15000 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 5:58pm Subject: Re: Pernicious view Hi Victor, As RobK is in Bangkok without instant access to a computer, I hope you don't mind my joining in while we are waiting for a reply. As you know I am always wrestling with the idea of Anatta, but, through the kind patient repetitive explanations of the members of this List, I was actually beginning to feel accept the explanation "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." (Nyanatiloka's dictionary) Do you have any objections to Nyanatiloka's definition? I would really welcome your input on this topic, Victor - expanding on just how you understand that the view "there is no being" is pernicious and a gross misrepresentation, and what you see as the correct explanation. I would really appreciate it in your own words (hyperlinks to suttas are not particularly helpful) if you are willing to articulate your understanding for us, as Robert has done. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > Hi all, > > The view "there is no being", as I see it, is pernicious. It is a > gross misrepresentation of what the Buddha taught. > > Regards, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" > wrote: > > --- > > Dear Stephen, > > Arrived in Bangkok( the rainy season by the look of it). > > > > These are not easy things to understand. Every moment > > is new and it is all arising and falling away with great > rapidity. > > However, each moment conditions the next moment and so there is > > continuity. As TG nicely explained the Buddha's words were a > > condition for Rahula to reflect wisely . > > If that situation is analysed there was really no Buddha or Rahula. > > But there was sound, there was hearing; these disappeared as soon > as > > they arose but they conditioned cittas that understood the concepts > > that were expressed by the myriad sounds. Cittas arise and fall > away > > instantly too but they can - and do - take a concept > > and repeatedly examine it and so the cittas in succession may seem > > much the same, for split seconds, seconds or even longer. > > > > But by wise attention there can be the insight that begins to study > > the nature of citta and see how it is different, albeit similar, > > moment to moment. This wise attention can lead to seeing, so the > > texts say, that nama and rupa are very different types of reality - > > and continue on to know more. > > There is no self anywhere in this process, so the Dhamma ; but the > > unbroken continuity of rising and falling, deludes the unwise > (i.e.us) > > into believing there is something substantial there , something > > somewhere that can direct, decide , that is doing this or that. > > RobM mentioned the term ayuhana, accumulating, ealier. And this > > process means that all the time there is new accumulating > > occuring, subtley altering, right now, what was accumulated from > the > > past; so that in the future accumulations may be very different > from > > what they are now. Wisdom may develop, or not; kindness or cruelty; > > patience or impatience; metta or anger. It can be studied, this > > process; while it happens, but usually there is a barrier, self > view > > which distorts and stops us understanding. > > Robert 15001 From: sukinderpal Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 7:49pm Subject: Re: Anguttara Nikaya Book of Two's 15. 'Repaying One's Parents' Hi, Chris I usually wait for others to answer, since I know that most probably they all would give better ones than I would. But since no one has yet replied to this and since you have so bravely decided to take up Robert's place in responding to Victor's remark, I will overlook my fear of being mistaken and go ahead. You mention people who are "now attempting to follow the Teachings", this means that they have the opportunity to at least glimpse the most sublime of teachings. Some people understand that their parents are part of the conditions which have allowed them to be born as they are. But they will however also think that it could have been any other pair of man /woman who could have caused them to be born. But I do not think so. I think that all the conditions work together in such a way that if one is missing then the result would not have come to be. Such that the kamma which decided your rebirth consciousness carries with it the deciding factor of exactly what sort of parents you will be born to. So no matter how one's parents treated one, if finally you have come in contact with the Teachings, then you must remember that it wouldn't have been if these exact parents were not yours. With regard to those who do NOT come to know the Teachings, one has to realize that one is born to reap the fruits of one's kamma. So without these parents one does not get the opportunity to repay these partucular debts. So either way I think, parents ARE worthy of respect and reverence. And surely, in the world where billions of cittas are arising and falling every second, what is a few acts of "repaying" to them going to make a difference!? That is why the best that one can do for them, is to establish them in the Dhamma. I am going to meet Sarah, Jon, Robert and his kids, Betty, Ell and Ivan for lunch in a couple of hours. Hope no envy arises in the " continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena" conveniently called Christine.;-) Best wishes, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear All, > > I acknowledge that many parents love and care for their children with > great sacrifice and devotion, as I always try to do, and as I hope do > all the parents on this List. But, in this world, very many parents > do not behave lovingly or even humanely. Not just a few occasional > exceptions, but very many. Parents are often the major cause of harm > to children physically and mentally, and are the one's responsible > for most acts of gross neglect and abuse, assault, manslaughter and > murder of children. > I feel that the general 'unqualified' exhortation to give unlimited > respect, honour and service to one's parents could be the condition > for distress in those who have suffered greatly at their parents > hands, and are now attempting to follow the Teachings. It seems to > be based on an idealised version of what parents should be or could > be, rather than the reality of what many actually are. For many > children, the parents were just the unwilling gateway into this world > of suffering. When I read teachings such as those in the sutta > below, I wonder if it is not a little naive, and could the Buddha > have meant it to apply generally no matter how appalling the parents > actions were, or did he mean where parents actually did bring up, > feed and guide their children lovingly through this world? > > Anguttara Nikaya Book of Two's 15. 'Repaying One's Parents' > "I declare, O monks, that there are two person's one can never > repay. What two? One's mother and father. > Even if one should carry about one's mother on one should er and > one's father on the other, and while doing so should live a hundred > years, reach the age of a hundred years; and if one should attend to > them by anointing them with salves, by massaging, bathing and rubbing > their limbs, and they should even void their excrements there - even > by that would one not do enough for one's parents, one would not > repay them. Even if one were to establish one's parents as the > supreme lords and rulers over this earth so rich in the seven > treasures, one would not do enough for them, one would not repay > them. What is the reason for this? Parents do much for their > children: they bring them up, feed them and guide them through this > world." > > metta, > Christine 15002 From: sukinderpal Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 7:50pm Subject: Re: Anguttara Nikaya Book of Two's 15. 'Repaying One's Parents' Hi, Chris I usually wait for others to answer, since I know that most probably they all would give better ones than I would. But since no one has yet replied to this and since you have so bravely decided to take up Robert's place in responding to Victor's remark, I will overlook my fear of being mistaken and go ahead. You mention people who are "now attempting to follow the Teachings", this means that they have the opportunity to at least glimpse the most sublime of teachings. Some people understand that their parents are part of the conditions which have allowed them to be born as they are. But they will however also think that it could have been any other pair of man /woman who could have caused them to be born. But I do not think so. I think that all the conditions work together in such a way that if one is missing then the result would not have come to be. Such that the kamma which decided your rebirth consciousness carries with it the deciding factor of exactly what sort of parents you will be born to. So no matter how one's parents treated one, if finally you have come in contact with the Teachings, then you must remember that it wouldn't have been if these exact parents were not yours. With regard to those who do NOT come to know the Teachings, one has to realize that one is born to reap the fruits of one's kamma. So without these parents one does not get the opportunity to repay these partucular debts. So either way I think, parents ARE worthy of respect and reverence. And surely, in the world where billions of cittas are arising and falling every second, what is a few acts of "repaying" to them going to make a difference!? That is why the best that one can do for them, is to establish them in the Dhamma. I am going to meet Sarah, Jon, Robert and his kids, Betty, Ell and Ivan for lunch in a couple of hours. Hope no envy arises in the " continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena" conveniently called Christine.;-) Best wishes, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear All, > > I acknowledge that many parents love and care for their children with > great sacrifice and devotion, as I always try to do, and as I hope do > all the parents on this List. But, in this world, very many parents > do not behave lovingly or even humanely. Not just a few occasional > exceptions, but very many. Parents are often the major cause of harm > to children physically and mentally, and are the one's responsible > for most acts of gross neglect and abuse, assault, manslaughter and > murder of children. > I feel that the general 'unqualified' exhortation to give unlimited > respect, honour and service to one's parents could be the condition > for distress in those who have suffered greatly at their parents > hands, and are now attempting to follow the Teachings. It seems to > be based on an idealised version of what parents should be or could > be, rather than the reality of what many actually are. For many > children, the parents were just the unwilling gateway into this world > of suffering. When I read teachings such as those in the sutta > below, I wonder if it is not a little naive, and could the Buddha > have meant it to apply generally no matter how appalling the parents > actions were, or did he mean where parents actually did bring up, > feed and guide their children lovingly through this world? > > Anguttara Nikaya Book of Two's 15. 'Repaying One's Parents' > "I declare, O monks, that there are two person's one can never > repay. What two? One's mother and father. > Even if one should carry about one's mother on one should er and > one's father on the other, and while doing so should live a hundred > years, reach the age of a hundred years; and if one should attend to > them by anointing them with salves, by massaging, bathing and rubbing > their limbs, and they should even void their excrements there - even > by that would one not do enough for one's parents, one would not > repay them. Even if one were to establish one's parents as the > supreme lords and rulers over this earth so rich in the seven > treasures, one would not do enough for them, one would not repay > them. What is the reason for this? Parents do much for their > children: they bring them up, feed them and guide them through this > world." > > metta, > Christine 15003 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 8:48pm Subject: Re: Anguttara Nikaya Book of Two's 15. 'Repaying One's Parents' Dear Sukin, As always your answer is 'just right' - and speaks with 'Dhamma sense' to the main points of rebirth and kamma fruition, the how and the why. (I should point out that I was speaking from what I observe through my work and in the world in general.) Thank you Sukin. You should post more often.:) Regarding your luncheon engagement - I'm not feeling even the slightest quiver of envy, not a shiver, a shudder, a tingle, a flutter or a flicker - though I must be coming down with something, I have turned a light green colour. :):) metta, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "sukinderpal" wrote: > Hi, Chris > > I usually wait for others to answer, since I know that most probably > they all would give better ones than I would. > But since no one has yet replied to this and since you have so > bravely decided to take up Robert's place in responding to Victor's > remark, I will overlook my fear of being mistaken and go ahead. > > You mention people who are "now attempting to follow the Teachings", > this means that they have the opportunity to at least glimpse the > most sublime of teachings. > > Some people understand that their parents are part of the conditions > which have allowed them to be born as they are. But they will however > also think that it could have been any other pair of man /woman who > could have caused them to be born. But I do not think so. I think > that all the conditions work together in such a way that if one is > missing then the result would not have come to be. Such that the > kamma which decided your rebirth consciousness carries with it the > deciding factor of exactly what sort of parents you will be born to. > So no matter how one's parents treated one, if finally you have come > in contact with the Teachings, then you must remember that it > wouldn't have been if these exact parents were not yours. > > With regard to those who do NOT come to know the Teachings, one has > to realize that one is born to reap the fruits of one's kamma. So > without these parents one does not get the opportunity to repay these > partucular debts. > So either way I think, parents ARE worthy of respect and reverence. > And surely, in the world where billions of cittas are arising and > falling every second, what is a few acts of "repaying" to them going > to make a difference!? That is why the best that one can do for them, > is to establish them in the Dhamma. > > I am going to meet Sarah, Jon, Robert and his kids, Betty, Ell and > Ivan for lunch in a couple of hours. > Hope no envy arises in the " continually self-consuming process of > arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena" conveniently called > Christine.;-) > > Best wishes, > Sukin. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > I acknowledge that many parents love and care for their children > with > > great sacrifice and devotion, as I always try to do, and as I hope > do > > all the parents on this List. But, in this world, very many parents > > do not behave lovingly or even humanely. Not just a few occasional > > exceptions, but very many. Parents are often the major cause of > harm > > to children physically and mentally, and are the one's responsible > > for most acts of gross neglect and abuse, assault, manslaughter and > > murder of children. > > I feel that the general 'unqualified' exhortation to give unlimited > > respect, honour and service to one's parents could be the condition > > for distress in those who have suffered greatly at their parents > > hands, and are now attempting to follow the Teachings. It seems to > > be based on an idealised version of what parents should be or could > > be, rather than the reality of what many actually are. For many > > children, the parents were just the unwilling gateway into this > world > > of suffering. When I read teachings such as those in the sutta > > below, I wonder if it is not a little naive, and could the Buddha > > have meant it to apply generally no matter how appalling the > parents > > actions were, or did he mean where parents actually did bring up, > > feed and guide their children lovingly through this world? > > > > Anguttara Nikaya Book of Two's 15. 'Repaying One's Parents' > > "I declare, O monks, that there are two person's one can never > > repay. What two? One's mother and father. > > Even if one should carry about one's mother on one should er and > > one's father on the other, and while doing so should live a hundred > > years, reach the age of a hundred years; and if one should attend > to > > them by anointing them with salves, by massaging, bathing and > rubbing > > their limbs, and they should even void their excrements there - > even > > by that would one not do enough for one's parents, one would not > > repay them. Even if one were to establish one's parents as the > > supreme lords and rulers over this earth so rich in the seven > > treasures, one would not do enough for them, one would not repay > > them. What is the reason for this? Parents do much for their > > children: they bring them up, feed them and guide them through > this > > world." > > > > metta, > > Christine 15004 From: yuzhonghao Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 8:53pm Subject: Re: Pernicious view Hi Christine and all, If what you quoted is Nyanatiloka's explanation of "anatta", then I would say that's his interpretation, and, as I see it, he didn't get it. Christine, I am going to put forth some questions: If there is no being, would you say there is killing? Would you say there is killing, but no one is being killed? Or would you say there is no killing, just blade (a rupa) going through flesh (another rupa), bullet (rupa) going through the head (another rupa)? If there is no being, would you say there is birth, aging and death? Some people argue that "there is no being" is the truth. Consider these questions: are you a human being? Were you born? Are you getting old? Is birth, aging and death satisfactory or unsatisfactory? