 
> > is not
> > my sense of what the Buddha is saying.  It seems apparent that he 
is saying 
> > that
> > the annihilationists are deluded and that consciousness is *not* 
> > annihilated at
> > death.  But if the Buddha were to assert that there is no self, 
this is the
> > conclusion that the annihilationists would draw, and he would be 
leading 
> > them into
> > deeper delusion.
> > 
> > The eternalists on the other hand say that there *is* a self, and 
if Buddha 
> > were
> > to assert that there *is* a self, he would be leading the 
eternalists to 
> > the
> > conclusion that there is an immortal soul which survives death 
and 
> > continues
> > beyond the body.  I think it is fair to say that the Buddha does 
not agree 
> > with
> > this view and does not want to promote it.  
> > 
> > There are two possibilities that this allows: One is that there 
is a self 
> > that is
> > beyond the kandhas, a very unpopular view in the Theravadin 
community, but 
> > one
> > never explicitly ruled out by the Buddha.  I know he has clearly 
said that 
> > there
> > is no 'consciousness' that survives death, and that there is 
no 'eternal
> > consciousness' that constitutes a kind of selfless self, but 
these are all 
> > still
> > within the limits of the kandhas as we know them in this life.  
In other 
> > words,
> > there is no self that we as human beings can imagine.  Still, the 
Buddha 
> > never
> > says:  'There is no self of any kind', and I don't think the 
implication is 
> > that
> > he will only not assert this because he doesn't want to confuse 
the
> > annihilationists.  Again, in his conversations with Ananda and 
other 
> > advanced
> > Arahants, there is no reason why he could not say:  'Just between 
us, by 
> > the way,
> > there is no self of any kind, but please don't tell the 
annihilationists as 
> > they
> > will confuse the issue.'  Even if this was the case, saying 
that 'there is 
> > no
> > self' does not explain why he refuses to say that consciousness 
is 
> > extinguished at
> > death, which he clearly announces here as a wrong view that the 
> > annihilationists
> > hold.  It seems clear to me that he is saying that the 
annihilationists 
> > view is
> > wrong, otherwise, why not support it?  Why not just say:  'yes, 
> > consciousness *is*
> > extinguished at death'.  But he does not want the 
annihilationists to think 
> > this,
> > because it is clearly a wrong view.
> > 
> > The other possibility is that there is no self of any kind, but 
that 
> > something
> > beyhond consciousness and the kandhas survives in a form that is 
beyond 
> > anything
> > we can know or imagine.  This seems to be implied by the Buddha's 
refusal 
> > to rule
> > out *some* kind of self, or *some* kind of consciousness 
surviving beyond 
> > death. 
> > Otherwise, why not just let the eternalists and the 
annihilationists know 
> > the
> > truth:  that there is no self, and that there is no consciousness 
beyond 
> > death? 
> > In what way would it confuse them or lead them into wrong views 
if in fact 
> > these
> > two direct statements were true?  It seems obvious to me that 
Buddha 
> > refrains from
> > saying this because to make these blunt statements would be 
promoting wrong 
> > view,
> > and that it is not correct to say that there is no self of any 
kind, and it 
> > is not
> > correct to say that consciousness is extinguished at death.  
These are the 
> > exact
> > views that he is saying are wrong.
> > 
> > Now, the two important verses which you say that Victor left out 
make the
> > following points:
> > 
> > 1/  In the first one Buddha states bluntly that 'all phenomena 
are 
> > not-self'  That
> > is that all *phenomena*, everything we experience in this life, 
are 
> > 'not-self'. 
> > Again this does not say 'there is no self'.  It says phenomena do 
not 
> > contain a
> > self or constitute a self.  So we must not look to phenomena to 
find a 
> > 'self'. 
> > The right view of anatta is always stated this way, isn't it?  
That when 
> > regarding
> > phenomena we are not to cling to them and identify with them 
as 'self'.  
> > Isn't
> > that right?  Nowhere does the Buddha say: 'Look at yourself and 
be clear 
> > that
> > there is no self of any kind that is your self'.  He never rules 
out the
> > possibility, never, of some kind of self beyond phenomena.  Now, 
I am not 
> > saying
> > that there is a self, but what I do want to point out is that 
Buddha's 
> > purpose in
> > the doctrine of anatta does not seem to be to convince us that 
there is no 
> > self of
> > any kind.  Rather it seems to be to direct us to look at all the 
things of 
> > this
> > life as 'not-self', 'impermanent' and 'unable to grant 
satisfaction' and 
> > thus not
> > worthy of clinging to.  When we stop clinging to all of 
these 'not-self'
> > phenomena, we become free to travel the Noble Eightfold Path to 
liberation. 
> >  And
> > this seems to be Buddha's intent.  
> > 
> > I think this is why Victor keeps pointing out the form in which 
the Buddha
> > addresses the subject of anatta, because many of us draw the 
conclusion, 
> > perhaps
> > erroneously, that Buddha is preaching a kind of delayed 
annihilationism.  
> > If we
> > say that 'there is no self and no property of self that exists 
beyond 
> > death, and
> > only the kandhas' tendencies keep consciousness from dying out', 
then we 
> > aim for a
> > kind of annihilationism that is delayed until Parinibbana, but is 
still 
> > directly
> > in line with the view of the annihilationists none-the-less, that 
> > 'consciousness
> > is extinguished at death', the view that the Buddha here 
explicitly 
> > rejects.  how
> > can we adopt a view that is explicitly rejected by the Buddha, 
and say that 
> > it is
> > Buddhist doctrine?
> > 
> > 2/ In the second verse that you have added to the post, Buddha 
makes it 
> > clear that
> > the self one thinks one has is not real, and is not annihilated 
by the 
> > doctrine of
> > anatta:
> > 
> > > "And if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there 
is no self 
> > -- 
> > > were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered 
Vacchagotta would 
> > become 
> > > even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not 
exist?'" 
> > 
> > The most that we can draw from this is that our *idea* of self is 
totally 
> > wrong. 
> > Vacchagotta is bewildered - he has the wrong idea of self.  If 
told there 
> > is no
> > self, he would think, well, 'I know I *do* have a self', and he 
has a fixed 
> > idea
> > of what that self is, so if he were to accept the Buddha's 
assurance that 
> > there is
> > 'no' self, he would become more bewildered and think the self he 
knows he 
> > has has
> > been challenged, annihilated, by the Buddha's teaching.  This is 
how many 
> > of us
> > take the doctrine of anatta.  We try to see that we have no self, 
and it is 
> > like a
> > self struggling to annihilate itself.  Instead of letting go of 
our wrong 
> > views
> > about self, which Buddha says have to be completely let go - he 
says to let 
> > go of
> > every last view we have, because every conceptual view is 
inherently wrong, 
> > an
> > overlay on the truth - we think we really *do* have a self, and 
that we 
> > have to
> > somehow destroy it in order to realize the goal of Buddhism.  
This is like
> > fighting with a shadow, because our idea of what our self is is 
conceptual 
> > and
> > based on mental and emotional attachments to ideas and objects.
> > 
> > So Buddha is definitely saying that our *idea* of self is wrong, 
but he 
> > nowhere
> > states either positively or negatively that is no self of any 
kind, just 
> > that we
> > don't know and that we don't get it.  
> > 
> > In fact, isn't the point of what Buddha is saying here 
that 'everything we 
> > think
> > we know is wrong', and that he doesn't want to feed any of our 
tendencies 
> > to
> > falsely conceptualize about self and not-self?  If we accept that 
as the 
> > premise,
> > then we will focus on our own views of self, and let them go.  My 
> > experience in
> > the moment is that I am conscious of phenomena.  I know this 
consciousness 
> > is
> > present, and that it has one or another object.  That is my 
present 
> > reality. 
> > There is a sense of self, which I do not what to make of, and 
cannot until
> > enlightenment.  I should neither accept nor reject this sense of 
self, but 
> > focus
> > on letting go of false concepts that may arise about this sense 
of self, 
> > while
> > trying to discern truly the functions of mind and the nature of 
arising 
> > objects to
> > gain insight and wisdom, gradually refraining from creating new 
kammic 
> > tendencies,
> > and letting go of attachments.  
> > 
> > But I think that Victor's basic view that the Buddha is telling 
us what to 
> > let go
> > of, since it is 'anatta', that is:  phenomena, is correct.  And 
to think 
> > that
> > Buddha has made any statement as to whether there is in fact some 
kind of 
> > self or
> > not, or that consciousness is completely extinguished in all 
forms at 
> > death, is
> > wrong.
> > 
> > Best,
> > Robert Ep.
> > 