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > As RobK is in Bangkok without instant access to a computer, I hope > you don't mind my joining in while we are waiting for a reply. > As you know I am always wrestling with the idea of Anatta, but, > through the kind patient repetitive explanations of the members of > this List, I was actually beginning to feel accept the > explanation "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." (Nyanatiloka's dictionary) > Do you have any objections to Nyanatiloka's definition? > I would really welcome your input on this topic, Victor - expanding > on just how you understand that the view "there is no being" is > pernicious and a gross misrepresentation, and what you see as the > correct explanation. I would really appreciate it in your own words > (hyperlinks to suttas are not particularly helpful) if you are > willing to articulate your understanding for us, as Robert has done. > > > metta, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > The view "there is no being", as I see it, is pernicious. It is a > > gross misrepresentation of what the Buddha taught. > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" > > wrote: > > > --- > > > Dear Stephen, > > > Arrived in Bangkok( the rainy season by the look of it). > > > > > > These are not easy things to understand. Every moment > > > is new and it is all arising and falling away with great > > rapidity. > > > However, each moment conditions the next moment and so there is > > > continuity. As TG nicely explained the Buddha's words were a > > > condition for Rahula to reflect wisely . > > > If that situation is analysed there was really no Buddha or > Rahula. > > > But there was sound, there was hearing; these disappeared as soon > > as > > > they arose but they conditioned cittas that understood the > concepts > > > that were expressed by the myriad sounds. Cittas arise and fall > > away > > > instantly too but they can - and do - take a concept > > > and repeatedly examine it and so the cittas in succession may > seem > > > much the same, for split seconds, seconds or even longer. > > > > > > But by wise attention there can be the insight that begins to > study > > > the nature of citta and see how it is different, albeit similar, > > > moment to moment. This wise attention can lead to seeing, so the > > > texts say, that nama and rupa are very different types of > reality - > > > and continue on to know more. > > > There is no self anywhere in this process, so the Dhamma ; but > the > > > unbroken continuity of rising and falling, deludes the unwise > > (i.e.us) > > > into believing there is something substantial there , something > > > somewhere that can direct, decide , that is doing this or that. > > > RobM mentioned the term ayuhana, accumulating, ealier. And this > > > process means that all the time there is new accumulating > > > occuring, subtley altering, right now, what was accumulated from > > the > > > past; so that in the future accumulations may be very different > > from > > > what they are now. Wisdom may develop, or not; kindness or > cruelty; > > > patience or impatience; metta or anger. It can be studied, this > > > process; while it happens, but usually there is a barrier, self > > view > > > which distorts and stops us understanding. > > > Robert 15005 From: Purnomo . Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 10:02pm Subject: pattidana hi all, what is pattidana ? Is there 'transfer' kamma to somebody else? for example; my grandma was died. I want to transfer my kamma to my grandma because she maybe born in dukkha realsm. Is it true? Please explain metta, purnomo 15006 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Aug 15, 2002 10:29pm Subject: Re: Pernicious view Hi Victor, and All, I asked first.:) I just realised Victor that nearly every time you post on the question of 'self' 'non-self' or 'anatta', you either post hyperlinks to suttas with no discussion, or you pose questions as a reply and don't respond to many questions put to yourself. I am not going to answer a series of leading questions out of the very little knowledge I have, but I would be deeply interested in hearing what your understanding is, and learning from it. You have alluded to a strongly held knowledge on the subject of anatta, but I have never yet seen it articulated. I hope you will do so as I believe it could be very helpful for us all to hear it I would hope you feel moved to write a few paragraphs on what your position is. In this instance, as you commented very strongly on Robert's post, it would be a courtesy, and very interesting for us all if you would give an explanation of your thoughts on the matter. But - no worries if you don't wish to. What 'I' am trying to let go of is the result of the conditioning of Western culture and schooling, and the Christian religion that I grew up in, where there are beliefs in 'beings' and 'souls'. What is crucial to me above all is what the Buddha's Dhamma says. I have included a sutta from the Kindred Sayings about 'beings'. What I quoted was certainly in Nyanatiloka's explanation of 'anatta' and the full text is below with the hyperlink for you to check. It surprises me that you say "he didn't get it', and would, no doubt, surprise him.:):) Do you have any comments on the full text? http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_a.htm metta, Christine From the Kindred Sayings 1, Ch v, 10 At Savatthi, Sister Vajira, rising early plunged into the depths of Dark Wood, and seated herself at the foot of a certain tree for noonday rest. Then Mara the evil one, desirous to arouse fear, wavering, and dread in her, desirous of making her desist from being alone, went up to her, and addressed her in verse:- By whom was wrought this being? Where is he Who makes him? Whence doth a being rise? Where doth the being cease and pass away? Then Sister Vajira thought: Who now is this, human or non-human, that speaketh verse? Sure it is Mara the evil one that speaketh verse, desirous of arousing in me fear, wavering, and dread, desirous of making me desist from being alone. And the Sister, knowing it was Mara, replied in verse:- Being! Why dost thou harp upon that word? Mong false opinions, Mara, hast thou strayed. Mere bundle of conditioned factors, this! No being can be here discerned to be. For just as, when the parts are rightly set, The word chariot ariseth [in our minds], So doth our usage covenant to say: A being when the aggregates are there. Nay, it is simply ill that rises, ill That doth persist, and ill that wanes away. Nought beside ill it is that comes to pass, Nought else but ill it is doth cease to be. Then Mara the evil one thought: Sister Vajira knows me, and sad and sorrowful he vanished there and then. ------------------------------------ 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." "Whosoever is not clear with regard to the conditionally arisen phenomena, and does not comprehend that all the actions are conditioned through ignorance, etc., he thinks that it is an ego that understands or does not understand, that acts or causes to act, that comes to existence at rebirth .... that has the sense-impression, that feels, desires, becomes attached, continues and at rebirth again enters a new existence" (Vis.M. XVII, 117). While in the case of the first two characteristics it is stated that all formations (sabbe sankhárá) are impermanent and subject to suffering, the corresponding text for the third characteristic states that "all things are not-self" (sabbe dhammá anattá; M. 35, Dhp. 279). This is for emphasizing that the false view of an abiding self or substance is neither applicable to any 'formation' or conditioned phenomenon, nor to Nibbána, the Unconditioned Element (asankhatá dhátu). The Anattá-lakkhana Sutta, the 'Discourse on the Characteristic of Not-self', was the second discourse after Enlightenment, preached by the Buddha to his first five disciples, who after hearing it attained to perfect Holiness (arahatta). The contemplation of not-self (anattánupassaná) leads to the emptiness liberation (suññatá-vimokkha, s. vimokkha). Herein the faculty of wisdom (paññindriya) is outstanding, and one who attains in that way the path of Stream-entry is called a Dhamma-devotee (dhammánusári; s. ariya-puggala); at the next two stages of sainthood he becomes a vision-attainer (ditthippatta); and at the highest stage, i.e. Holiness, he is called 'liberated by wisdom' (paññá- vimutta). For further details, see paramattha-sacca, paticca-samuppáda, khandha, ti-lakkhana, náma-rúpa, patisandhi. -------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > Hi Christine and all, > > If what you quoted is Nyanatiloka's explanation of "anatta", then I > would say that's his interpretation, and, as I see it, he didn't get > it. > > Christine, I am going to put forth some questions: > If there is no being, would you say there is killing? Would you say > there is killing, but no one is being killed? Or would you say there > is no killing, just blade (a rupa) going through flesh (another > rupa), bullet (rupa) going through the head (another rupa)? If there > is no being, would you say there is birth, aging and death? Some > people argue that "there is no being" is the truth. Consider these > questions: are you a human being? Were you born? Are you getting > old? Is birth, aging and death satisfactory or unsatisfactory? > > Metta, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Hi Victor, > > > > As RobK is in Bangkok without instant access to a computer, I hope > > you don't mind my joining in while we are waiting for a reply. > > As you know I am always wrestling with the idea of Anatta, but, > > through the kind patient repetitive explanations of the members of > > this List, I was actually beginning to feel accept the > > explanation "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." (Nyanatiloka's dictionary) > > Do you have any objections to Nyanatiloka's definition? > > I would really welcome your input on this topic, Victor - > expanding > > on just how you understand that the view "there is no being" is > > pernicious and a gross misrepresentation, and what you see as the > > correct explanation. I would really appreciate it in your own > words > > (hyperlinks to suttas are not particularly helpful) if you are > > willing to articulate your understanding for us, as Robert has > done. > > > > > > metta, > > Christine > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > The view "there is no being", as I see it, is pernicious. It is > a > > > gross misrepresentation of what the Buddha taught. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Victor 15007 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Fri Aug 16, 2002 0:47am Subject: man & woman Anguttara Nikaya I.1-10 Pariyadana Sutta Overpowering Translated from the Pali by Sean Whittle. Copyright ©2001 Sean Whittle. For free distribution only. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thus I have heard: On one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. At that time he addressed the monks: "Monks!" "Venerable sir," as the monks listened closely to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said this: "Monks, I do not see any other single form that invades the mind of a man and remains like the form of a woman. Monks, the form of a woman invades the mind of a man and remains. "Monks, I do not see any other single sound that invades the mind of a man and remains like the voice of a woman. Monks, the voice of a woman invades the mind of a man and remains. "Monks, I do not see any other single scent that invades the mind of a man and remains like the scent of a woman. Monks, the scent of a woman invades the mind of a man and remains. "Monks, I do not see any other single taste that invades the mind of a man and remains like the taste of a woman. Monks, the taste of a woman invades the mind of a man and remains. "Monks, I do not see any other single touch that invades the mind of a man and remains like the touch of a woman. Monks, the touch of a woman invades the mind of a man and remains. "Monks, I do not see any other single form that invades the mind of a woman and remains like the form of a man. Monks, the form of a man invades the mind of a woman and remains. "Monks, I do not see any other single sound that invades the mind of a woman and remains like the voice of a man. Monks, the voice of a man invades the mind of a woman and remains. "Monks, I do not see any other single scent that invades the mind of a woman and remains like the scent of a man. Monks, the scent of a man invades the mind of a woman and remains. "Monks, I do not see any other single taste that invades the mind of a woman and remains like the taste of a man. Monks, the taste of a man invades the mind of a woman and remains. "Monks, I do not see any other single touch that invades the mind of a woman and remains like the touch of a man. Monks, the touch of a man invades the mind of a woman and remains." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Revised: Sun 12 May 2002 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an01-001.html 15008 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Aug 16, 2002 1:08am Subject: RE: [dsg] pattidana Dear Purnomo, In use ful posts: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_ Posts There are some topics under "Merits, Transfer of". The second link in that topic has a definition of pattidana. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: Purnomo . [mailto:purnomo9@h...] > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 10:02 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] pattidana > > > hi all, > > what is pattidana ? > Is there 'transfer' kamma to somebody else? for > example; my grandma was > died. I want to transfer my kamma to my grandma > because she maybe born in > dukkha realsm. Is it true? Please explain > > > metta, > > > purnomo 15009 From: Sukinder Date: Fri Aug 16, 2002 2:58am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Anguttara Nikaya Book of Two's 15. 'Repaying One's Parents' Dear Chris, Sarah conveyed your message to me, so I must have had a kind of sixth sense no? On your point about your query being from your observation etc., I know Chris that it is not your own doubt; I wasn't thinking it to be so. Your understanding seem to have progressed very markedly and I am learning a lot from your posts. Thanks. Regarding turning 'green' I have something to console you. At the hotel, when I saw the menu, I couldn't get myself to order anything except a cup of coffee, so I remained hungry for 5 hours until finally I got a double cheese burger at A&W at cost of 1/8th of what I would have paid at the hotel.:-) Metta, Sukin. -----Original Message----- From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 10:49 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: Anguttara Nikaya Book of Two's 15. 'Repaying One's Parents' Dear Sukin, As always your answer is 'just right' - and speaks with 'Dhamma sense' to the main points of rebirth and kamma fruition, the how and the why. (I should point out that I was speaking from what I observe through my work and in the world in general.) Thank you Sukin. You should post more often.:) Regarding your luncheon engagement - I'm not feeling even the slightest quiver of envy, not a shiver, a shudder, a tingle, a flutter or a flicker - though I must be coming down with something, I have turned a light green colour. :):) metta, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "sukinderpal" wrote: > Hi, Chris > > I usually wait for others to answer, since I know that most probably > they all would give better ones than I would. > But since no one has yet replied to this and since you have so > bravely decided to take up Robert's place in responding to Victor's > remark, I will overlook my fear of being mistaken and go ahead. > > You mention people who are "now attempting to follow the Teachings", > this means that they have the opportunity to at least glimpse the > most sublime of teachings. > > Some people understand that their parents are part of the conditions > which have allowed them to be born as they are. But they will however > also think that it could have been any other pair of man /woman who > could have caused them to be born. But I do not think so. I think > that all the conditions work together in such a way that if one is > missing then the result would not have come to be. Such that the > kamma which decided your rebirth consciousness carries with it the > deciding factor of exactly what sort of parents you will be born to. > So no matter how one's parents treated one, if finally you have come > in contact with the Teachings, then you must remember that it > wouldn't have been if these exact parents were not yours. > > With regard to those who do NOT come to know the Teachings, one has > to realize that one is born to reap the fruits of one's kamma. So > without these parents one does not get the opportunity to repay these > partucular debts. > So either way I think, parents ARE worthy of respect and reverence. > And surely, in the world where billions of cittas are arising and > falling every second, what is a few acts of "repaying" to them going > to make a difference!? That is why the best that one can do for them, > is to establish them in the Dhamma. > > I am going to meet Sarah, Jon, Robert and his kids, Betty, Ell and > Ivan for lunch in a couple of hours. > Hope no envy arises in the " continually self-consuming process of > arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena" conveniently called > Christine.;-) > > Best wishes, > Sukin. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > I acknowledge that many parents love and care for their children > with > > great sacrifice and devotion, as I always try to do, and as I hope > do > > all the parents on this List. But, in this world, very many parents > > do not behave lovingly or even humanely. Not just a few occasional > > exceptions, but very many. Parents are often the major cause of > harm > > to children physically and mentally, and are the one's responsible > > for most acts of gross neglect and abuse, assault, manslaughter and > > murder of children. > > I feel that the general 'unqualified' exhortation to give unlimited > > respect, honour and service to one's parents could be the condition > > for distress in those who have suffered greatly at their parents > > hands, and are now attempting to follow the Teachings. It seems to > > be based on an idealised version of what parents should be or could > > be, rather than the reality of what many actually are. For many > > children, the parents were just the unwilling gateway into this > world > > of suffering. When I read teachings such as those in the sutta > > below, I wonder if it is not a little naive, and could the Buddha > > have meant it to apply generally no matter how appalling the > parents > > actions were, or did he mean where parents actually did bring up, > > feed and guide their children lovingly through this world? > > > > Anguttara Nikaya Book of Two's 15. 