 
13419 From: <> 
Date: Tue May 21, 2002 7:35am
Subject: ADL ch. 9 (1)

 
  http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm

Abhidhamma In Daily Life
Chapter 9 (1)

THE AHETUKA CITTAS WHICH ARE UNKNOWN IN DAILY LIFE 

There are eighteen types of ahetuka citta, or cittas arising without
hetu (root). Fifteen types of ahetuka citta are vipaka. As we have seen,
ten of these fifteen cittas are dvi-panca vinnanas. They are: 

two seeing-consciousness 
two hearing-consciousness 
two smelling-consciousness 
two tasting-consciousness 
two body-consciousness 

Seeing-consciousness is the result of kamma. When it is the result of an
ill deed, seeing-consciousness is akusala vipakacitta which experiences
an unpleasant object; when it is the result of a good deed, it is kusala
vipakacitta which experiences a pleasant object. The function of seeing
consciousness is to experience visible object. 

Kamma which produces seeing-consciousness does not only produce the
vipakacitta which is seeing-consciousness, it also produces two other
kinds of vipakacitta, which succeed seeing-consciousness.
Seeing-consciousness is succeeded by vipakacitta which receives the
object. This citta is called sampaticchana-citta
(receiving-consciousness). Visible object which is experienced by
seeing-consciousness does not fall away when seeing-consciousness falls
away because it is rupa; rupa does not fall away as rapidly as nama.
When an object is experienced through one of the six doors, there is not
merely one citta experiencing that object, but there is a series of
cittas succeeding one another, which share the same object. 

If the seeing-consciousness is akusala vipaka, the sampaticchana-citta
(receiving-consciousness) is also akusala vipaka; if the
seeing-consciousness is kusala vipaka, the sampaticchana-citta is also
kusala vipaka. Thus there are two types of sampaticchana-citta: one is
akusala vipaka and one is kusala vipaka. 
Sampaticchana-citta is ahetuka vipaka; there are no akusala hetus
(unwholesome roots) or sobhana hetus (beautiful roots) arising with this
type of citta. Sampaticchana-citta succeeds seeing-consciousness;
seeing- consciousness is a condition for the arising of
sampaticchana-citta. Likewise, when there is a process of cittas
experiencing sound, sampaticchana-citta succeeds hearing-consciousness.
It is the same with regard to nose, tongue, and body. 

Sampaticchana-citta always arises with upekkha (indifferent feeling), no
matter whether the sampaticchana- citta is akusala vipaka or kusala
vipaka. 

After the sampaticchana-citta has arisen and fallen away, the process of
cittas is not yet over. The sampaticchana-citta is succeeded by another
ahetuka vipakacitta which is still the result of kamma. This type of
citta is called santirana-citta (investigating-consciousness). 
Santirana-citta investigates or considers the object which was
'received' by the sampaticchana-citta. Santirana-citta succeeds
sampaticchana-citta through five sense-doors; sampaticchana-citta is a
condition for the arising of santirana-citta. When seeing has arisen,
sampaticchana-citta succeeds the seeing-consciousness, and
santirana-citta succeeds the sampaticchana-citta in the process of
cittas which experience visible object through eye-door. It is the same
with the santirana- citta which arises in the process of cittas
experiencing an object through ear-door, nose-door, tongue-door,
body-door. It succeeds the sampaticchana-citta. We cannot choose whether
santirana-citta should arise or not; cittas arise because of conditions,
they are beyond control. 

Santirana-citta is also an ahetuka vipakacitta. When the object is
unpleasant (anittharammana), the santirana- citta is akusala vipaka and
it is accompanied by upekkha (indifferent feeling). As regards
santirana-citta which is kusala vipaka, there are two kinds. When the
object is pleasant (ittharammana), but not extraordinarily pleasant,
santirana-citta is accompanied by upekkha. When the object is
extraordinarily pleasant (atittharammana), the santirana-citta is
accompanied by somanassa. Thus, there are three kinds of santirana-citta
in all. It depends on conditions which kind of santirana-citta arises. 

Thus, there are fifteen (15) types of ahetuka citta which are vipaka.
Summarizing them, they are: 

10 cittas which are dvi-panca-vinnana (five pairs) 
1 sampaticchana-citta (receiving-consciousness) which is akusala vipaka 
1 sampaticchana-citta which is kusala vipaka 
1 santirana-citta (investigating-consciousness) which is akusala vipaka,
accompanied by upekkha 
1 santirana-citta which is kusala vipaka, accompanied by upekkha 
1 santirana-citta which is kusala vipaka, accompanied by somanassa

 
13420 From: Num 
Date: Tue May 21, 2002 6:30am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta

 
  Hi Howard, Jon, Jim and all (Sarah, Nina and Larry at the end);


<< The Pali phrase is "satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii pa.tipadaa". It seems
to me that "the path of practice" is either a translation of "pa.tipadaa"
(the way) or "-gaaminii pa.tipadaa" (the way leading to). >>


Num: I looked up the Thai sutta and the atthakatha. 
<<Satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii>> translated as <<development of 
satipatthana-4.>> The word "pa.tipadaa" is left untranslated in Thai.  The 
word "bhavana" means to develop and "gamini" means leading to.

I have just got a Thai tipitaka and atthakatha CDrom from Kom. There is no 
specific commentary to this particular sutta (vibhanga-sutta).


<< "And what is the path of practice to the development of the frames of 
reference? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right 
speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, 
right concentration. This is called the path of practice to the development 
of the frames of reference." >>

<< Most interesting to me is the final section which defines "the path of 
practice to the development of the frames of reference," as specifically the 
noble eightfold path. The straightforward reading of this takes satipatthana 
more as something which "comes later", penultimate to liberation, rather than 
as a technique to be practiced "all along". It would seem, on this reading, 
that the entire eight-factored path is the path of practice culminating in 
satipatthana (and then in awakening and liberation). >>


Num: This reminds me of 37-bodhipakkhiyadhamma (factors pertaining to 
enlightenment). There are seven main groups in bodhipakkhiyadhamma. 
4-Satipatthana is mentioned first and eight-factored path is mentioned last. 
Jon, you mentioned before that there were 14 core dhammas in 
37-bodhipakkhiyadhamma. Sati is one of the core dhammas in 
bodhipakkhiyadhamma (factors pertaining to enlightenment). 

In bodhipakkhiyadhamma, sati-cetasika, as a factor pertaining to 
enlightenment, was mentioned under different terms: 4-satipatthana, 
satindriya, satipala, satisambojjhango, and sammasati. Satipatthana is 
sammasati in the eight-factored path. 

My understanding is all factors in 37-bodhipakkhiyadhamma (14 core dhammas) 
or in eight-factored path are simultaneously attained only during the moment 
of lokuttara-citta (there are some exceptions (piti- and vitaka-cetasika) for 
someone who attains enlightenment with jhana; ref: nnanakatha, PSM and 
magga-vibhanga, Vibhanga).  Satipatthana in other kusala-cittas 
(lokiya-kusala) performs its function of leading to the path, by being 
mindful of whatever reality appearing and temporary eliminating akulsala but 
with weaker power. Not until the moment of lokuttara-citta, sati 
(satipatthana) at that moment with all factors pertaining to enlightenment 
will simultaneously and synchronously perform their functions by completely 
eradicate akusala according to the level of magga-citta. So in the moment of 
eight-factored path, there is the most fulfilling and enriching satipatthana. 

Each magga-citta occurs only one time for each person in sammasara. The 
arammana of lokuttara-citta is nibbana. Magga-citta and its accompanied 
cetasikas share the same arammana, nibbana.
     

Best wishes.

Num

PS. Sarah, thanks for updating my profile. I will keep sneaking in as time 
permits. Sorry, I have no special power:-(  I still live a life of a 
layperson, who enjoys working and having fun at the same time :-) BTW, I have 
not finished reading PSM yet. Nina and Larry and for those who are interested 
in PSM: I cannot make a commitment at this point. If the time is not too 
unkind, I am more than willing to share what I will learn from PSM session, 
although my understanding will be very limited.

 
13421 From: Num 
Date: Tue May 21, 2002 6:33am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta

 
  Hi Howard, Jon, Jim and all (Sarah, Nina and Larry at the end);


<< The Pali phrase is "satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii pa.tipadaa". It seems
to me that "the path of practice" is either a translation of "pa.tipadaa"
(the way) or "-gaaminii pa.tipadaa" (the way leading to). >>


Num: I looked up the Thai sutta and the atthakatha. 
<<Satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii>> translated as <<development of 
satipatthana-4.>> The word "pa.tipadaa" is left untranslated in Thai.  The 
word "bhavana" means to develop and "gamini" means leading to.

I have just got a Thai tipitaka and atthakatha CDrom from Kom. There is no 
specific commentary to this particular sutta (vibhanga-sutta).


<< "And what is the path of practice to the development of the frames of 
reference? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right 
speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, 
right concentration. This is called the path of practice to the development 
of the frames of reference." >>

<< Most interesting to me is the final section which defines "the path of 
practice to the development of the frames of reference," as specifically the 
noble eightfold path. The straightforward reading of this takes satipatthana 
more as something which "comes later", penultimate to liberation, rather than 
as a technique to be practiced "all along". It would seem, on this reading, 
that the entire eight-factored path is the path of practice culminating in 
satipatthana (and then in awakening and liberation). >>


Num: This reminds me of 37-bodhipakkhiyadhamma (factors pertaining to 
enlightenment). There are seven main groups in bodhipakkhiyadhamma. 
4-Satipatthana is mentioned first and eight-factored path is mentioned last. 
Jon, you mentioned before that there were 14 core dhammas in 
37-bodhipakkhiyadhamma. Sati is one of the core dhammas in 
bodhipakkhiyadhamma (factors pertaining to enlightenment). 

In bodhipakkhiyadhamma, sati-cetasika, as a factor pertaining to 
enlightenment, was mentioned under different terms: 4-satipatthana, 
satindriya, satipala, satisambojjhango, and sammasati. Satipatthana is 
sammasati in the eight-factored path. 

My understanding is all factors in 37-bodhipakkhiyadhamma (14 core dhammas) 
or in eight-factored path are simultaneously attained only during the moment 
of lokuttara-citta (there are some exceptions (piti- and vitaka-cetasika) for 
someone who attains enlightenment with jhana; ref: nnanakatha, PSM and 
magga-vibhanga, Vibhanga).  Satipatthana in other kusala-cittas 
(lokiya-kusala) performs its function of leading to the path, by being 
mindful of whatever reality appearing and temporary eliminating akulsala but 
with weaker power. Not until the moment of lokuttara-citta, sati 
(satipatthana) at that moment with all factors pertaining to enlightenment 
will simultaneously and synchronously perform their functions by completely 
eradicate akusala according to the level of magga-citta. So in the moment of 
eight-factored path, there is the most fulfilling and enriching satipatthana. 