'Repaying One's Parents' > > "I declare, O monks, that there are two person's one can never > > repay. What two? One's mother and father. > > Even if one should carry about one's mother on one should er and > > one's father on the other, and while doing so should live a hundred > > years, reach the age of a hundred years; and if one should attend > to > > them by anointing them with salves, by massaging, bathing and > rubbing > > their limbs, and they should even void their excrements there - > even > > by that would one not do enough for one's parents, one would not > > repay them. Even if one were to establish one's parents as the > > supreme lords and rulers over this earth so rich in the seven > > treasures, one would not do enough for them, one would not repay > > them. What is the reason for this? Parents do much for their > > children: they bring them up, feed them and guide them through > this > > world." > > > > metta, > > Christine 15010 From: egberdina Date: Fri Aug 16, 2002 4:02am Subject: Re: ADL ch. 20 (2) Hi Rob, I think this captures it very well. The purpose of study is the gaining of wisdom. Very nice. Best Regards Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Herman, > > "Grant me the strength to change the things that I can change, the > patience to accept the things that I cannot change and the wisdom to > know the difference." > > If the object of the "study of things that cannot be altered" is to > have the "wisdom to known the difference" then, I think it is useful. > > Of course, in the mundane world, it is often necessary to study > things that cannot be altered (history, gravity, etc.). > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "egberdina" wrote: > > I am happy to conclude that neither thoughts of planes of > existence > > or thoughts of rebirth are the main game. In fact, I would go so > far > > as to say that the study of things that cannot be altered is > utterly > > futile. > > > > What do you reckon about that :-) 15011 From: abhidhammika Date: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:29am Subject: Time Does Not Exist As A Reality Dhamma Dear Dhamma friends A few days ago, Suan Lu Zaw said the following to Stephen and Joyce regarding time. "Time does not exist independently of real phenomena. Time is best understood as measurement of the events of conditioned real phenomena. There are only three real phenomena and their cessation, making Four Ultimate Dhammas. As you can easily figure out, three real phenomena are matter, consciousness and mental associates. They belong to conditioned realities. Nibbaana, the cessation of the conditioned phenomena, on the other hand, is the fourth reaility. Nibbaana is the only unconditioned reality, as you already know. As we have Four Ultimate Realities only, it becomes clear that time has no status of a reality. Thus, the concept of time is a human invention, and a human convention." -------------------------------------- After having said the above, Suan told KKT the following regarding kha.nika. "Kha.nika is meausrement of the three sub-events of a reality event such as matter or consciousness where kha.nikas for consciousness are faster than those for matter while the kha.nikas that measure the emergence and vanishment of matter and consciousness are said to be equal. The lasting sub-event of matter alone is said to be longer than that of consciousness." -------------------------------------------- Afterwards, Suan also spoke to Howard regarding time as follows. "Your presentation of kha.nas in Abhidhamma is good and correct. Thank you for your input. The point I was making in response to Stephen and Joyce was that time could not exist independently of the reality events, that is to say, Dhammas In Progress. Thus, the reality of time is relative at best, non-existent at worst. Time is a function of reality events if we used the mathematical parlance. We can test the non-reality of time when we attempt to manipulate time on its own. We can't! But, we can manipulate the reality events, that is to say, we can predict the outcomes of the reality events by manipulating test conditions. Depending on the types of test conditions, we can describe the relevant types of measurements such as moments or sub- moments for consciousness or matter. Put another way, time is how we could describe a reality event,- in terms of how long the event would take. In the absence of an event, there is nothing to describe, let alone how the event occurs. Time is not a what, but a how - a how to describe a what. Therefore, I repeat, "Time does not exist independently of realty events"." With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org 15012 From: frank kuan Date: Fri Aug 16, 2002 9:04am Subject: who does the granting? Re: [dsg] Re: ADL ch. 20 (2) > "Grant me the strength to change the things that I > can change, the > > patience to accept the things that I cannot change > and the wisdom > to > > know the difference." Who's doing the granting here? Your mom? The government? Microsoft? Santa Claus? At first glance, this prayer seems to indicate a useful intention to generate wisdom. Upon further review, this has to be rejected as an odious and utterly futile hope with no chance of coming to fruition. Proof? Witness planet earth, with the number of inhabitants invoking this prayer addressed to an omnipotent being who shall remain nameless for the moment, and the results they've accomplished. First of all, who is the appeal directed to? I've seen a very similar prayer to this, except it is preceded by the first line "Dear God". Let's say that there does exist an omnipotent and omniscient God. If that's the case, then the state of the world (including the intellegence, wisdom, and spiritual capacity of its inhabitants) would indicate that this God is completely incompetent, lacking in anything resembling compassion, and has no ability whatsoever to make any of his devoted followers happier and more wise. Conclusion: appeal to god to increase your wisdom is going to fall on deaf ears. Whether you believe in a God or not, the prayer should be directed to YOURSELF. Only you can change yourself. You want wisdom? You have to do something to generate wisdom. And it's not going to happen with you sitting around moping and hoping some god or someone is going to just hand it to you on a silver platter. While you're wishing for wisdom to suddenly materialize, you might as well ask for a winning lottery ticket and the Cubs to win the world series. Let me develop wisdom by developing right view, right thought, right mindfulness, right effort. Let my effort be continuous and unrelenting. Let my efforts come to fruition with perfect right view. -fk p.s. Dear Frank, please grant me the ability to practice right speech so I don't post something on a public forum that would offend millions of people in the world. Guess what? This isn't right speech, and I can keep making that prayer religiously 3 times a day for the rest of my life and I still won't have a clue about right speech. Right speech has to be preceded by right view, and right view doesn't materialize by magic. Right view has to be cultivated. 15013 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 16, 2002 10:01am Subject: The Perfections, Ch 4, Renunciation, no 4 The Perfections, ch 4, Renunciation, no. 4. The perfection of renunciation is the elimination, the giving up and the subduing of attachment to sense objects, the departing from them. We only realize with regard to this life that we cling to visible object, sound, odour, flavour and tangible object. To what extent can we gradually become more detached from these objects? We may see the benefit of developing the perfection of renunciation. Although someone may have given up the laylife and become a monk, if he still clings to the five sense objects just as a layman, there is no difference between being a monk or a layman. Therefore, the perfection of renunciation does not merely mean leaving the household life and becoming a monk. Renunciation means having the energy and courage to eliminate the clinging we all have to visible object, sound and the other sense objects. So long as we have not attained the excellent state of the non-returner, we have not eradicated clinging to sense objects. We should know ourselves as we are, we should know whether we are sincere and have the firm determination to eliminate the clinging to the five sense objects. We are, for example, attached to colour, when we look at pictures, when we find them beautiful and delightful. Generally, when we see something beautiful, we are likely to have enjoyment and clinging, lobha. If there is heedfulness, it can be known that at such a moment this is only a reality, a dhamma, that appears. Attachment can decrease by not trying to obtain the attractive object so that we accumulate even more attachment. Thus, when there is a pleasant object, we can see it, but when it is not there and we cannot see it, we should not search for it. We may usually eat delicious food, and when we eat too much it is bad for our body. However, the citta that is attached to the flavour of food causes us to eat even when we are not hungry. If we can eliminate clinging, if we can have renunciation with regard to flavour, we shall eat just enough to satisfy our hunger, and if possible, we shall not even relish the food so much. Someone may not be hungry, and he knows that he will feel uncomfortable if he still eats. However, because the food is so delicious, he will just savour one morsel. This shows that he does not have renunciation. If there is renunciation, someone can begin to train himself by endurance, and thus, he needs to have also the perfection of patience, so that he will eat just sufficiently to satisfy his hunger; he knows when the amount of food is enough and will be of use to his body. We can understand that it is most difficult to be free from clinging to the sense objects, because even training oneself to decrease clinging is already difficult. Therefore, we should develop moral strength so that all the perfections can assist satipatthåna to be aware of the characteristics of realities more often in daily life. If we have patience we can endure the experience of heat or cold. When the weather is hot, we do not need to make special efforts to have a cold bath, or when it is cold, we do not need a warm bath. For some people it may be necessary for their body to take care of the right temperature of their bath. However, when this is not the case, we may just be attached to the temperature of the water. Some people, when they have a warm bath, just feel comfortable and pleasant; even though their body is strong and they do not need a warm bath, they just like to have this pleasant sensation. Or sometimes they take pleasure in having a cold bath. When someone understands the perfection of renunciation, he can have more endurance, no matter whether he experiences heat or cold. When he has endurance, he also needs the perfection of patience and of energy. Nobody can tell someone else to give up attachment to sense pleasures, nor can one tell oneself to do this, but it must be paññå which understands the true meaning of the perfection of renunciation. 15014 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 16, 2002 10:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anguttara Nikaya Book of Two's 15. 'Repaying One's Parents' op 15-08-2002 11:07 schreef christine_forsyth op cforsyth@v...: Dear Christine, Lodewijk, my husband, had a dialogue with my father. He has an alarm, and now and then when he falls out of bed in the night we are woken up and go to him. Lodewijk has to lift him up from the floor. Lodewijk said that he should let us know whenever he has problems. Pa: No, you are already doing a lot for me. L: But the Buddha said we can never do enough for our parents. Pa: That is old fashioned. Isn't it delightful from the lips of someone born in 1900? Now your problem, I understand what you mean. I asked A. Sujin, and she said that any way it is due to our parents that we are introduced into this world where we still have the opportunity to hear the teachings and develop understanding. It may be helpful not to think so much of the person of the parent, but consider metta-citta. Shouln't we not have metta and karuna, regardless for whom it is? When we have problems with some's personality, it helps to consider that there are only seeing and visible object, hearing and sound, and all of them fall away. No person who stays. Best wishes, Nina. > I feel that the general 'unqualified' exhortation to give unlimited > respect, honour and service to one's parents could be the condition > for distress in those who have suffered greatly at their parents > hands, and are now attempting to follow the Teachings. It seems to > be based on an idealised version of what parents should be or could > be, rather than the reality of what many actually are. For many > children, the parents were just the unwilling gateway into this world > of suffering. When I read teachings such as those in the sutta > below, I wonder if it is not a little naive, and could the Buddha > have meant it to apply generally no matter how appalling the parents > actions were, or did he mean where parents actually did bring up, > feed and guide their children lovingly through this world? > > Anguttara Nikaya Book of Two's 15. 'Repaying One's Parents' > "I declare, O monks, that there are two person's one can never > repay. What two? One's mother and father. > Even if one should carry about one's mother on one should er and > one's father on the other, and while doing so should live a hundred > years, reach the age of a hundred years; and if one should attend to > them by anointing them with salves, by massaging, bathing and rubbing > their limbs, and they should even void their excrements there - even > by that would one not do enough for one's parents, one would not > repay them. Even if one were to establish one's parents as the > supreme lords and rulers over this earth so rich in the seven > treasures, one would not do enough for them, one would not repay > them. What is the reason for this? Parents do much for their > children: they bring them up, feed them and guide them through this > world." 15015 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 16, 2002 10:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Study of details Dear Herman, Rob M and all, I appreciated and enjoyed the different reactions to Herman's post. Maybe I can add something. The teachings are complete, in all details: all causes and their effects have been expounded. Thus, rebirth as a non-percipient being cannot be omitted when different kinds of rebirths have been explained. This does not mean that you have to study what is not relevant to your everyday life. But when we read about births in certain planes of existence it can teach us that the right cause brings the appropriate result. The person who was born without nama had developed the highest rupajhana, and this jhana did not decline just before death. One may well develop jhana but only when jhanacitta arises just before the dying-consciousness can it produce result in the form of rebirth , in this case as a being without nama, because he saw the disadvantage of experiencing objects. He had patisandhi rupa, rebirth rupa. It is beneficial and necessary to know about the right cause which brings the appropriate effect. We read about the development of jhana and all the conditions necessary for its development. If one does not know about this one may have misunderstandings about this subject. Also, those who see the disadvantages of rupa, and attain arupa jhana, will, if arupa jhanacitta arises just before death, be reborn in the arupa brahma planes where there is no rupa. Another detail for those who like details (quite understandable that it is not appealing to everybody): In the Guide to Conditional Relations (by U Narada): one of the twentyfour classes of conditions is the condition which causes each citta that falls away to be succeeded by the next one: anantara paccaya, contiguity condition. In the case of someone born without citta: Herman, I have to run, we are going to our teacher for a piano lesson. Best wishes from Nina. op 15-08-2002 02:13 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > > "Grant me the strength to change the things that I can change, the > patience to accept the things that I cannot change and the wisdom to > know the difference." > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "egberdina" wrote: >> I am happy to conclude that neither thoughts of planes of > existence >> or thoughts of rebirth are the main game. In fact, I would go so > far >> as to say that the study of things that cannot be altered is > utterly >> futile. 15016 From: Date: Fri Aug 16, 2002 2:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness of Breathing, hindrances and concentration. Dear Nina, I think you missed the point that I was talking about samatha _samadhi_, not the mere cultivation of tranquility. By 'samatha samadhi' I mean a precursor to jhana, a combination of one pointed focus and relinquishment in the form of tranquility. This is freely accessible to anyone. In order to cultivate samadhi it is necessary to recognize and cease (temporarily) any conceptual proliferation. In my estimation conceptual proliferation is the most obvious expression of belief in an ego. Thus this recognition and ceasing is the beginning of penetrating anatta, and, as the necessary attendants of anatta, dukkha and anicca as well. The question about panna and the hindrances was to the point that in the study of dhamma _without_ the training in samadhi and samatha it is much more difficult to abandon the hindrances, particularly restlessness, even temporarily. Looking forward to your post back, Larry ---------------- Nina wrote: Dear Larry, I intersperse my reactions below. op 10-08-2002 20:26 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: L: could we say that samatha samadhi is the beginning of understanding the three characteristics in so far as it suppresses the hindrances, craving for rupa qualities, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & remorse, and doubt? N: When we read about the three characteristics it means characteristics of paramattha dhammas, of nama and rupa. In Samatha the object of citta is a meditation subject and its aim is temporary calm. In order to understand the three characteristics insight has to be developed through awareness of nama and rupa, thus, of realities appearing through the six doors, at the present moment. First nama has to be known as nama and rupa as rupa, and later on their arising and falling away can be realized. Thus, the subduing of the hindrances in samatha is not the beginning of understanding of the three characteristics. We have to see the difference between samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana. Different ways of development with different objectives. L: And further that this is worked toward (if not accomplished) by the discipline of onepointed focus which limits papanca and the nonclinging of tranquility? N: See above. When the citta is jhanacitta akusala dhammas do not arise, but only panna developed through awareness of nama and rupa can eradicate them. Also the hindrances and the papancas which arise again after the jhanacvitta has fallen away have to be known as non-self, otherwise they cannot be eradicated. L: Also, what is the relationship between panna and the hindrances? Does panna only arise after nibbana? N: Panna is gradually developed from life to life. First it is of the level of pariyatti, intellectual understanding of the dhammas of your life: nama and rupa. Understanding of citta, cetasika and rupa, understanding what defilements are, what kusala dhammas are. Then, panna can begin to with awareness characteristics of nama and rupa that appear now. This is the beginning of patipatti, the level of practice. Is there no seeing? it has a characteristic. Is there no hearing? It has a characteristic. Evenso, attachment, aversion, metta, they each have their own characteristic and these characteristics can be directly known and understood. Very gradually nama can be known as nama and rupa as rupa, and stages of insight can arise, we do not know when. It takes so many lives, but we do not mind. The teachings are still available and we are grateful for each slight amount of understanding. Panna can grow, and one day it can become panna of the level of pativedha, the penetration of the four noble Truths. Lokuttara panna arises, panna which experience the unconditioned dhamma, nibbana. Thus, this answers the end of your Q. The relationship between panna and the hindrances: Panna can eradicate these completely, at the different stages of enlightenment. There can be no question of eradicating any hindrance when it is still , thus, my lobha, my dosa. First the wrong view of self has to be eradicated. Perhaps it is not easy to see whether there is my lobha, my dosa. We notice these akusala dhammas, but do we realize when there is an idea of self inherent in them? For example: lobha arises, and we have aversion about it, do not want to have it or to control it. should not have it. We have to investigate the different cittas that arise, but it is not easy. Only panna can. Best wishes from Nina. 15017 From: robmoult Date: Fri Aug 16, 2002 2:43pm Subject: who does the granting? Re: [dsg] Re: ADL ch. 20 (2) Hi Frank, This is a great example of papanca :-) Herman was questioning the relevance of studying things that cannot be changed. I wanted to make the point that wisdom involved understanding both that which could be changed and that which could not be changed (and the difference). To try and make my point, I quoted from a famous Christian prayer (I even put it in quotes). I intentionally omitted the first part, "Dear God...", fearing the mention of "God" would be like waving a red cape in a field of bulls. I find it amusing that you reacted strongly (strongly enough to write a lengthy reply) to something that was not there (by design). This shows how quick the mind is to add "mental contructions, elaborations, embellishments and conceptual proliferations". Thanks, Rob M :-) PS: Frank, I fully agree with your position on God, wisdom and the importance of right view, etc. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., frank kuan wrote: > > "Grant me the strength to change the things that I > > can change, the > > > patience to accept the things that I cannot change > > and the wisdom > > to > > > know the difference." > > Who's doing the granting here? Your mom? The > government? Microsoft? Santa Claus? > At first glance, this prayer seems to indicate a > useful intention to generate wisdom. Upon further > review, this has to be rejected as an odious and > utterly futile hope with no chance of coming to > fruition. Proof? Witness planet earth, with the number > of inhabitants invoking this prayer addressed to an > omnipotent being who shall remain nameless for the > moment, and the results they've accomplished. > First of all, who is the appeal directed to? I've > seen a very similar prayer to this, except it is > preceded by the first line "Dear God". Let's say that > there does exist an omnipotent and omniscient God. If > that's the case, then the state of the world > (including the intellegence, wisdom, and spiritual > capacity of its inhabitants) would indicate that this > God is completely incompetent, lacking in anything > resembling compassion, and has no ability whatsoever > to make any of his devoted followers happier and more > wise. Conclusion: appeal to god to increase your > wisdom is going to fall on deaf ears. > Whether you believe in a God or not, the prayer > should be directed to YOURSELF. Only you can change > yourself. You want wisdom? You have to do something to > generate wisdom. And it's not going to happen with you > sitting around moping and hoping some god or someone > is going to just hand it to you on a silver platter. > While you're wishing for wisdom to suddenly > materialize, you might as well ask for a winning > lottery ticket and the Cubs to win the world series. > > Let me develop wisdom by developing right view, right > thought, right mindfulness, right effort. Let my > effort be continuous and unrelenting. Let my efforts > come to fruition with perfect right view. > > -fk > > p.s. > Dear Frank, please grant me the ability to practice > right speech so I don't post something on a public > forum that would offend millions of people in the > world. > > Guess what? This isn't right speech, and I can keep > making that prayer religiously 3 times a day for the > rest of my life and I still won't have a clue about > right speech. Right speech has to be preceded by right > view, and right view doesn't materialize by magic. > Right view has to be cultivated. 15018 From: yuzhonghao Date: Fri Aug 16, 2002 3:03pm Subject: Re: Pernicious view Hi Christine, and all, Hmmm....I hope I have answered your question on Nyanatiloka's definition. I put forth eight questions. If one holds the view "there is no being," then the first four questions are challenging. Regarding the last four questions, I think you should be able to answer them with confidence. As recorded in the Pali Canon, the Buddha articulated clearly the teaching on "anatta". The crucial factor in understanding the teaching is how one understands the word "self" in the context "Form is not self. Form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self'". One might understand it as "permanent, unchanging entity" or as "complex composite/flow of nama and rupa" or simply as a pronoun that one uses to refer oneself. "Self is a permanent, unchanging entity" is an assumption, and "self is a complex composite/flow of nama and rupa" is another. Both are speculative views. What in Nyanatiloka's explanation on "anatta" shows that he did not get it? The very fact that he understood the word "self" as "self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance". Regarding the view "there is no being," I have stated that it is a pernicious view. Consider a murderer who was being tried in court. When being questioned if he had committed the murder, he replied thus: "Mere killing exists, no killer nor one being killed is found; The acts of killing were, but no one committed the killing was there." "There is no being, and this is the truth. There is no killer nor one being killed." The Kindred Sayings 1, Ch v, 10 provides an interesting imagery. Make sure whether Sister Vajira stated that there is no being. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Victor, and All, > > I asked first.:) I just realised Victor that nearly every time you > post on the question of 'self' 'non-self' or 'anatta', you either > post hyperlinks to suttas with no discussion, or you pose questions > as a reply and don't respond to many questions put to yourself. I am > not going to answer a series of leading questions out of the > very little knowledge I have, but I would be deeply interested in > hearing what your understanding is, and learning from it. You have > alluded to a strongly held knowledge on the subject of anatta, but I > have never yet seen it articulated. I hope you will do so as I > believe it could be very helpful for us all to hear it I would hope > you feel moved to write a few paragraphs on what your position is. > In this instance, as you commented very strongly on Robert's post, it > would be a courtesy, and very interesting for us all if you would > give an explanation of your thoughts on the matter. But - no worries > if you don't wish to. > > What 'I' am trying to let go of is the result of the conditioning > of Western culture and schooling, and the Christian religion that I > grew up in, where there are beliefs in 'beings' and 'souls'. What is > crucial to me above all is what the Buddha's Dhamma says. I have > included a sutta from the Kindred Sayings about 'beings'. > > What I quoted was certainly in Nyanatiloka's explanation of 'anatta' > and the full text is below with the hyperlink for you to check. It > surprises me that you say "he didn't get it', and would, no doubt, > surprise him.:):) Do you have any comments on the full text? > http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_a.htm > > metta, > Christine > > From the Kindred Sayings 1, Ch v, 10 > At Savatthi, Sister Vajira, rising early plunged into the depths of > Dark Wood, and seated herself at the foot of a certain tree for > noonday rest. Then Mara the evil one, desirous to arouse fear, > wavering, and dread in her, desirous of making her desist from being > alone, went up to her, and addressed her in verse:- > > By whom was wrought this being? Where is he > Who makes him? Whence doth a being rise? > Where doth the being cease and pass away? > Then Sister Vajira thought: Who now is this, human or non-human, that > speaketh verse? Sure it is Mara the evil one that speaketh verse, > desirous of arousing in me fear, wavering, and dread, desirous of > making me desist from being alone. And the Sister, knowing it was > Mara, replied in verse:- > > Being! Why dost thou harp upon that word? > Mong false opinions, Mara, hast thou strayed. > Mere bundle of conditioned factors, this! > No being can be here discerned to be. > For just as, when the parts are rightly set, > The word chariot ariseth [in our minds], > So doth our usage covenant to say: > A being when the aggregates are there. > > Nay, it is simply ill that rises, ill > That doth persist, and ill that wanes away. > Nought beside ill it is that comes to pass, > Nought else but ill it is doth cease to be. > Then Mara the evil one thought: Sister Vajira knows me, and sad and > sorrowful he vanished there and then. > > ------------------------------------ > 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." > > "Whosoever is not clear with regard to the conditionally arisen > phenomena, and does not comprehend that all the actions are > conditioned through ignorance, etc., he thinks that it is an ego that > understands or does not understand, that acts or causes to act, that > comes to existence at rebirth .... that has the sense-impression, > that feels, desires, becomes attached, continues and at rebirth again > enters a new existence" (Vis.M. XVII, 117). > > While in the case of the first two characteristics it is stated that > all formations (sabbe sankhárá) are impermanent and subject to > suffering, the corresponding text for the third characteristic states > that "all things are not-self" (sabbe dhammá anattá; M. 35, > Dhp. > 279). This is for emphasizing that the false view of an abiding self > or substance is neither applicable to any 'formation' or conditioned > phenomenon, nor to Nibbána, the Unconditioned Element > (asankhatá > dhátu). > > The Anattá-lakkhana Sutta, the 'Discourse on the Characteristic of > Not-self', was the second discourse after Enlightenment, preached by > the Buddha to his first five disciples, who after hearing it attained > to perfect Holiness (arahatta). > > The contemplation of not-self (anattánupassaná) leads to the > emptiness liberation (suññatá-vimokkha, s. vimokkha). Herein > the > faculty of wisdom (paññindriya) is outstanding, and one who > attains > in that way the path of Stream-entry is called a Dhamma-devotee > (dhammánusári; s. ariya-puggala); at the next two stages of > sainthood > he becomes a vision-attainer (ditthippatta); and at the highest > stage, i.e. Holiness, he is called 'liberated by wisdom' (paññá- > vimutta). > > For further details, see paramattha-sacca, paticca-samuppáda, > khandha, ti-lakkhana, náma-rúpa, patisandhi. > > -------------------------------------------------- > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > > Hi Christine and all, > > > > If what you quoted is Nyanatiloka's explanation of "anatta", then I > > would say that's his interpretation, and, as I see it, he didn't > get > > it. > > > > Christine, I am going to put forth some questions: > > If there is no being, would you say there is killing? Would you > say > > there is killing, but no one is being killed? Or would you say > there > > is no killing, just blade (a rupa) going through flesh (another > > rupa), bullet (rupa) going through the head (another rupa)? If > there > > is no being, would you say there is birth, aging and death? Some > > people argue that "there is no being" is the truth. Consider these > > questions: are you a human being? Were you born? Are you getting > > old? Is birth, aging and death satisfactory or unsatisfactory? > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" > > wrote: > > > Hi Victor, > > > > > > As RobK is in Bangkok without instant access to a computer, I > hope > > > you don't mind my joining in while we are waiting for a reply. > > > As you know I am always wrestling with the idea of Anatta, but, > > > through the kind patient repetitive explanations of the members > of > > > this List, I was actually beginning to feel accept the > > > explanation "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." (Nyanatiloka's dictionary) > > > Do you have any objections to Nyanatiloka's definition? > > > I would really welcome your input on this topic, Victor - > > expanding > > > on just how you understand that the view "there is no being" is > > > pernicious and a gross misrepresentation, and what you see as the > > > correct explanation. I would really appreciate it in your own > > words > > > (hyperlinks to suttas are not particularly helpful) if you are > > > willing to articulate your understanding for us, as Robert has > > done. > > > > > > > > > metta, > > > Christine > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > The view "there is no being", as I see it, is pernicious. It > is > > a > > > > gross misrepresentation of what the Buddha taught. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Victor 15019 From: Date: Fri Aug 16, 2002 5:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pernicious view Hi, Victor (and Christine) - In a message dated 8/16/02 6:04:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, victoryu@s... writes: > The Kindred Sayings 1, Ch v, 10 provides an interesting imagery. > Make sure whether Sister Vajira stated that there is no being. > > Metta, > Victor > > > > From the Kindred Sayings 1, Ch v, 10 > > At Savatthi, Sister Vajira, rising early plunged into the depths of > > Dark Wood, and seated herself at the foot of a certain tree for > > noonday rest. Then Mara the evil one, desirous to arouse fear, > > wavering, and dread in her, desirous of making her desist from > being > > alone, went up to her, and addressed her in verse:- > > > > By whom was wrought this being? Where is he > > Who makes him? Whence doth a being rise? > > Where doth the being cease and pass away? > > Then Sister Vajira thought: Who now is this, human or non-human, > that > > speaketh verse? Sure it is Mara the evil one that speaketh verse, > > desirous of arousing in me fear, wavering, and dread, desirous of > > making me desist from being alone. And the Sister, knowing it was > > Mara, replied in verse:- > > > > Being! Why dost thou harp upon that word? > > Mong false opinions, Mara, hast thou strayed. > > Mere bundle of conditioned factors, this! > > No being can be here discerned to be. > > For just as, when the parts are rightly set, > > The word chariot ariseth [in our minds], > > So doth our usage covenant to say: > > A being when the aggregates are there. > > > > Nay, it is simply ill that rises, ill > > That doth persist, and ill that wanes away. > > Nought beside ill it is that comes to pass, > > Nought else but ill it is doth cease to be. > > Then Mara the evil one thought: Sister Vajira knows me, and sad and > > sorrowful he vanished there and then. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You request: "Make sure whether Sister Vajira stated that there is no being." Well, Sister Vajira does say: "No being can be here discerned to be." That's pretty close, huh? Does she mean that there may be a being hiding somewhere, but it just can't be discerned? I don't think so.The Buddha was both phenomenalist and pragmatist. What is not discernable is nonexistent. The Buddha again and again said things such as "it is not found" or "it is not seen" to mean "it doesn't exist". It is made clear by Sister Vajira that talk of a "being" is just manner of speaking - mere convention. She said "So doth our usage covenant to say: A being when the aggregates are there." Her point is that a "being" is mere convention, an agreed upon verbal usage, and not an actuality. 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) 15020 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Aug 16, 2002 10:14pm Subject: Re: Pernicious view Hi Victor and All, Thanks for your reply - could we look at our definitions of self? I have seen the word "self" used in a number of different ways, some just in everyday life for ease of communication. Often when speaking I refer to "myself" or "oneself". I understand the Buddha frequently used language in this way also with no problem e.g. The Buddha said, as he told the story of the acrobats, "' But the apprentice said: 'Not so, master. You! O Master, should protect YOURSELF, and I too shall protect MYSELF. Thus self- protected and self-guarded we shall safely do our feats." 'This is the right way,' said the Blessed One and spoke further as follows: 'It is just as the apprentice said: 'I shall protect MYSELF,' in that way the Foundation of Mindfulness should be practised." Satipatthanasamyutta 19 I use the words 'I' and 'Me' to refer to my own person - saves me saying this great long description everytime '"May this continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena conveniently called Christine have a cup of tea please", which would get an unprintable response from my esteemed colleagues. Much easier to say 'May 'I' have a cup of tea please'. My understanding of the Teaching on anatta (more than likely gained from reading the DSG Useful Posts and listening to Bhikkhu Bodhi tapes) is that it does not deny the existence of the person taken as a psycho-physical complex. (So I would think that your example of the murderer does not hold. The mundane laws for dealing with the mundane psycho-physical complex are still expected to apply). What the Teaching denies is that the person exists as a 'self', a substantial, lasting, indivisible ego-entity - existing at the core of the psycho- physical personality. It is with the idea of self in this sense that I believe the Buddha's teaching is concerned. I don't think Nyanatiloka is the only one who understands the "self" in this way ----> "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 believe all of Theravada and Mahayana accept this understanding as a foundation doctrine of Buddhism. If I am incorrect could someone speak a little on how I am misunderstanding? In NO INNER CORE - ANATTA by Sayadaw U Silananda it indicates agreement between the two traditions: "As we can see, Buddhism is the only major religion that denies the existence of a metaphysical entity which is usually called a self or soul. Buddhism is divided into two major schools, Theravada and Mahayana, which have, in some cases, major differences. But both schools adhere to the anatta doctrine. H. von Glasenapp writes: "The negation of an imperishable Atman is the common characteristic of all dogmatic systems of the Lesser as well as the Great Vehicle (meaning here Theravada and Mahayana, respectively], and, there is, therefore, no reason to assume that Buddhist tradition which is in complete agreement on this point has deviated from the Buddha's original teaching." Although the anatta doctrine is so important, so distinctive, and supposedly so universally accepted by Buddhists, it is still the most misunderstood, the most misinterpreted, and the most distorted of all the teachings of the Buddha. " http://www.buddha.per.sg/dharma01/anatta1.htm I've re-read Sister Vajira's words in the first mentioned and another translation. I think she is definitely saying in both translations that there is no being involved with the aggregates. When you say "Make sure whether Sister Vajira stated that there is no being", are you thinking there could be 'a being' somewhere else? Inside the aggregates, like the idea of the Christian Soul? or a Great Universal Oversoul maybe? Or a Super-consciousness, a Watcher? If not one of those, what else? In the translation, by Bhikkhu Bodhi, Sister Vajira says: "Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, is that your speculative view? This is a heap of sheer formations: Here no being is found. Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates exist, There is the convention 'a being'. "It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases." Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Vajira knows me," sad and disappointed, disappeared right there. The notes say Vism 593.18-19 also quotes these two verses to confirm that "there is no being apart from name-and-form." 