Each magga-citta occurs only one time for each person in sammasara. The 
arammana of lokuttara-citta is nibbana. Magga-citta and its accompanied 
cetasikas share the same arammana, nibbana.
     

Best wishes.

Num

PS. Sarah, thanks for updating my profile. I will keep sneaking in as time 
permits. Sorry, I have no special power:-(  I still live a life of a 
layperson, who enjoys working and having fun at the same time :-) BTW, I have 
not finished reading PSM yet. Nina and Larry and for those who are interested 
in PSM: I cannot make a commitment at this point. If the time is not too 
unkind, I am more than willing to share what I will learn from PSM session, 
although my understanding will be very limited.

 
13422 From: Sarah   
Date: Tue May 21, 2002 1:09pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta

 
  Dear Jim, Num, Jon, Howard,

I don’t suppose the Pali grammar would allow a switch in cases  to:

“What does the development of satipatthana lead to? The Noble 8fold Path
etc”
<lit: development of satipatthana is the way leading to what?>

Just a thought.

Sarah (v.rusty on Pali noun tenses and not sure where to check easily)
======

--- Jim Anderson  wrote: > Jon,
> 
> The Pali phrase is "satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii pa.tipadaa". It
> seems
> to me that "the path of practice" is either a translation of
> "pa.tipadaa"
> (the way) or "-gaaminii pa.tipadaa" (the way leading to). It is also
> worth
> noting that the Pali text takes satipa.t.thaana to be in the singular
> (satipa.t.thaana.m) which B. Bodhi translates as "the establishment of
> mindfulness" while Thanissaro Bhikkhu has "the frames of reference"
> (plural).
..........



 
13423 From: Sarah   
Date: Tue May 21, 2002 1:58pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca

 
  Hi Rob Ep,

--- Robert Epstein  wrote: > Dear Sarah,
> Hi!  Haven't spoken to you in a while.  How are you?

You’re certainly maiking up for lost time;-) Just trying to catch up on
work, home and dhamma fronts, so I’m not too sorry that most your posts
are addressed to Howard and Jon;-)

Still, I’m very glad to try to respond to this one which includes some
useful questions:

> I am having trouble with the idea that concepts are not part of the five
> kandhas,
> as I thought that everything that arises in mental and
> perceptual-physical
> experience was included in the five kandhas, in other words, everything
> in this
> life other than the experiencing of Nibbana.
.....

This is correct. “Everything that arises in mental and perceptual physical
experience”, i.e all namas and rupas that arise and fall away are included
in the 5 khandhas. “Everything in this life” which is real with
characteristics which can be known “other than the experiencing of
Nibbana” is included.
.....

> How do concepts get exemption?  
.....
They don’t qualify as namas or rupas or as paramattha dhammas.
.....

 > I am also wondering what the exact delineation of the concept is.  If a
> thought
> about a concept is a paramatha dhamma, but a concept is not, where does
> the
> concept occur in the thought, as what part of the thought?
.....
The thinking (you call thought) which thinks about the concepts (or
experiences the concepts) has particular characteristics. The concepts
never form part of it.They are conceptualized or imagined by it.
.....
 > Let me propose an example:  
> 
> "I saw a tree yesterday."
> 
> I is a concept.  
> saw is a concept.
> tree is a concept
> yesterday is a concept.
> 
> Is that not so?  Where is the reality of this thought?  Is the whole
> thing a
> concept, a collection of concepts?  Or is it a string of concepts, but
> the thought
> itself which holds them all together is not a concept?  
.....
The conceiving--or the experiencing by the nama-- which thinks or
experiences is real. The string of concepts, is just as you say, a string
of concepts. The idea of something holding them together is another
concept. No thing or whole thing in truth, just cittas, accompanied by
sanna, moha, ditthi and all the other mental factors which help create the
illusion of the concepts existing.
.....
So if I discern:
> "I am thinking 'I saw a tree yesterday'", the discerning thought "I am
> thinking..." etc. is a paramatha dhamma, but it's object, the concept "I
> saw a
> tree yesterday" is a concept and is not a paramatha dhamma?
.....
If I understand you, this is almost correct. At the moment of discerning
(being aware?) of the nama, thinking, there is no idea of the concept. In
other words, one moment there may be thinking (paramattha dhamma) of
concept and another moment there may be awareness (paramattha dhamma) of
thinking (paramattha dhamma --or p.d. from now on--).In other words, only
the 5khandhas are ever ‘discerned’.(*I’m a little wary of the use of
discern because I know that people use it in different ways on this list -
ask your pal, Howard;-))
.....
 
> In the sentence:  "You are smiling right now", which I could be
> perceiving at this
> very moment, 
> You is a concept,
> Are is a concept,
> Smiling is a concept,
> Right now is a concept,
> no?
.....
yes
..... 
> Where is the thought that is an actuality, and are these in fact all
> concepts?
> Is the thought as a whole a concept?
.....
As discussed, the cittas and cetasikas which ‘think’ are real....the story
in part or whole is made up of concepts and doesn’t *exist*.
.....
 > Here is another thought:  "I am sad right now."
> The experience of sadness is a paramatha dhamma, but when I think "I am
> sad", in
> the thought, sadness is a concept, because the thought does not actually
> contain
> the experience.  It takes place in another moment and refers to the
> sadness
> second-hand.  So where is the actual thought that is an actuality, if
> all the
> contained concepts are not real?  
.....
Same answer as for the happy thoughts;-) Sadness (dosa) as you say is
p.d., any awareness or understanding of it are p.d, but the story is a
story. although the thinking of it, probably accompanied by yet more dosa
are p.d. So it’s easy to see how the dosa continues as the thinking
conceives more stories about it;-(.
.....
 > The only thoughts I can think of that would qualify for paramatha
dhamma
> status,
> would be reflective thoughts that take a thought as an object.  These
> can be
> referrred to in the present moment, because their objects are in
> language and
> therefore not second-hand.  So if I say "I want to consider the thought
> "I am sad"
> ", the "I am sad" is a concept, but the statement "I want to
> consider..." etc., is
> a thought which has a concept as an object, and is therefore a paramatha
> dhamma. 
> Is this correct?  Perhaps you can help me sort this out.
.....
It doesn’t sound quite right. At the moment of thinking or saying “I want
to consider..” again there are p.d thinking (regardless of whether spoken
out) about concepts. In other words, if it’s not a citta, cetasika or
rupa, then it’s a concept which is not included in ‘the All’ which should
be or can be directly known.

Hope this helps. Many thanks for the good questions.

Sarah
=====


 
13424 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Tue May 21, 2002 2:40pm
Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: 'no control', kamma of the fourth kind, MN117

 
  Dear Sukin,
Well I really enjoyed your message.  I like how vigorous it is.  You seem to both
have a very strong point of view which is somewhat opposed to mine and also to be
in a very spontaneous frame of mind, which has a nice freshness to it.

Now that I've reviewed your post like a good cup of coffee or a glass of wine, I
should look to what you have actually said.  But I will add that in this vigorous
opposition I feel some kind of positive dialectic is there, and I look forward to
some more exchanges.

Okay, comments below.

--- Sukinder  wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> 
> Nice to hear from you.
> 
> .........  I agree with a lot of what you say.
> 
> Happy to hear that.
> 
> I think one of the main areas where we may disagree, as I find a similar
> disagreement with Jon, is whether or not certain practices can be assumed to
> eventually lead to kusala, sati, panna, and all the other positive
> qualities.
> 
> I think the quality of citta is the important thing, not the activity
> itself. Giving
> importance to 'activity' will I feel lead to some form of silabbataparamasa
> or the
> other. 

Unfortunately do not know this term.  But I am impressed by how long it is.  If
you can translate I would appreciate it.

  Kusala is encouraged and accumulation of parami does support the
> development of panna, but this must be natural. By natural I mean, without
> the
> interference of an idea, that certain activities would condition kusala and
> that
> would in turn engender the development of panna. 

Okay, this goes back to one of my points, which perhaps you could address:  I feel
that the idea of developing kusala 'naturally' is itself an intention imposed on
the 'naturalness' of the arising moments, and I would be interested to see how you
can get a 'natural' development out of such a situation.  It is very similar to
the physicist who desperately wants to see what an electron looks like when he is
not around and how it behaves when he's not watching, but the only way he can
observe this is to use an electron microscope, and the use of the electron
microscope changes the behavior of the electrons he is observing.  So he can never
see what actually takes place but only the result with his effect factored in. 
How can he account for his own effect on the phenomenon and thus get a 'pure' take
on what the real behavior of electrons is?  How can we possibly factor in the
effect our intention to follow the Buddhist path has on the 'natural occurrence'
of moments and thus really observe the actual moments as they arise without some
sort of overlayingn intention?  I don't think it is possible at all, therefore I
conclude that trying to achieve some sort of 'naturalness' that is not affected by
intentions and intentional activities and efforts is barking up the wrong tree. 
Instead we should follow our true intention and acknowledge it, which is of
course, to reach enlightenment by following the dharma.  Once acknowleding this
extremely *unnatural* intention which permanently and irreparably tears apart the
natural unconsciousness that is the keynote of ordinary life, we can set about
answering the important questions as to how to most effectively follow the path. 
If there were only one answer to this question, and if the answer was as clear and
simple as some sometimes think it is, life would be simple, the dharma would be
simple, and the certain march to Nibbana would be simple.  But it is extremely
stressful, marked by decisions to be made, false starts and layers of delusion,
even for those who follow the dhamma as closely as they know how.

To start with, there is more than one approach to Buddhism, and each of the
schools thinks that the others are deluded.   This has always been the case with
every religion, no matter what its goals, aims or teachings, and the conflicts
within Buddhism, while not the same, are analogous.   So the Theravadan school
says that the Mahayana school is fabricated.  The Mahayana school says that the
Theravadan school is the lesser vehicle for those of ordinary capacities.  The
Vajrayana-Tibetan school says that both the other schools in their ordinary
practices are limited.  Meanwhile the Buddha is in the background calmly stating
that all conceptual views are erroneous and that we shouldn't create debates
between different schools of thought as this unsettles the mind.  Yet the debates
go on, because we are in samsara.  

So then we focus on Theravada itself, and we have the direct teachings in the
Tipitaka.  Even here we have conflicts:  different translations, different
teachers, different emphases, different interpretations, different commentaries. 
Abhidhamma states that it is the Abhidhammic commentaries that make true sense out
of the otherwise not-so-clear Suttas.  Other approaches to Theravada state that
Abhidhamma is an intellectual approach and that simple meditation on the nature of
the moments is more fruitful than trying to break the moments down into
categories, and that we should focus instead on the jhanas and the development of
vipassana through sitting meditation for very long periods of time.  Abhidhamma
replies that the Buddha never stated that meditation was to be the main approach
to sati and panna, and that discernment is more natural in everyday life.  etc.
etc.

So I do not see anything naturally occurring about any of this.  What I see is a
struggle to find the path and different authoritative answers as to how to follow
the path for persons of different inclinations and temperaments.  This also makes
sense in the light of the Budhha's teachings, because he certainly preached
different objects of attention for different groups in different stages of
progress.  Some he pointed to the ethical path, some to sitting meditation, some
to discernment, some to study of intellectual distinctions about the nature of
reality.  

If we attempt to discern the workings of consciousness and the kandhas in the
moment, as we all agree that in one way or another we must and should, then I
think this should include investigating the assumptions and views that we have
about the path when they arise in consciousness.  The concept 'Abhidhamma', the
concept 'Theravada', the concept 'Buddha' should all be seen as ideas and not as
realities.  Then perhaps we can focus on the nature of the mind and perception
[namas and rupas].  

But to conclude this point, I disagree that we must somehow contrive to invent a
naturalness to our methodology that simply doesn't exist.  Instead, I think we
should use whatever methods are in line with the Buddha's teachings in so far as
we understand it and use them vigorously according to what works.  How can we tell
what works and what doesn't to make progress on the path?  Buddha describes the
kind of qualities that arise as one lets go of clingings and defilements and moves
into higher stages of mental and perceptual purity along the path.  He speaks of a
refined sense of pleasure in the higher mental states, of a refined kind of
emotion that develops, of a sort of peacefulness that pervades the mind, of
eventual transcendence of thought and desire at even higher levels of release, and
other qualities that are gradually attained if we are on the correct path.  In my
opinion, one can use these sorts of things as a barometer of progress.  If the
Buddha talks about feelings and realizations that mark progress on the path, we
can look to these things.  If we cannot use something in our personal experience
to mark our progress, I think we must be forever deluded, because no outside
source whether sutta or teacher can give us the final word on whether our
experience has been elevated in the proper direction.  So we have to develop some
sort of real observation of what is happening in our consciousness, even if it is
very slow.