'Suffering' in the final verse signifies the inherent unsatisfactoriness of the five aggregates which is identical with 'the heap of sheer formations'. "What arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing." In your definition of selfhood - could you also put forward its dominant criteria? Bhikkhu Bodhi states that they are: (a) the idea of duration or lastingness (b) simplicity, incomposite entity (c) unconditioned (d) susceptibility to control (which do not exist in the five aggregates). metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > Hi Christine, and all, > > Hmmm....I hope I have answered your question on Nyanatiloka's > definition. > > I put forth eight questions. If one holds the view "there is no > being," then the first four questions are challenging. Regarding the > last four questions, I think you should be able to answer them with > confidence. > > As recorded in the Pali Canon, the Buddha articulated clearly the > teaching on "anatta". The crucial factor in understanding the > teaching is how one understands the word "self" in the context "Form > is not self. Form is to be seen as it actually is with right > discernment thus: 'This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my > self'". One might understand it as "permanent, unchanging entity" or > as "complex composite/flow of nama and rupa" or simply as a pronoun > that one uses to refer oneself. > > "Self is a permanent, unchanging entity" is an assumption, and "self > is a complex composite/flow of nama and rupa" is another. Both are > speculative views. What in Nyanatiloka's explanation on "anatta" > shows that he did not get it? The very fact that he understood the > word "self" as "self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other > abiding substance". > > Regarding the view "there is no being," I have stated that it is a > pernicious view. Consider a murderer who was being tried in court. > When being questioned if he had committed the murder, he replied thus: > "Mere killing exists, no killer nor one being killed is found; > The acts of killing were, but no one committed the killing was there." > "There is no being, and this is the truth. There is no killer nor > one being killed." > > The Kindred Sayings 1, Ch v, 10 provides an interesting imagery. > Make sure whether Sister Vajira stated that there is no being. > > Metta, > Victor 15021 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Aug 16, 2002 10:47pm Subject: Re: Anguttara Nikaya Book of Two's 15. 'Repaying One's Parents' Dear Nina, Thank you for sharing such a lovely story I'll tell it to the Medical Wards Social Workers, particularly the "That is old fashioned' remark - often they get quite despondent at sending people off to nursing homes in their sixth decade, your dear father's independent spirit will really brighten their day. I agree with your post entirely - now. I never seem to understand at the time I am experiencing or thinking something, perhaps that comes in time..... Strange to be talking with Victor about anatta in the other thread, but missing the understanding of it entirely in daily life until now. :) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > op 15-08-2002 11:07 schreef christine_forsyth op cforsyth@v...: > Dear Christine, > Lodewijk, my husband, had a dialogue with my father. He has an alarm, and > now and then when he falls out of bed in the night we are woken up and go to > him. Lodewijk has to lift him up from the floor. Lodewijk said that he > should let us know whenever he has problems. > Pa: No, you are already doing a lot for me. > L: But the Buddha said we can never do enough for our parents. > Pa: That is old fashioned. > Isn't it delightful from the lips of someone born in 1900? > Now your problem, I understand what you mean. I asked A. Sujin, and she said > that any way it is due to our parents that we are introduced into this world > where we still have the opportunity to hear the teachings and develop > understanding. It may be helpful not to think so much of the person of the > parent, but consider metta-citta. Shouln't we not have metta and karuna, > regardless for whom it is? When we have problems with some's personality, it > helps to consider that there are only seeing and visible object, hearing and > sound, and all of them fall away. No person who stays. > Best wishes, Nina. > 15022 From: yuzhonghao Date: Sat Aug 17, 2002 2:27am Subject: Re: Pernicious view Hi Christine and all, I have seen many people holding either the assumption "self is psycho- physical complex" or the assumption "self is substantial, lasting, indivisible ego-entity-existing at the core of the psycho-physical personality" or any other definition of selfhood in interpretating what the Buddha taught. The very definition of what self is is speculative. I think it would be beneficial and helpful to see how the Buddha used language in communication, in particular, the word "self", and I believe you have provided a good example from Satipatthanasamyutta 19. Regarding your questions: "are you thinking there could be 'a being' somewhere else? Inside the aggregates, like the idea of the Christian Soul? or a Great Universal Oversoul maybe? Or a Super-consciousness, a Watcher? If not one of those, what else?" My response to you is: "Being! Why dost thou harp upon that word? Why now are you assume 'a being'?" Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Victor and All, > > Thanks for your reply - could we look at our definitions of self? > I have seen the word "self" used in a number of different ways, some > just in everyday life for ease of communication. Often when > speaking I refer to "myself" or "oneself". I > understand the Buddha frequently used language in this way also with > no problem e.g. The Buddha said, as he told the story of the > acrobats, "' But the apprentice said: 'Not so, master. You! O Master, > should protect YOURSELF, and I too shall protect MYSELF. Thus self- > protected and self-guarded we shall safely do our feats." 'This is > the right way,' said the Blessed One and spoke further as > follows: 'It is just as the apprentice said: 'I shall protect > MYSELF,' in that way the Foundation of Mindfulness should be > practised." Satipatthanasamyutta 19 > > I use the words 'I' and 'Me' to refer to my own person - saves me > saying this great long description everytime '"May this continually > self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental > phenomena conveniently called Christine have a cup of tea please", > which would get an unprintable response from my esteemed colleagues. > Much easier to say 'May 'I' have a cup of tea please'. > > My understanding of the Teaching on anatta (more than likely gained > from reading the DSG Useful Posts and listening to Bhikkhu Bodhi > tapes) is that it does not deny the > existence of the person taken as a psycho-physical complex. (So I > would think that your > example of the murderer does not hold. The mundane laws for dealing > with the mundane psycho-physical complex are still expected to > apply). What the > Teaching denies is that the person exists as a 'self', a substantial, > lasting, indivisible ego-entity - existing at the core of the psycho- > physical personality. It is with the idea of self in this sense that > I believe the Buddha's teaching is concerned. > I don't think Nyanatiloka is the only one who understands the "self" > in this way ----> "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 believe all of Theravada and Mahayana accept this > understanding as a foundation doctrine of Buddhism. If I am > incorrect could someone speak a little on how I am misunderstanding? > In NO INNER CORE - ANATTA by Sayadaw U Silananda it indicates > agreement between the two traditions: > "As we can see, Buddhism is the only major religion that denies the > existence of a metaphysical entity which is usually called a self or > soul. Buddhism is divided into two major schools, Theravada and > Mahayana, which have, in some cases, major differences. But both > schools adhere to the anatta doctrine. H. von Glasenapp writes: "The > negation of an imperishable Atman is the common characteristic of all > dogmatic systems of the Lesser as well as the Great Vehicle (meaning > here Theravada and Mahayana, respectively], and, there is, therefore, > no reason to assume that Buddhist tradition which is in complete > agreement on this point has deviated from the Buddha's original > teaching." Although the anatta doctrine is so important, so > distinctive, and supposedly so universally accepted by Buddhists, it > is still the most misunderstood, the most misinterpreted, and the > most distorted of all the teachings of the Buddha. " > http://www.buddha.per.sg/dharma01/anatta1.htm > I've re-read Sister Vajira's words in the first mentioned and > another > translation. I think she is definitely saying in both translations > that there is no being involved with the aggregates. When you > say "Make sure whether Sister Vajira stated that there is no being", > are you thinking there could be 'a being' somewhere else? Inside the > aggregates, like the idea of the Christian Soul? or a Great Universal > Oversoul maybe? Or a Super-consciousness, a Watcher? If not one of > those, what else? > In the translation, by Bhikkhu Bodhi, Sister Vajira says: > > "Why now do you assume 'a being'? > Mara, is that your speculative view? > This is a heap of sheer formations: > Here no being is found. > > Just as, with an assemblage of parts, > The word 'chariot' is used, > So, when the aggregates exist, > There is the convention 'a being'. > > "It's only suffering that comes to be, > Suffering that stands and falls away. > Nothing but suffering comes to be, > Nothing but suffering ceases." > > Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Vajira knows me," > sad and disappointed, disappeared right there. > The notes say Vism 593.18-19 also quotes these two verses to confirm > that "there is no being apart from name-and-form." 'Suffering' in > the final verse signifies the inherent unsatisfactoriness of the five > aggregates which is identical with 'the heap of sheer > formations'. "What arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is > only suffering ceasing." > > In your definition of selfhood - could you also put forward its > dominant criteria? > > Bhikkhu Bodhi states that they are: > (a) the idea of duration or lastingness > (b) simplicity, incomposite entity > (c) unconditioned > (d) susceptibility to control > (which do not exist in the five aggregates). > > metta, > Christine 15023 From: yuzhonghao Date: Sat Aug 17, 2002 3:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pernicious view Hi Howard and all, The usage of the word "being" is bound by agreed-upon usage of language, or in your term, "convention." From what I understand in reading the discourses, how and what the Buddha spoke is always bounded within the agreed-upon usage of language, or in your term, convention. A being is not a convention, not a verbal usage. It is the word "being" that is bounded within the agreed-upon usage of language in communication, or in your term, convention. A being is a being. You are a human being. I am a human being. And a human being is not to be found in the five aggregates, just as a chariot is not to be found in the pole, the axle, the chariot-body, the yoke, the reins, and the goading stick. Regarding your question "Does she mean that there may be a being hiding somewhere, but it just can't be discerned?", I would like to remind you that Sister Vajira was reponding to Mara's metaphysical questions in the first place. If Mara questioned Sister Vajira thus: "Is there a being hiding somewhere, but it just can't be discerned?" she would probably respond thus: "Being! Why dost thou harp upon that word? Why now are you assume 'a being'?" Metta, Victor > Howard: > You request: "Make sure whether Sister Vajira stated that there is no > being." > Well, Sister Vajira does say: "No being can be here discerned to be." > That's pretty close, huh? Does she mean that there may be a being hiding > somewhere, but it just can't be discerned? I don't think so.The Buddha was > both phenomenalist and pragmatist. What is not discernable is nonexistent. > The Buddha again and again said things such as "it is not found" or "it is > not seen" to mean "it doesn't exist". > It is made clear by Sister Vajira that talk of a "being" is just > manner of speaking - mere convention. She said "So doth our usage covenant to > say: A being when the aggregates are there." Her point is that a "being" is > mere convention, an agreed upon verbal usage, and not an actuality. > > With metta, > Howard 15024 From: frank kuan Date: Sat Aug 17, 2002 6:43am Subject: Re: who does the granting? Re: [dsg] Re: ADL ch. 20 (2) Hi Rob, --- robmoult wrote: > I wanted to make the point that wisdom > involved > understanding both that which could be changed and > that which could > not be changed (and the difference). I understand. I wasn't addressing you or herman. Just the quote, and the validity of the quote. > To try and make my point, I quoted from a famous > Christian prayer That quote is not just a minor pet peeve. As I pointed out, just expressing a mere wish for wisdom of discernment to arise is foolish, and even more so that one would expect some imaginary being to grant that wish. Maybe in a forum of interreligious dialogue that could be seen as a diplomatic maneuver to show commonality between two completely different religions, but in a place like this, where wisdom cultivators have a mighty habit of spotting and rejecting wrong view, gross or subtle, it's like waving a red cape that blankets the whole sky. I understand what point you were trying to convey from referencing the quote, but the wisdom that should be cultivated versus the imaginary/undefined wisdom foolishly wished for in the prayer have NOTHING in common. Or if it is the same wisdom by coincidence, the person who foolishly prays is not going to see it magically materialize, and even if it did, they would not recognize it. No matter how poetic a quote is, if it has some serious fundamental flaws or deficiencies, it probably won't add credibility to the point you're trying to make. -fk 15025 From: yuzhonghao Date: Sat Aug 17, 2002 6:46am Subject: Let go Hi Christine, Upon rereading your message, I would say: "Let go!" Let go of what? Let go of the views, intepretations, definitions, and assumptions you've gathered from various literature. You've accumulated a lot. Let them go. Read the discourses with a simple mind and "listen" what the Buddha said. What does it mean by "simple mind"? It is a mind without proliferation in various views. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Victor and All, > > Thanks for your reply - could we look at our definitions of self? > I have seen the word "self" used in a number of different ways, some > just in everyday life for ease of communication. Often when > speaking I refer to "myself" or "oneself". I > understand the Buddha frequently used language in this way also with > no problem e.g. The Buddha said, as he told the story of the > acrobats, "' But the apprentice said: 'Not so, master. You! O Master, > should protect YOURSELF, and I too shall protect MYSELF. Thus self- > protected and self-guarded we shall safely do our feats." 'This is > the right way,' said the Blessed One and spoke further as > follows: 'It is just as the apprentice said: 'I shall protect > MYSELF,' in that way the Foundation of Mindfulness should be > practised." Satipatthanasamyutta 19 > > I use the words 'I' and 'Me' to refer to my own person - saves me > saying this great long description everytime '"May this continually > self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental > phenomena conveniently called Christine have a cup of tea please", > which would get an unprintable response from my esteemed colleagues. > Much easier to say 'May 'I' have a cup of tea please'. > > My understanding of the Teaching on anatta (more than likely gained > from reading the DSG Useful Posts and listening to Bhikkhu Bodhi > tapes) is that it does not deny the > existence of the person taken as a psycho-physical complex. (So I > would think that your > example of the murderer does not hold. The mundane laws for dealing > with the mundane psycho-physical complex are still expected to > apply). What the > Teaching denies is that the person exists as a 'self', a substantial, > lasting, indivisible ego-entity - existing at the core of the psycho- > physical personality. It is with the idea of self in this sense that > I believe the Buddha's teaching is concerned. > I don't think Nyanatiloka is the only one who understands the "self" > in this way ----> "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 believe all of Theravada and Mahayana accept this > understanding as a foundation doctrine of Buddhism. If I am > incorrect could someone speak a little on how I am misunderstanding? > In NO INNER CORE - ANATTA by Sayadaw U Silananda it indicates > agreement between the two traditions: > "As we can see, Buddhism is the only major religion that denies the > existence of a metaphysical entity which is usually called a self or > soul. Buddhism is divided into two major schools, Theravada and > Mahayana, which have, in some cases, major differences. But both > schools adhere to the anatta doctrine. H. von Glasenapp writes: "The > negation of an imperishable Atman is the common characteristic of all > dogmatic systems of the Lesser as well as the Great Vehicle (meaning > here Theravada and Mahayana, respectively], and, there is, therefore, > no reason to assume that Buddhist tradition which is in complete > agreement on this point has deviated from the Buddha's original > teaching." Although the anatta doctrine is so important, so > distinctive, and supposedly so universally accepted by Buddhists, it > is still the most misunderstood, the most misinterpreted, and the > most distorted of all the teachings of the Buddha. " > http://www.buddha.per.sg/dharma01/anatta1.htm > I've re-read Sister Vajira's words in the first mentioned and > another > translation. I think she is definitely saying in both translations > that there is no being involved with the aggregates. When you > say "Make sure whether Sister Vajira stated that there is no being", > are you thinking there could be 'a being' somewhere else? Inside the > aggregates, like the idea of the Christian Soul? or a Great Universal > Oversoul maybe? Or a Super-consciousness, a Watcher? If not one of > those, what else? > In the translation, by Bhikkhu Bodhi, Sister Vajira says: > > "Why now do you assume 'a being'? > Mara, is that your speculative view? > This is a heap of sheer formations: > Here no being is found. > > Just as, with an assemblage of parts, > The word 'chariot' is used, > So, when the aggregates exist, > There is the convention 'a being'. > > "It's only suffering that comes to be, > Suffering that stands and falls away. > Nothing but suffering comes to be, > Nothing but suffering ceases." > > Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Vajira knows me," > sad and disappointed, disappeared right there. > The notes say Vism 593.18-19 also quotes these two verses to confirm > that "there is no being apart from name-and-form." 'Suffering' in > the final verse signifies the inherent unsatisfactoriness of the five > aggregates which is identical with 'the heap of sheer > formations'. "What arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is > only suffering ceasing." > > In your definition of selfhood - could you also put forward its > dominant criteria? > > Bhikkhu Bodhi states that they are: > (a) the idea of duration or lastingness > (b) simplicity, incomposite entity > (c) unconditioned > (d) susceptibility to control > (which do not exist in the five aggregates). > > metta, > Christine 15026 From: Date: Sat Aug 17, 2002 6:01am Subject: Victor / Some Excerpts on Anatta from the Website "Beyond the Web" Hi, Victor (and all) - I send the following excerpts for whatever value you may deem them to have: WHAT THE TEACHING DENIES To grasp the exact meaning of this teaching we have to discriminate between what the teaching denies and what it does not deny. We can approach this task by distinguishing the different meanings of the word self. 