Now I have anger arising at different times, and frustration and this and that
negative state.  I also have various other things that seem to be akusala.  But I
can also see areas that are definitely less fearful and clinging, less angry and
less rigid in view than there were in my consciousness say a year ago.  I am not
as afraid of death as I used to be, there is less concern for the loss of my
personal self.  I have less of a sense that there *is* a personal self.  I am more
inclined to see moments arising and a sense of awareness being present, but have
had experiences of clearly not being able to see a self in the center of these
operations.  There have been some strong moments of clearly seeing the anattaness
of certain things in the moment, struck by the changing nature of experience, etc.
 All of this to me shows a general trend towards progress on the path.  

While Jon is right that one can be fooled about kusala and akusala and other
feelings or senses of progress, and that one has to have a refined consciousness
to make these distinctions correctly, I still think that there is also some
objectivity to doing a general or gradual assessment of progress.  How often does
anger arise?  is there a feeling of suppression or a sense that a large tendency
towards anger and frustration has gone away, been rooted out?  Shouldn't we keep
track of such things as part of our discernment and have a sense of whether we are
going in the right direction?  I think so.  Otherwise we are always taking an
outside source as the measure, and we will never reach the independence necessary
to be able to discern with surety.

  Even kusala cannot be
> forced and it has already fallen away by the time we think about doing
> something.

I think this is different than the general practices we do as a matter of
lifestyle
to make progress.  If one becomes a monk, he doesn't have to think at every
moment:  I'm intending to make progress by being a monk.  He has already made the
decision which he thinks will be helpful to his path and he just continues to do
it unless it proves to be incorrect.  Isn't there some intention in that decision?
 Sure there is.

> And I definitely do not believe that practices of other religions, such as
> yoga,
> can lead to sati and panna. 

Well, I understand your point of view, but I don't think you can really know that,
can you?  How would you know whether it does or not?

  Kusala was and is recognized by all other
> religions
> and I do believe that some level of kusala can be developed by performing
> activities such as yoga and tai chi, but not sati and panna. 

This seems to be an assumption on your part unless you have some other knowledge
that this is the case.

  The kusala they
> all encourage is with some sense and form of self or the other. 

With respect, this is not only true of most religious practices, but also of most
Buddhist practices.  We are attached to form of self even if we have the concept
of anatta.  And I think it is sort of like saying 'well I'm sure there is no life
on any other planet' because we are centered in our own experience, but it is very
possible that adepts in other religions have also reached wisdom, since wisdom is
not just a quality of the Buddha, but of human potential which the Buddha came to
point out and point the path to.  So we disagree on this point so far.  That is
not to say that any path as a path is as effective as Buddhism.  I don't believe
that anyone was as systematic and thorough and insightful as Buddha on the way to
liberation.  But that doesn't mean there are no Arahants or great sages who have
realized emptiness of form and anattaness of human being in any other religion.  I
would look to Ramana Maharshi and Nisargardatta in Advaita Vedanta, whom I believe
thoroughly realized anatta through and through.  It is so indicated in both their
lives and their conversations.  

  They
> have no idea of anatta, or even anicca. 

I would disagree.  While anatta is the clear realization of the Buddha, others
have come to see anatta in their own terms.  I think it is a realization waiting
to be discovered, not an invention of the Buddha.

  Their conception of impermanence
> is basically conceptual, not having perceived the rise and fall of
> individual
> dhammas. 

I don't think this is true in the case of great sages of Hinduism.  Hinduism in
general is fettered with the concept of Atman which the average person takes to be
an 'inner self', but in the great sages the term 'Atman' is dissolved into
emptiness of form and self, and the statement is made by someone like Dattatreyas
in the Avadhut Gita that there is no self, no form, no clinging, etc.  He made
this point very clearly.  Some of these great sages founded schools which broke
apart the conceptual frame of Hinduism in a similar way to that done by Buddha
when he radicalized the Brahmanism of his day.  This is not to take away from
Buddha' overriding greatness, but just to point out that these discoveries are
potentially universal and in some cases are realized within other forms of
practice and terminologies.

  Conceptual understanding of impermanence cannot lead to
> detachment from what buddhists know to be the momentary arising of
> phenonmenon, which is 'now', 

Wouldn't that be lovely if the average Buddhist knew this?  Certainly the
impermanence of the momentary arising of phenomenon is a standard meditation
feature of meditation-based Hinduism, which it has promoted quite effectively. 
The Buddha did not originate the non-conceptual realization of impermanence.  It
is a standard in Hindu meditation.

   let alone detachment from the sense of self,

also a goal of Hindu meditation.  Hinduism is a little different in that it tries
to promote detachment from the conventional self but replaces it with a higher
self, so it usually does not reach the level of true anatta.  But in the highest
versions, atman dissolves into no-self.  This should be recognized because in some
circles it does take place.

For instance, Nisargardatta states that the self is not an entity but is just a
conceptual object of consciousness.

> which is constantly being reinforced through tanha, ditthi and mana.

Sorry, I don't know these terms off the top of my head.

> The Buddha was equally perfect in wisdom the first moment he attained
> enlightenment till the moment before he attained parinibbana. The wisdom
> of the arahants all combined do not equal to a small part of the Buddhas.

I don't say you are wrong, but I would challenge whether you actually know this to
be the case.  What's the evidence for this?

> And I do not believe any person outside the buddhist tradition in human
> history, will have the wisdom close to a sotapanna.

Well, how well have you studied the high teachings of other traditions?  I find
that the higher adepts of other traditions go quite far in the direction of
realization of anatta, anicca and dukkha.  I see this realization as more
universal than you do, although pretty rare in all traditions, but universally
potential.  One has to sift through the terminology of each tradition to
understand what is being said, but if you read properly I believe that there are
'selfless' and highly enlightened beings in other traditions.  I don't think the
Buddha wanted us to make him into a God who was the sole source of understanding. 
I think he wanted us to look to the universal human qualities and potentials that
are there to be tapped.  Buddhism in my opinion should not be turned into an
exclusive club, but should be used as a window into the true nature of human
existence and potential.

> Wisdom cannot be added and improved upon by sucessive generations.

Another disagreement.  This is to set the Buddha's words in stone, rather than to
reinvigorate them with our understanding in each generation.  That which is set in
stone becomes remote and static in my opinion.  It must be put into practice in
each of us by making it our own.

> A system of practice like yoga which has been worked upon and changed
> through time can only result in getting people cling to the superficial
> aspect of it.

I disagree strongly.  The essential understanding of yoga has been very solid for
10 or 15,000 years.  It has not changed with the wind, but like Buddhism, each
generation has adapted their use of it to be able to practice within their
understanding and circumstances.  This does not change the nature of yoga.

> My conclusion thus is, such practices not only do not help in buddhist
> practise, but if seen instead as being a support, can be extremely
> detrimental to development of panna.

I think this is just an opinion here, Sukin, which, as far as I know, is not based
upon your own practice, but just an idea you have that nothing but Buddhism can be
useful.

> Satipatthana is the *only* way. 

Well, that is like me saying 'meditation is the only way.'  Buddha has pointed out
a number of different practices to develop insight and wisdom, so the 'only'
qualifier doesn't seem to do this justice.  Satipatthana is the only result
perhaps, but the methods are there to promote and practice mindfulness and letting
go in various ways.  There is not only one way to Satipatthana or Buddha wouldn't
have had to speak about all the areas of life and so many different factors to be
developed.

  With this in mind, it is counter productive
> to investigate and try out any other teachings. 

I wouldn't advise running around trying things out.  What I am talking about is a
little more serious than that.

  Panna being the aim of
> Buddha's teachings, why give preference to development of other kinds
> of kusala rather than understanding what is appearing at this moment?

yes, the question is what will aid the understandingn of what is appearing at this
moment.  You can neither prove nor disprove that focussing upon and opening up the
body will or will not help the understanding of what appears in the moment.  My
sense from my own years of practice is that with the right attention to the
moment, yoga can get rid of a lot of static and junk that gets in the way of
paying attention to the moment and cultivating discernment.  I think that's what
it was designed for.  One can of course look at jangled nerves and racing thoughts
and try to discern the realities that they represent, but it is most difficult to
do so.  It is sometimes useful to be able to clear the decks and look more clearly
at the basic arising of namas and rupas without such akusala static in the way.  I
see this as an obvious asset, *as long* as one does not become attached either to
the practice or its results.

> Robert:
> Another point is whether putting forth intentions implies that there is a
> self,
> and that the only way to acknowledge anatta is by admitting that nothing can
> be
> done to either speed or slow the path.  One has to kind of sneak in Sutta
> study
> and discernment in a passive, natural way, so that the notion of self won't
> get in
> and ruin it.  [Hope you don't mind me being a little facetious to highlight
> the
> point.]
> 
> Sukin:
> Yes the sense of self is all pervading. Almost every moment of being awake
> there is a sense of self via ditthi, tanha or mana. Especially when we are
> not aware no? The sneaking in to study and paying attention to the teachings
> can be done or at least have many moments where lobha is ruling no?;-)
> I think this should alert us to how much the sense of self would then
> overshadow activities we do intentionally to overccome the sense of self.

All of our activities are intentional, even the ones we don't acknowledge as such,
because they are the 'right' ones in our minds.  If we discern the arising nature
of a nama or rupa within the frame of Abhidhamma teaching that is an intentional
practice.  There is nothing natural about it.  It is a guided activity within a
conceptual framework.  To not acknowledge this is very dangerous as it tends to
make one think that their own conditioned view is the 'natural' one.  Very
dangerous indeed.  One should disclose one's view to oneself as to what is
natural, what is correct, what is proper and take that into account when
discerning the nature of the moment.  Otherwise one is just discerning one's own
chosen philosophy in the guise of naturalness.   It takes amazing honesty and
attention to release one's own view and be in the presence of the naked moment. 
Having a view that one way is right and the other is wrong does not aid this
endeavor, in fact it prejudices it and makes it even more difficult to see what is
really happening when *all* views are seen as merely views and the moment itself
is allowed to deliver its true nature directly to consciousness without concepts
in the way.

> Robert:
> I personally think [for whatever that's worth -- not much, I hear Jon
> saying...my
> God, I've internalized him!] that sitting with attention to the breath or to
> the
> present moment will eventually yield increased discernment, and lead to sati
> and
> panna.  I add that of course if one does this in an unskillful way it may
> not lead
> to any such results, but the practice itself, done with some reasonable
> understanding and instruction, tends to lead in the right direction.  I
> think that
> most Abhidhammists will tend to disagree with this, and say that we cannot
> possibly predict the arising of kusala based on any given practice.
> 
> I also believe that intention can be put forth by cittas and that this
> cumulative
> intention will eventually tend to yield positive fruit.  And I think some
> take
> this to imply that there must be a self being posited that will both put
> this
> effort forth and yield the fruit of that intention.  I contend that this is
> not
> necessarily so, and that intention can be put forth, just as we put forth
> this or
> that cause through the production of consciousness.  We have a moment of
> anger and
> the intention arises to either hold it back and take a deep breath or to
> yell and
> scream.  There is a moment of decision there as well.  There may also be a
> moment
> where we say, 'okay, let's not act on this anger in future' and eventually
> this
> may have an effect in that direction.  Can we choose to have an intention
> and then
> have it?  I don't know.  But I do think the putting forth of intention can
> yield
> an eventual result that arises from that intention.  My own life seems to
> give
> evidence for this.
> 
> Sukin:
> Rob, turn your attention to the frame of your monitor, now to other parts of
> your
> computer, next scan your room, if there is sound, sound. Do you see the
> diversity
> and range of sense impressions, can you appreciate that it all involves a
> complexity
> of conditions (one of which being my prompting you to)? 

That's one way of looking at it.   A less complex way of looking at it would be to
say that it is all 'merely taking place'.  Unless one observes a complex set of
conditions causing sense impressions to arise, I would simply say they are taking
place and allow myself to experience them with mindfulness.  To see them as
complex is a concept, one drawn from philosophy.    Who says that all that we
observe makes any given thing happen.  Do we really know that?  When we observe a
process and can see the pattern that led to it that is great.  Then we really see
the chain of causes.  But we shouldn't assume that all the 'stuff' we pick up is
somehow related in a causal chain.  Let's distinguish direct understanding from
concept on this.