'Anatta' means literally ' not self'. So what is the 'self' that is denied in the teaching of 'Anatta'?The word "self" can be used in three senses. (a) With a reflexive meaning, as when when we speak of "myself". "yourself", "oneself".The Buddha accepts this use of the word "self". He says that you have to train yourself, one must purify oneself, you have to make the effort yourself and so on. (b) To refer to one's own person, to refer to the compound of body and mind. Here the word self or it is a shorthand device used to refer easily and economically to what is really a complex process. 'Self' in this sense is acceptable to Buddhism. (c) A substantial ego entity, a lasting subject existing at the core of the psycho-physical personality. It is with the idea of selfhood in this sense that the Buddha's teaching is concerned, for it is this assumption that draws us into suffering. ******************************** SELFHOOD To make the teaching of Anatta clearer we have to investigate two things more carefully: 1) What exactly is the nature of selfhood ? 2) Why is the person not-self? (What are the reasons for negating selfhood in the five aggregates?) There are four dominant criteria of selfhood: (a) the idea of duration or lastingness (b) simplicity, incomposite entity (c) unconditioned (d) susceptibility to control (a) Idea of Lastingness Self has to be an entity which persists through time. It might be a temporary duration. eg. that we come into being at birth, continue as the same self throughout life, and are annihilated at death. Or else a permanent duration, the idea of an eternal everlasting self. (b) Simplicity This is the idea that the self is not compounded, that it possesses a basic simplicity or indivisibility. (c) Unconditioned We assume that the self must possess its own power of being, it must be self-sufficient, unconditioned, not dependent upon causes and conditions. (d) Control. If something really belongs to us we should be able to exercise mastery over it, to control it so that it is subject to our determination. **************************** Selfness nature of the five aggregates. To illustrate the selfless nature of the five aggregates the Buddha gives certain similies. He says:(a)The body is like a lump of foam - seems solid but when crushed turns out to be a hollow. (b)Feeling is like a bubble - bubbles on water just arise and break up and show themselves to be empty. (c)Perception is like a mirage. A mirage appears but when we examine it we don't find anything substantial. (d)Formations are like the trunk of a banana tree. Just rolls of tissue within rolls and rolls without hard wood. (e)Consciousness is like a magical illusion.It appears but has no substance. 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) 15027 From: anders_honore Date: Sat Aug 17, 2002 0:00pm Subject: Re: Anders and Views (1), (was:forwarding to list) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Hi Anders, > > --- Anders Honore wrote: > Hi Sarah. Snipped > > This is correct for Buddhas only. For the rest of us, the order, without > exception, is hearing, then considering, then realizing. It is for this > reason the Buddha taught and the Scriptures were written down. Consider the case of Bahiya again. How does he fit this? I am not saying that one (unless you're a SammasamBuddha or Pacekka) can realise the Dhamma without hearing parts of it, but it is not the case of wisdom being imparted from the teachings. It is a case of the teachings helping to efface the delusions preventing one from realising it already. Perhaps you can answer me, where did the Buddha's realisation come from? Since all non-Buddhas, you say, realise the Dhamma through hearing it, how did the Buddha realise it? > No self to develop, > understand or practise apart from panna. Is this statement born of your own personal experience, or from your reflection on the scriptural teaching? > ..... > > What do you say then, is the nature of direct understanding? If not the > > Buddha's understanding, then what? The scriptures' understanding? What > > understanding to they have? They are just expressions of understanding. > > Not > > understanding itself. > ..... > The Buddha's understanding is so all-encompassing that it understands all > accumulations, kamma, intricate nature of all conditions and so on. This > is reflected in the Scriptures. Of course these are expressions only, but > expressions representing realities and development of satipatthana. The > task of panna (rt understanding) is not to emulate the Buddha's wisdom, > but to begin to understand realities appearing at this moment. Only in > this way can it gradually develop, eventually to realize higher insights > and eradicate kilesa (defilements). I am not talking about the siddhis of the Buddha here (except for the siddhi of knowledge of the completion of the path), but of the realisation of the Buddha. > I would refer to the anatta (non-self) nature of > paramattha dhammas (absolute realities) and the existence of different > namas and rupas (mental and physical phenomena. This is a discussion in > itself.> And a diversion from the topic of this thread, I think. We'll save this one for a later day. > 2) When we talk about panna understanding the 4 Noble Truths and `cause > and effect', I question whether it is possible at this moment. What do you mean 'this moment'? This age, the moment of experience itself, this moment in your own development, or mine? Please clarify. > > Bottom line here -- unless someone can tell me a lot about the > characteristics of different realities appearing now (and from direct > experience rather than just repeating lists to give Frank a hard- time;-)), > it's hard for me to have any confidence that there really is any > realization of the 4NT. Some people say it's not possble to put the > developed panna into words, but I find plenty of words in the Tipitaka. Well, you know where I stand. I speak according to my own understanding. When not, I say so. I am still learning how to distinguish properly between direct vision and inferrence and speculation based on it. The trick is that the mind is very much capable of speculating on things further down the path, based on what may be already seen with Panna now. Although the speculation is based on panna, the speculation itself is intrinsically rooted in ignorance, and thus flawed in its understanding to a certain extent. Although I am beginning to catch it, much of what I say is still a product of delusion unrecognised, although I am at a stage where, oin hinsight, I can usually detect much of it in my writings. But not that often in the actual moment, which is of course what counts. So don't be surprised to see my back out of any of my previous statements, lol. As for expressing such insight, words cannot duplicate Panna, only imitate it. Panna can be likened to tasting an apple. If you have never tasted or seen one, and I have, then no matter how hard I try to describe what it is like for you, then you won't know for yourself what an apple is like. You may have a vague idea, but that is all. However, the Buddha's Dhamma is also such that, should you one day taste and appl, and know the taste for yourself, you will (if you remember my description) know that this is exactly what I described as an apple, and know you know it too. 15028 From: robmoult Date: Sat Aug 17, 2002 0:15pm Subject: who does the granting? Re: [dsg] Re: ADL ch. 20 (2) Hi Frank, I understand your point better now. "Wisdom" has a very special place in Buddhism (particularly in the Therevada tradition). Wishing for it, or expecting some divine being to grant it, goes against our grain. Thanks, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., frank kuan wrote: > Hi Rob, > > That quote is not just a minor pet peeve. As I > pointed out, just expressing a mere wish for wisdom of > discernment to arise is foolish, and even more so that > one would expect some imaginary being to grant that > wish. 15029 From: robmoult Date: Sat Aug 17, 2002 0:29pm Subject: What would you have said? Hi All, I was recently in China eating dinner with a group of about 15 colleagues who spoke little English. One of my colleagues mentioned to the table (in Chinese) that I was a Buddhist and taught Buddhist philosophy on Sunday morning to a class of Malaysian Chinese students. This started quite a conversation going, which somebody summarized for me as "We are embarassed that it takes a Westerner to teach us an Eastern religion. Many of us claim to be Buddhists, but don't know much at all about the religion." A colleague whose English was slightly better than the rest asked me a question, "As a Buddhist, what is the most important belief?" Considering the casual setting, the background of the people at the table and the limited language skills, I replied, "Understanding. Belief or faith without understanding is blind. It is important to understand the mind because everything that we do, good or bad, starts in the mind." What would you have said, had you been asked this question? Thanks, Rob M :-) 15030 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Aug 17, 2002 3:42pm Subject: Re: Let go Hi Victor, Thanks for your advice Victor. It certainly is a useful reminder to us all. I guess clinging to Wrong View is one of the hardest things to realise. One always tends to see *others* as wilfully not getting the point and having faulty understanding. Often, even when studying, one only seeks scripture that supports a strongly held view and ignores the rest. Such a long, long journey to Right Understanding. I've enjoyed *not* finding out your thoughts and reasons behind your original post to RobK . :) While waiting, it has encouraged me to re-visit the suttas on Ditthi, then those on Anatta, which led again to those on the Paticcasamuppada. An exhilarating journey. I was surprised to find that since I put Anatta in the 'Too hard basket' and ignored it for a while, it has become a little more intelligible. Imagine that! :) May you be well and happy, Victor, metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > Upon rereading your message, I would say: "Let go!" > > Let go of what? Let go of the views, intepretations, definitions, > and assumptions you've gathered from various literature. You've > accumulated a lot. Let them go. > > Read the discourses with a simple mind and "listen" what the Buddha > said. What does it mean by "simple mind"? It is a mind without > proliferation in various views. > > Metta, > Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > Hi all, > > The view "there is no being", as I see it, is pernicious. It is a > gross misrepresentation of what the Buddha taught. > > Regards, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" > wrote: > > --- > > Dear Stephen, > > Arrived in Bangkok( the rainy season by the look of it). > > > > These are not easy things to understand. Every moment > > is new and it is all arising and falling away with great > rapidity. > > However, each moment conditions the next moment and so there is > > continuity. As TG nicely explained the Buddha's words were a > > condition for Rahula to reflect wisely . > > If that situation is analysed there was really no Buddha or Rahula. > > But there was sound, there was hearing; these disappeared as soon > as > > they arose but they conditioned cittas that understood the concepts > > that were expressed by the myriad sounds. Cittas arise and fall > away > > instantly too but they can - and do - take a concept > > and repeatedly examine it and so the cittas in succession may seem > > much the same, for split seconds, seconds or even longer. > > > > But by wise attention there can be the insight that begins to study > > the nature of citta and see how it is different, albeit similar, > > moment to moment. This wise attention can lead to seeing, so the > > texts say, that nama and rupa are very different types of reality - > > and continue on to know more. > > There is no self anywhere in this process, so the Dhamma ; but the > > unbroken continuity of rising and falling, deludes the unwise > (i.e.us) > > into believing there is something substantial there , something > > somewhere that can direct, decide , that is doing this or that. > > RobM mentioned the term ayuhana, accumulating, ealier. And this > > process means that all the time there is new accumulating > > occuring, subtley altering, right now, what was accumulated from > the > > past; so that in the future accumulations may be very different > from > > what they are now. Wisdom may develop, or not; kindness or cruelty; > > patience or impatience; metta or anger. It can be studied, this > > process; while it happens, but usually there is a barrier, self > view > > which distorts and stops us understanding. > > Robert 15031 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:55am Subject: Hello from Bangkok Dear All A delay at the airport at Bangkok as we wait for our flight to Koh Samui gives me a chance to say hello. We had a useful but short discussion with Dhamma friends this morning (including Rob K, Betty, Sukin, Num and Ivan and Ell) on some of the points that have cropped up recently on the list, with plently of reminders from Khun Sujin about the importance of awareness of the reality of the present moment and, as a condition for that, of repeated listening to and reflection on the teachings. There's a queue of other delayed passengers waiting for their turn, so time's up for now. Speak again from Samui. Jon 15032 From: robmoult Date: Sun Aug 18, 2002 2:37am Subject: Re: Accumulations Hi Robert, Thanks for your research on ayuhana. I just came across this essay on Alayavijnana - Store Consciousness by Ven. Dr. Walpola Rahula that can provide more background. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha195.htm Thanks, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > > >> I looked up the term ayuhana in "BUDDHIST DICTIONARY Manual of > > Buddhist Terms & Doctrines" by Ven. Nyanatiloka and found: > > > > ayuhana: (karmic) 'accumulation', is a name used in the > commentarial > > literature for the wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities > > (karma, q.v.) or karma-formations (sankhara; s. paticca- > samuppada), > >___________________________ > > Dear RobM, > Thanks very much for supplying the quote from Nyanatiloka, I was > able to find it thanks to this.. > áyúhana (Aayuu- > hana)is fairly rare by itself in the texts but often occurs either > in the form Aayuuhana.m or as part of a complex word phrases . > > It is indeed a very useful word to understand. The Mahavagga tika > (subcommentary) to the Digha nikaya explains (I add some more to > Nyantiloka's excellent explanation): 15033 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Aug 18, 2002 7:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness of Breathing, hindrances and concentration. Dear Larry, I am missing your point again, I am afraid. What is a precursor to jhana, samatha or vipassana? What is relinguishment in the form of tranquillity? Where in the texts is it said that for samatha one should cease proliferation? The word papa~nca has several meanings. It can mean: clinging to self without wrong view, clinging with wrong view and clinging with conceit. These slow down the process of development leading out of samsara. The hindrance of restlessness arises with each akusala citta. When there is kusala citta it does not arise. As I said before: the three characteristics are characteristics of nama and rupa. Impermanence: not *thinking* that everything in life is evanescent, but realizing the arising and falling of this rupa now, this nama now. Thus, the development of nama and rupa cannot occur when jhanacitta experiences the meditation subject of jhana. Different ways of development. I am not inclined to think that one way of development is easier, I find, nothing is easy. I quote from the Netti, the Guide, from a post by Rob K: < The Netti-pakarana p168 Herein the Blessed one teaches samatha to one of keen faculties; The blessed one teaches samatha and insight to one of medium faculties and the blessed one teaches insight [alone] to one of blunt faculties. Thus for the great ones, the wise ones, indeed the path of samatha preceeding insight can be developed. For the blunt, slow ones it shows that insight alone is the way, inferior though it is.> I have no trouble classifying myself among the blunt, slow ones. Sarah wrote some time ago a post about two groups of people: those who developed jhana and insight, and insight alone, the dhammayogas: Best wishes Nina. op 16-08-2002 23:10 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > I think you missed the point that I was talking about samatha _samadhi_, > not the mere cultivation of tranquility. By 'samatha samadhi' I mean a > precursor to jhana, a combination of one pointed focus and > relinquishment in the form of tranquility. This is freely accessible to > anyone. > > In order to cultivate samadhi it is necessary to recognize and cease > (temporarily) any conceptual proliferation. In my estimation conceptual > proliferation is the most obvious expression of belief in an ego. Thus > this recognition and ceasing is the beginning of penetrating anatta, > and, as the necessary attendants of anatta, dukkha and anicca as well. > > The question about panna and the hindrances was to the point that in the > study of dhamma _without_ the training in samadhi and samatha it is much > more difficult to abandon the hindrances, particularly restlessness, > even temporarily. 15034 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Aug 18, 2002 7:01am Subject: Mindfulness of Breathing, Sutta and Co. Dear Rob Ep, Larry and all: We read in the Anapanasati sutta (MN no. 118): (Introductory Section) 1] Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Savatthi in the Eastern Park, in the Palace of Migara's Mother, together with many very well-known elder disciples -- the Venerable Sariputta, the Venerable Maha-Moggallana, the Venerable Maha Kassapa, the Venerable Maha Kaccana, the Venerable Maha Kotthita, the Venerable Maha Kappina, the Venerable Cunda, the Venerable Anuruddha, the Venerable Revata, the Venerable Ananda, and other very well known elder disciples. 2] Now on that occasion elder Bhikkhus had been teaching and instructing new Bhikkhus; some elder Bhikkhus had been teaching and instructing ten new Bhikkhus, some elder Bhikkhus had been teaching and instructing twenty. . . thirty. . . forty new Bhikkhus. And the new Bhikkhus, taught and instructed by the elder Bhikkhus, had achieved successive stages of high distinction. 