  Sitting down to
> observe
> your breath, does this involve any more favourable set of conditions( for
> the
> development of panna) than standing and staring out into the open? 

Well, I do know that focussing on an object causes more focussed attention.  A
simple fact.  Is that a good thing?  I think that generally it is.  Before coming
to this list I thought that was pretty much agreed upon.  Focussing and
cultivating mindfulness in both meditation free of distractions and in everyday
life is the one-two punch that gradually knocks out ignorance.  But here there is
a great prejudice against meditative practice, it seems.  Jon gave a decent
explanation in that he says that we will not have the dharma in future lives, so
we should study it now, and we can work on the jhanas in future lifetimes.   But I
still feel that there is a great prejudice here, based on philosophy, not
experience.  To take the Buddha's many words on meditation and discard them as
secondary or even harmful seems to me a great disservice to a most important part
of the path.  I don't understand it and don't think it contributes anything to an
otherwise noble school of Buddhism.  It seems to me in a way to be a shying away
*from* direct experience, because in meditation, in my experience, direct
experience of the nature of realities is highlighted and heightened.  I don't
believe the argument that somehow this is unnatural.  Buddhism is simply filled
with expedient means, and meditation is high on the list on those given by the
Buddha.  Frankly, I think it's a grave error to think one must or should stick to
naturally discerning everyday realities while shying away from a real practice in
which mindfulness is highlighted, and by which the work with everyday realities
would be greatly enhanced.  

  Do you
> know
> exactly what is going on at any given moment and can you give a correct
> interpretation of your experience to you meditation teacher? 

Not necessary.  First of all, I don't have a meditation teacher at present, and
second, telling a meditation teacher what I experience is not the foremost use of
a meditation teacher or of meditation.  

  Can your
> meditation teacher know what are the conditions any given moment?

Can anyone else?  Yes or no, depending on whether they do or not.  Why be
particularly prejudiced against a great meditation teacher?  You would not speak
against the salutary effects of seeking the advice and teaching of an Abhidhammic
'spiritual friend'.  But you assume that there is something wrong with the
discernment and capability of a teacher who focusses on meditation.  I say: 
what's the difference between these two?  Because I really don't see any
distinction.  They are both teaching about ways of applying the Dhamma, both
legitimate ways of doing so.   But because of philosophical predispositions you
can only accept the usefulness of one and not the other.  I see this as a form of
prejudice.  Have you examined it, and found that it is really true?  Or is it an
idea you have developed from your affiliation with a school of thought?  These are
hard questions, but I think very good ones for us all to look at, whatever our
orientation.

> I think it very important to distinguish between concept and reality, or
> else we are
> likely to end up getting caught in some form of practise, not recognizing
> our
> projections.

Likewise with *all* philosophies and forms of practices, including the ones you
may think are exempt from this criticism.

> Sorry I have to go out somewhere. I feel I have not addressed your precise
> points.
> Had some other points in mind after I read your post earlier today, but
> forgot what
> they were. But will wait for your reply to see if anything else could be
> said.

Well, I'm sure your response to my ruminations above will be very interesting. 
And I am looking forward to hearing back from you when you have a chance to digest
them.

Best,
Robert Ep.




 
13425 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Tue May 21, 2002 2:46pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta

 
  --- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Jon -
> 
> In a message dated 5/20/02 7:28:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> Jon writes:
> 
> 
> > Howard
> > 
> > I've now had a chance to look at this sutta, and I see the point you are
> > raising about the final section.  Here the Noble Eightfold Path is
> > described as "the path [of practice] to the development of the frames of
> > reference" or, in the Bh. Bodhi translation, as "the way leading to the
> > development of the establishment of mindfulness".
> > 
> > I admit I am puzzled by this and have no thoughts on it as yet.  I am only
> > familiar with the Noble Eightfold Path being described as the path leading
> > to nibbana.  This is something entirely new to me.
> > 
> > As you know, I rely heavily on the commentaries for my interpretation of
> > the suttas, but unfortunately there is no English translation of the
> > Saaratthappakaasini or its tika.  I don't know if our Thai members (e.g.
> > Jaran, Kom or Num, or others) would be able to throw any light on this
> > point from the Thai translation which as I understand it includes the
> > commentary also.
> > 
> > I've noted your comments on the 'straightforward' meaning, Howard, but I
> > prefer not to speculate at this stage.
> > 
> > Very interesting, and thanks for bringing it up.  Any comments from others
> > most welcome.
> > 
> > Jon
> > 
> > 
> ==========================
>        It may very well turn out that there is a way of understanding this 
> sutta which accords with your perspective. Whatever the case may be, I'd just 
> like to say that I really admire your intellectual honesty and your 
> willingness to face whatever the facts may be! Most people cling strongly to 
> long-held views, and your openness to other possibilities is really 
> impressive!

agreed.

robert ep




 
13426 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Tue May 21, 2002 2:54pm
Subject: Re: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Rober...

 
  --- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Robert -
> 
> In a message dated 5/20/02 2:23:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> Robert Ep writes:
> 
> 
> > 
> > Dear Howard,
> > Thanks for your reply, which is both intelligent and personal.  What I 
> > would say,
> > along your lines, is that I have no belief in a self 'as such' at this 
> > point, a
> > personal self, anything that we would call self in the conventional sense.  
> > But I
> > differ in seeing 'only' fleeting phenomena rolling by.  To me, there is 
> > both the
> > continuous changes of content that mark human experience, and also a 
> > constant: 
> > consciousness, which has an ever-changing content but itself is 
> > everpresent. 
> > Consciousness has proved to be impersonal as well:  it does not constitute 
> > a self,
> > and the sense of self which you speak of is also merely an arising 
> > sensation
> > within consciousness, but the sense of always being mindful, conscious, 
> > aware, of
> > something is always there.  This leads this consciousness to conclude that 
> > the
> > property of awareness is the underlying reality within which all phenomena 
> > occur,
> > and this is the sticking point between many Buddhists of various 
> > orientiations. 
> > 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        There is, of course, vi~n~nana. It is inseparable from its objects. 
> They arise together and are interdependent. Vi~n~nana is a separative 
> awareness - separative in partaking of subject-object duality, and separative 
> in the sense of separating out objects from the field of possibilities based 
> on interest and inclinations. Vi~n~nana is conditioned, and it deals in 
> conditions. Nibbana, on the other hand, is unconditioned, has