3] On that occasion -- the Uposatha day of the fifteenth, on the full-moon night of the Pavarana ceremony,[9] The Blessed One was seated in the open surrounded by the Sangha of Bhikkhus. Then, surveying the silent Sangha of Bhikkhus, he addressed them thus: 4] "Bhikkhus, I am content with this progress. My mind is content with this progress. So arouse still more energy to attain the unattained, to achieve the unachieved, to realize the unrealized. I shall wait here at Savatthi for the Komudi full moon of the fourth month." ******* Mindfulness of Breathing has been translated by Ven. Nanamoli, with extracts from the Co. to this sutta and the Path of Discrimination. He has helpful notes, but he gives only abridged translations of the Co. Invitation, pavaara.naa: After the rainy season, each monk invites the Sangha to point out his faults during the preceding period. (N: How this induces humbleness of mind and respect the monks should have for each other!) N: As we read in the Intro, the sutta was spoken near Savatthi in the Eastern Monastery. The great disciples were present. There were arahats, non-returners, once-returners, sotapannas. Moreover those who were developing the four satipatthanas, and the factors leading to enlightenment, who were developing metta and other meditation subjects and also mindfulness on breathing. The Invitation ceremony was put off for one month until the Komudi festival, so that the mons could more fully develop excellent qualities. The Co. explains why the Buddha wanted to wait for the Komudi festival in Savatthi, to have the Invitation ceremony, the pavarana. He waited because otherwise the bhikkhus would go away and travel all over Savatthi. The Buddha (N: he showed his great compassion) thought of the bhikkhus who were still weak in samatha and vipassana and who would not be able to have excellent attainments. He considered the difficulty of finding lodgings if the monks would go traveling. The elders (of sixty rainy seasons) were allowed to take lodgings first and in that case other monks would have trouble finding them. Since the Buddha wanted to stay near Savatthi, there would not be such worry and the monks could further develop samatha and vipassana and reach distinctions. N: In the Sutta we read that the Buddha said: Note of Ven. Nanamoli: this refers to arahatship. We read in the Co. that the monks were determined to consider the conditioned dhammas, sankhara dhammas, and that some attained the fruition of sotapanna, etc. and of arahatship. This is the meaning of excellent quaitiesd of a higher degree they attained. We read in the sutta what the Buddha said one month later, at the Komudi festival. This we should carefully consider so that we can understand to whom the explanation of anapanasati was addressed: 8] "Bhikkhus, this assembly is free from prattle, this assembly is free from chatter.[10] It consists purely of heartwood. Such is this Sangha of Bhikkhus, such is this assembly. Such an assembly as is worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, an incomparable field of merit for the world -- Such is this assembly. Such an assembly that a small gift given to it becomes great and a great gift becomes greater -- such is this Sangha of Bhikkhus, such is this assembly. Such an assembly as is rare for the world to see -- such is this Sangha of Bhikkhus, such is this assembly. Such an assembly as would be worthy journeying many leagues with a travel-bag to see -- such is this Sangha of Bhikkhus, such is this assembly. 9] "In this Sangha of Bhikkhus, there are Bhikkhus who are arahats with taints destroyed, who have lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached the true goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and are completely liberated through final knowledge -- such Bhikkhus are there in this Sangha of Bhikkhus. 10] "In this Sangha of Bhikkhus there are Bhikkhus who, with the destruction of the five lower fetters, are due to reappear spontaneously (in the pure abodes) and there attain final Nibbana, without ever returning from that world -- such Bhikkhus are there in this Sangha of Bhikkhus. 11] "In this Sangha of Bhikkhus there are Bhikkhus who, with the destruction of three fetters and with the attenuation of lust, hate and delusion, are once-returners, returning once to this world to make an end of suffering -- such Bhikkhus are there in this Sangha of Bhikkhus. 12] "In this Sangha of Bhikkhus there are Bhikkhus who, with the destruction of the three fetters, are stream-enterers, no longer subject to perdition, bound [for deliverance], headed for enlightenment -- such Bhikkhus are there in this sangha of Bhikkhus. 13] "In this Sangha of Bhikkhus there are Bhikkhus who abide devoted to the development of the four foundations of mindfulness[11] -- such Bhikkhus are there in this Sangha of Bhikkhus. In this Sangha of Bhikkhus there are Bhikkhus who abide devoted to the four right kinds of strivings (efforts). . . of the four bases for spiritual power. . . of the five faculties. . . of the five powers. . . of the seven enlightenment factors. . . of the Noble Eightfold Path -- such Bhikkhus are there in this Sangha of Bhikkhus 14] "In this Sangha of Bhikkhus there are Bhikkhus who abide devoted to the development of loving-kindness. . . of compassion. . . of appreciative joy. . . of equanimity. . . of the meditation of foulness. . . of the perception of impermanence - - such Bhikkhus are there in this Sangha of Bhikkhus. In this Sangha of Bhikkhus there are Bhikkhus who abide devoted to the development of mindfulness of breathing. ******* The Co explains that all these were meditation subjects the monks were very interested in. In the sutta where it is stated: they dwell devoted to the four foudations of mindfulness... the noble eightfold Path, there is reference to the thirtyseven factors of enlightenment. The Co explains about the factors of enlightenment, bodhipakkhiya dhammas, that these are lokiya (not lokuttara, that is, those arising when enlightenment is attained) and lokuttara. It states that they are lokiya for the monks who develop vipassana, insight. In the sutta we read about the perception of impermanence. The Co explains that here insight, vipassana, is meant by sa~n~naa, perception. N: we can compare here the use of the word sanna: we find in the texts at times atta-sanna, perception of self, and anatta-sanna, perception of non-self. We read in the Co. that the monks were very interested in anapana sati. That is why the Buddha dealt with the other meditation subjects in short, but with mindfulness of breathing in detail. The Co now refers to the Visuddhimagga for details about this subject. ***** After this the Co deals with seeing the body in the body. This is for next time. Nina. 15035 From: Date: Sun Aug 18, 2002 7:46am Subject: Away for a While Hi, all (especially Lee, on D-L) - I will be away at a conference at Princeton University until late next Wednesday. Any posts sent to me will be replied to after I return. 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) 15036 From: Date: Sun Aug 18, 2002 0:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness of Breathing, hindrances and concentration. Dear Nina, Maybe you won't find my point in a book. I think you have to try one-pointed concentration with tranquility for yourself. It is a matter of practical experience that if one tries to focus on one thing continuously, a myriad of other thoughts with feelings usually arise. Recognizing these thoughts as thoughts, I maintain, is an insight into anatta, as 'self' is mostly conceptual proliferation on the side of subject rather than object. You can do this; anyone can. Every Buddhist organization in the world, except this one, teaches this basic technique to beginning students. As for the development of tranquility, this also is a beginners practice, though not mastered until realization. By your demeanor, and emphasis on the *long* view, I would say you know it well. In the Path Of Purification, the sila/samadhi/panna formula, and the ariya magga the usual order of things is for meditation to precede insight. Whether it does or not in one's own life is no reason to not cultivate, or at least dip one's toe into the experience of meditation. Without this you simply will not know what we are talking about. Best wishes, and strong encouragement, Larry 15037 From: egberdina Date: Sun Aug 18, 2002 3:51pm Subject: who does the cultivating? Hi Frank, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., frank kuan wrote: > > "Grant me the strength to change the things that I > > can change, the > > > patience to accept the things that I cannot change > > and the wisdom > > to > > > know the difference." > > Who's doing the granting here? Your mom? The > government? Microsoft? Santa Claus? > > Let me develop wisdom by developing right view, right > thought, right mindfulness, right effort. Let my > effort be continuous and unrelenting. Let my efforts > come to fruition with perfect right view. > > Right view has to be cultivated. Who does the cultivating? I do not hold the use of personal pronouns against anyone, because I am at one with my duality :-) Even atta is anatta. All the best Herman 15038 From: yuzhonghao Date: Sun Aug 18, 2002 8:21pm Subject: Re: Let go Hi Christine, No problem. Regarding my original post to Rob K, see it as an opinion, a reminder. Why do I see the view "there is no being" pernicious? Because it is a falsehood. Why is it a falsehood? Because, Christine, we are human beings. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Thanks for your advice Victor. It certainly is a useful reminder to > us all. I guess clinging to Wrong View is one of the hardest > things to realise. One always tends to see *others* as wilfully not > getting the point and having faulty understanding. Often, even > when studying, one only seeks scripture that supports a strongly held > view and ignores the rest. Such a long, long journey to Right > Understanding. > > I've enjoyed *not* finding out your thoughts and reasons behind your > original post to RobK . :) While waiting, it has encouraged me to > re-visit the suttas on Ditthi, then those on Anatta, which led again > to those on the Paticcasamuppada. An exhilarating journey. I was > surprised to find that since I put Anatta in the 'Too hard basket' > and ignored it for a while, it has become a little more intelligible. > Imagine that! :) > > May you be well and happy, Victor, > > metta, > Christine 15039 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Aug 18, 2002 8:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness of Breathing, Sutta and Co. Dear Nina, This is great. Thank you for this good material. I'm looking forward to the next installment! Best, Robert Ep. ======================== --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob Ep, Larry and all: > > We read in the Anapanasati sutta (MN no. 118): > > (Introductory Section) > > 1] Thus have I heard. ... 15040 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Aug 18, 2002 8:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go --- yuzhonghao wrote: > Hi Christine, > > No problem. > > Regarding my original post to Rob K, see it as an opinion, a reminder. > > Why do I see the view "there is no being" pernicious? Because it is > a falsehood. Why is it a falsehood? Because, Christine, we are > human beings. Dear Victor, 'Human beings' is a term that is used to describe the bodymind we inhabit. I say 'we inhabit' but it is only a linguistic conceit that there is someone 'inhabiting' something. You say 'we are human beings', but what does this mean? It is clear that we have a body, with thoughts, feelings and sensations arising within it. There is consciousness keeping track to some extent of all of these events. But clearly there is no 'little man' hiding in our interior overseeing all of this. Is there a 'person' inside the person you see when you see a 'human being'. Where is he located? Show me a central being; show me one internal focus of awareness that is the experiencer of all that happens. If you say there is a being, identify it. Show me what it looks like, and of what its beingness consists. In my own experience, there is an impersonal field or function of awareness that does experience interrnal and external events, but this awareness cannot be construed as a being in any way. It is not a person, it doesn't identify with a thought or feeling; it is just present. It has no location; it does not occupy space; it does not change or act within time. So it is not a person or being in any sense. Again, if there is a self, a being or an entity within which is the recipient of perceptions, thoughts, experiences, one should be able to describe its form and its location. Otherwise, it seems to me that it is a presumption or a myth. Yes, events take place. There is intelligence and awareness in the bodymind. But this does not constitute a being, or a self. Best, Robert Ep. 15041 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Aug 18, 2002 8:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness of Breathing, hindrances and concentration. Hi Nina and Larry, I've only just got round to reading this thread (13 posts) - and am finding it very interesting. I wonder if I can ask a couple of questions - I apologise for being a bit behind in my reading, and the length of this reply. Larry, I admire your enthusiasm for the Dhamma and the courage and honesty in your posts and questions. I am sure you are the condition for much deeper consideration of the Dhamma for many on this list. I don't think any of us would care if we don't find your point in a book - but we would care if we couldn't find it in the Tipitaka. :) It is difficult for me to follow a discussion if general statements and broad claims are unsupported by references, and I wonder if you could point me to where in the Canon you have obtained your understanding of 'a precursor to jhana, a combination of one pointed focus and relinquishment in the form or tranquillity''. I am not disputing it, just need to find more info on it. I am also having a little trouble with the word 'relinquishment' - I have only come across in it places like 7 Gelanna Sutta 'The Sick Ward' Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.7 http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sam/sn36-7.htm You say "Every Buddhist organization in the world, except this one, teaches this basic technique to beginning students". 'This one' isn't an Organisation and doesn't teach anything. It is a Yahoo List of 230 or so individuals who joined from all Traditions, presumably, because they had read the Home Page and thought it suited their needs. The Home page clearly says it is a discussion forum for anyone interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings as found in all three baskets of the Tipitaka, the original record of the Buddha's word in the Theravada tradition, and as further elucidated in the ancient commentaries of that tradition. The discussions include matters of both theory and practice, with the aim of developing precise understanding of the realities of the present moment." The people on this list practice in a variety of ways, and I recognise that they are attracted to their preferred form of practice because of accumulations. - habits, tendencies and talents. They recognise and support the right of others to practise the Teachings in their own way, and enjoy the illuminating discussions that follow from a diversity of viewpoints. A great percentage of people on this List have practiced samatha meditation at one time, some to a high level, and many still do daily practice. I used to meditate 'religiously' twice a day for up to an hour each time following the Mahasi method - a form of Samatha- Vipassana. I went to many one day and weekend retreats and a number of five and ten day retreats. I had various experiences in meditation. I am not unfamiliar with one-pointed concentration and tranquillity. I simply find it not useful for progression on the Path FOR ME. I do not doubt that it is a vital component of the practice of others, and I totally support them in applying formal periods of samatha or vipassana meditation as one of their methods of practice. It is all a question of time. I truly believe this is a scarce, precious human rebirth that could end at any time. The development of Right Understanding is of prime importance. You make an interesting remark about 'proliferation is the most obvious expression of belief in an ego - thus this recognition and ceasing is the beginning of penetrating anatta, and, as the necessary attendants of anatta, dukkha and anicca as well." I wonder if it might be useful to look at what the Buddha indicated was the way to the end of Dukkha (Suffering)? He said "Both formerly & now, it is only suffering that I describe, and the cessation of suffering." (Anuradha Sutta) As I understand the Teachings, the permanent Cessation of suffering is not obtained through Samatha. 'Samatha-kammatthana' existed before the appearance of the Lord Buddha in this world. Every religion had kinds of this meditation, for example there were sages hermits, monks of other religions. When the Blessed One had studied thoroughly he realised that this was not the way to eradicate asava- kilesa. As I have been taught, the Blessed One tried with patience, perseverance and effort to discover the way that leads out of the suffering of the rounds of rebirth, samsara-vatta the process of birth, old age, sickness and death; this way out that he discovered was the Dhamma which has the function to completely eradicate the asava-kilesa which are the cause of attachment to remain in Samsara. At first, the Buddha studied with two renowned teachers, one of them named Alara Kalama who taught samatha to reach the hightest rupa-jhana (absorption of the fine-material sphere). The second one, Uddaka Ramaptta, taught samatha to reach the hightest arupa-jhana (absorption of the immaterial sphere). The Buddha experimented with this meditation in every way realising that this is not the way to the Full Enlightenment of a Buddha. He left these teachers and searched for himself until be became enlightened to the four Noble Truths which can destroy asava-kilesa completely. The Buddha declared that he was the One rightfully enlightened by himself. In the preaching of the 'Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta' the first sermon, delivered to the group of five ascetics at Isipatana deer park, near Benares, he pointed out the Noble Eightfold Path or the Middle Way which comprises 'samma-ditthi', that is 'panna' right view or seeing the four Noble Truths. The practice of the Eightfold Path is actually nothing but the practice of Vipassana (Insight mediation). http://www.buddhanet.net/lmed11.htm "Thus, in terms of the Noble Eightfold Path, as soon as we pay attention to our mind, there is already samma vayama (effort) and samma sati (mindfulness). When samma sati is full and complete, the mind enters instantaneously into khanika samadhi (momentary concentration), which brings forth pañña (wisdom)Wisdom sees things in the right perspective, samma ditthi. Wisdom brings samma sankappa (right thought); and thereby samma vaca (right speech), samma kammanta (right action) and samma ajiva (right livelihood.) Hence it is possible in every conscious moment that sila, samadhi and pañña are all three incorporated in our daily business of living - while we eat, work, play and struggle. In short, our life itself becomes the Noble Eightfold Path" Nina, thank you for sharing your knowledge, understanding and practice in daily life with us all - you make the Dhamma come alive for me and your dealings with others always exemplify respect, patience and kindness. I enjoy all your posts (particularly The Perfections) but I particularly enjoyed your post 14712 of Sunday 4 August. (Oh dear! 325 posts ago.) "Arahats are different, with different distinctions: there are those who did not develop jhana, there are those who developed jhana and those who also had the four discriminative knowledges (patisambhiddas). Such difference in distinctions and talents happen because of conditions but what is most important: all of them eradicated defilements completely through pa~n~naa. Since jhana can be a base of insight should it not be developed first, is a question some people ask. The question, should we or shouldn't we, does not need to arise, because someone with the accumulated skills for jhana and the inclination to it, develops it already. If he has accumulated panna and develops insight, so that he has right understanding of the three characteristics of the jhanafactors after emerging from jhana, there are conditions that he can do so. Whatever we do or don't do, it all evolves because of conditions." In my formal meditating days, a friend found out the hard way about conditions. Three months of his long service leave, sitting in the Australian bush (heat/cold, flies, mosquitos, ants), meditating 15 hours a day ..... and as he saw it "nothing as the result". He had plenty of serenity, and was very calm for a long time afterward - but the anticipated Jhanas did not eventuate despite believing they would, conscientious practice and years of devoted meditation experience. (I see now that apart from not having the accumulations for jhana, there was a self who had lobha for a desired result.). much metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > Dear Nina, > > Maybe you won't find my point in a book. I think you have to try > one-pointed concentration with tranquility for yourself. It is a matter > of practical experience that if one tries to focus on one thing > continuously, a myriad of other thoughts with feelings usually arise. > Recognizing these thoughts as thoughts, I maintain, is an insight into > anatta, as 'self' is mostly conceptual proliferation on the side of > subject rather than object. You can do this; anyone can. Every Buddhist > organization in the world, except this one, teaches this basic technique > to beginning students. > > As for the development of tranquility, this also is a beginners > practice, though not mastered until realization. By your demeanor, and > emphasis on the *long* view, I would say you know it well. > > In the Path Of Purification, the sila/samadhi/panna formula, and the > ariya magga the usual order of things is for meditation to precede > insight. Whether it does or not in one's own life is no reason to not > cultivate, or at least dip one's toe into the experience of meditation. > Without this you simply will not know what we are talking about. > > Best wishes, and strong encouragement, > > Larry 15042 From: Date: Sun Aug 18, 2002 9:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go Dear Christine and Victor, It seems the main reason for not espousing the view of non-being is because of clinging and aversion to views. See below. Beyond that, there are many interesting and subtle distinctions between vibhava, anatta, sunnata, and nibbana. It would make a useful post if someone would illustrate the various qualities of these terms with scriptural quotations [including ucchedavada (annhilationism) and natthikavada (nihilism)]. metta, Larry ----------------- Majjhima Nikaya 11.6 Culasihanada Sutta: "Bhikkhus, there are these two views: the view of being and the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmans who rely on the view of being, adopt the view of being, accept the view of being, are opposed to the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmans who rely on the view of non-being, adopt the view of non-being, accept the view of non-being, are opposed to the view of being.[5] 7. "Any recluses or brahmans who do not understand as they actually are the origin, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger and the escape[6] in the case of these two views are affected by lust, affected by hate, affected by delusion, affected by craving, affected by clinging, without vision, given to favoring and opposing, and they delight in and enjoy proliferation. They are not freed from birth, aging and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair; they are not freed from suffering, I say. 8. "Any recluses or brahmans who understand as they actually are the origin, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger and the escape in the case of these two views are without lust, without hate, without delusion, without craving, without clinging, with vision, not given to favoring and opposing, and they do not delight in and enjoy proliferation. They are freed from birth, aging and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair; they are freed from suffering, I say. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn011.html 15043 From: Date: Sun Aug 18, 2002 10:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness of Breathing, hindrances and concentration. Dear Christine, I expressed only my own experience and thoughts. Sorry, no scriptural references. metta, Larry 15044 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Aug 18, 2002 10:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pernicious view --- yuzhonghao wrote: > Hi Howard and all, > > The usage of the word "being" is bound by agreed-upon usage of > language, or in your term, "convention." From what I understand in > reading the discourses, how and what the Buddha spoke is always > bounded within the agreed-upon usage of language, or in your term, > convention. > > A being is not a convention, not a verbal usage. It is the > word "being" that is bounded within the agreed-upon usage of language > in communication, or in your term, convention. A being is a being. > You are a human being. I am a human being. And a human being is not > to be found in the five aggregates, just as a chariot is not to be > found in the pole, the axle, the chariot-body, the yoke, the reins, > and the goading stick. Dear Victor, I think you may have an essential disagreement with the Buddha here. I think the Buddha clearly stated that there is no human being apart from the five aggregates, and that in fact the term 'human being' is nothing but a convention, just like the word. Isn't the unique point of Buddhism that there is no being outside the aggregates, and that one should cease conceptualizing the idea of a self within? You say a human being is a being, and that it is more than the sum of its parts. If so, you are invoking the same mystical belief in a being that cannot be identified or defined that everyone does in establishing the idea of a self that is a true entity, that really exists. If the self is the sum of the five aggregates, why say it is something other? It was the Buddha's role to dissect the self and show that in fact it did break down to the five aggregates and nothing more. If there is a true self beyond the five aggregates, it must be something that is neither within nor composed of the components of the psychophysical being, since the psychophysical being is completely composed of the five aggregates. Best, Robert Ep. 15045 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Aug 18, 2002 11:35pm Subject: Re: Let go --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > Upon rereading your message, I would say: "Let go!" > > Let go of what? Let go of the views, intepretations, definitions, > and assumptions you've gathered from various literature. You've > accumulated a lot. Let them go. > > Read the discourses with a simple mind and "listen" what the Buddha > said. What does it mean by "simple mind"? It is a mind without > proliferation in various views. > > Metta, > Victor > Dear Victor, I think there is a big danger in letting go of conventional wisdom, namely, losing it. We've all seen "Buddhists" who have lost it -- who have `lost the plot.' (I know for certain that you are not one of them, by the way.) They have a far-away look in their eyes, a fixed smile on their faces, they adopt an affectation of saintliness and they talk a lot of nonsense. `Letting go' is a product of New Age religions and I'm sure it plays absolutely no role in the Buddha's teaching. Those of us who have met Christine in person or have corresponded with her on dsg, are aware of her well-informed, well-reasoned understanding. I am sure she will not let go it, there is no need to. Kind regards Ken H P.S. I have reluctantly snipped Christine's original message (#15020), it's well worth reading again. KH 15046 From: Purnomo . Date: Mon Aug 19, 2002 0:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anguttara Nikaya Book of Two's 15. 'Repaying One'sParents' if the parents is thieves or have bad attitude, should we gratitude them? metta, purnomo 15047 From: Sukinder Date: Mon Aug 19, 2002 2:37am Subject: RE: [dsg] Anguttara Nikaya Book of Two's 15. 'Repaying One'sParents' Dear Purnomo, Nice to hear from you. Gratitude is gratitude, it is our (conventionally speaking)kusala, it has no relation to our parents akusala actions. If we express ungratefulness, then we are accumulating akusala. If we show them dhamma, then it is *very* kusala;-). Best wishes, Sukin -----Original Message----- From: Purnomo . [mailto:purnomo9@h...] Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 2:12 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] Anguttara Nikaya Book of Two's 15. 'Repaying One'sParents' if the parents is thieves or have bad attitude, should we gratitude them? metta, purnomo 15048 From: abhidhammika Date: Mon Aug 19, 2002 2:54am Subject: Defining What Is Real According To Abhidhamma Dear Dhamma friends The following conversation between Joyce Short and Suan Lu Zaw took place in the form of questions and answers. Joyce asked: "What do you mean when you use the word "real" - this is always confusing in English (to me)." Suan answered as follows. I reserved the modifier "real" for any existent things. An existent thing is what we can observe, experience, manipulate, predict its behaviors and the like. Existent things are not what we speculate about, or believe. For example, the Absolute Consciousness or Big Self is not an existent thing (that is to say, it does not exist). It is only a speculation put forward by the authors of Veda and their followers. The same goes for the God, or the Creator. The God or the Creator is a concept some people believe. Now, what are existent things? Matter, consciousness, and mental associates are existent things in the sense that we can observe, experience, or manipulate them. We can also predict their behaviors. Here, in the phrase "existent things such as matter and consciousness", the modifier "existent" does not mean that those things have static existences. The adjective "existent" only means that those things can emerge if relevant conditions are present. And they will vanish for good once those conditions are gone. Existent things will emerge and vanish depending on the relevant conditions being present and absent. Their emergence and vanishment do not depend on the speculation and beliefs of the people such as the authors of Veda or the writers of the Bible. -------------------------------------------- Joyce also asked: "What is "seven more times" referring to and what is it that is "reborn" no more than seven more times?" Suan answered as follows. The modifier "seven" refers to measurement of rebirths for a stream insider (sotaapanna). As a stream insider hasn't accomplished eradication of the three existential roots called greed, anger and ignorance, his resultant consciousness (vipaaka viññaa.na) is yet to emerge (that is to say, to be reborn) because he still has those roots as conditions for the emergence of consciousness. But, he or she has awakening at the level of a stream insider, we cannot measure their rebirths in terms of more than seven times. ---------------------------------- I hope that my answers to Joyce satisfied your expectations. With kind regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org 15049 From: yuzhonghao Date: Mon Aug 19, 2002 3:25am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pernicious view Hi Robert Ep, Please read the first part of my message to Howard again: "The usage of the word "being" is bound by agreed-upon usage of language, or in your term, "convention." From what I understand in reading the discourses, how and what the Buddha spoke is always bounded within the agreed-upon usage of language, or in your term, convention. A being is not a convention, not a verbal usage. It is the word "being" that is bounded within the agreed-upon usage of language in communication, or in your term, convention." If you are holding the view that the self did break down to the five aggregates and nothing more, I suggest you let go that assumption. I also suggest you let go the assumption "If there is a true self beyond the five aggregates, it must be something that is neither within nor composed of the components of the psychophysical being, since the psychophysical being is completely composed of the five aggregates." There are beings, Robert, and we as human beings were born. We get old and we will die some day. Birth, aging-and-death is stressful, suffering, unsatisfactory, dukkha. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- yuzhonghao wrote: > > Hi Howard and all, > > > > The usage of the word "being" is bound by agreed-upon usage of > > language, or in your term, "convention." From what I understand in > > reading the discourses, how and what the Buddha spoke is always > > bounded within the agreed-upon usage of language, or in your term, > > convention. > > > > A being is not a convention, not a verbal usage. It is the > > word "being" that is bounded within the agreed-upon usage of language > > in communication, or in your term, convention. A being is a being. > > You are a human being. I am a human being. And a human being is not > > to be found in the five aggregates, just as a chariot is not to be > > found in the pole, the axle, the chariot-body, the yoke, the reins, > > and the goading stick. > > Dear Victor, > I think you may have an essential disagreement with the Buddha here. I think the > Buddha clearly stated that there is no human being apart from the five aggregates, > and that in fact the term 'human being' is nothing but a convention, just like the > word. Isn't the unique point of Buddhism that there is no being outside the > aggregates, and that one should cease conceptualizing the idea of a self within? > > You say a human being is a being, and that it is more than the sum of its parts. > If so, you are invoking the same mystical belief in a being that cannot be > identified or defined that everyone does in establishing the idea of a self that > is a true entity, that really exists. If the self is the sum of the five > aggregates, why say it is something other? It was the Buddha's role to dissect > the self and show that in fact it did break down to the five aggregates and > nothing more. > > If there is a true self beyond the five aggregates, it must be something that is > neither within nor composed of the components of the psychophysical being, since > the psychophysical being is completely composed of the five aggregates. > > Best, > Robert Ep. 15050 From: yuzhonghao Date: Mon Aug 19, 2002 4:05am Subject: [dsg] Re: Let go Hi Robert, Let go, abandon the assumption that whether being is the "little man", the assumption that whether there is a person inside the person you see when you see a human being. These kindd of speculative thinking is not helpful, not beneficial, not leading to happiness. Metta, Victor > Dear Victor, > 'Human beings' is a term that is used to describe the bodymind we inhabit. I say > 'we inhabit' but it is only a linguistic conceit that there is someone > 'inhabiting' something. You say 'we are human beings', but what does this mean? > It is clear that we have a body, with thoughts, feelings and sensations arising > within it. There is consciousness keeping track to some extent of all of these > events. But clearly there is no 'little man' hiding in our interior overseeing > all of this. Is there a 'person' inside the person you see when you see a 'human > being'. Where is he located? Show me a central being; show me one internal focus > of awareness that is the experiencer of all that happens. If you say there is a > being, identify it. Show me what it looks like, and of what its beingness > consists. > > In my own experience, there is an impersonal field or function of awareness that > does experience interrnal and external events, but this awareness cannot be > construed as a being in any way. It is not a person, it doesn't identify with a > thought or feeling; it is just present. It has no location; it does not occupy > space; it does not change or act within time. So it is not a person or being in > any sense. > > Again, if there is a self, a being or an entity within which is the recipient of > perceptions, thoughts, experiences, one should be able to describe its form and > its location. Otherwise, it seems to me that it is a presumption or a myth. > > Yes, events take place. There is intelligence and awareness in the bodymind. But > this does not constitute a being, or a self. > > Best, > Robert Ep. 15051 From: yuzhonghao Date: Mon Aug 19, 2002 4:23am Subject: Re: Let go Hi Ken, Did I tell anyone to let go of, abandon conventional wisdom? How do you know for certain that I am not one of those "Buddhists" who have lost it, who have `lost the plot', who have a far-away look in their eyes, a fixed smile on their faces, who adopt an affectation of saintliness and talk a lot of nonsense? What kind of nonsense do they talk about when they let go of conventional wisdom? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "kenhowardau" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > > Hi Christine, > > > > Upon rereading your message, I would say: "Let go!" > > > > Let go of what? Let go of the views, intepretations, definitions, > > and assumptions you've gathered from various literature. You've > > accumulated a lot. Let them go. > > > > Read the discourses with a simple mind and "listen" what the Buddha > > said. What does it mean by "simple mind"? It is a mind without > > proliferation in various views. > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > > Dear Victor, > > I think there is a big danger in letting go of > conventional wisdom, namely, losing it. > > We've all seen "Buddhists" who have lost it -- who > have `lost the plot.' (I know for certain that you > are not one of them, by the way.) They have a far-away > look in their eyes, a fixed smile on their faces, they > adopt an affectation of saintliness and they talk a > lot of nonsense. > > `Letting go' is a product of New Age religions and I'm > sure it plays absolutely no role in the Buddha's > teaching. > > Those of us who have met Christine in person or have > corresponded with her on dsg, are aware of her > well-informed, well-reasoned understanding. I am sure > she will not let go it, there is no need to. > > Kind regards > Ken H > > P.S. > I have reluctantly snipped Christine's original > message (#15020), it's well worth reading again. > KH 15052 From: azita gill Date: Mon Aug 19, 2002 4:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Phassa > > > Dear dsg's, < today I was reading Nina's work on 'Cetasikas'. I was reading about Phassa [contact]. < 'Phassa arises together with every citta and < conditions the citta by 'contacting' the object < which citta experiences. When seeing experiences < visible object, Phassa also experiences visible < object. At that moment Phassa contacts visible < object and conditions seeing consciousness to see. < Phassa is the condition that visible object, the < the eye-sense and seeing-consciousness 'come < together', so that seeing-consciousness can < cognise visible object.' < and this was a condition for me to stare off into space [as I often do,btw] when suddenly I felt a shock at how 'alone' I was, or rather, how empty 'our' lives really are. If these events are happening now, and these are the very events the Buddha taught that need to be known if Nibbana is to be experienced, then I feel that most of my daily life is a bit of a waste. Not much kusala, just doing the same old stuff. I sound depressed, eh? [a Queensland expression] but it was a condition for me to now feel quite fortunate to have heard the Dhamma from such wonderful people, and to have this opportunity to continue to have this Dhamma contact [not Phassa type contact] may we continue to support and help each other. < Not-depressed Azita. xxxxx 15053 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Mon Aug 19, 2002 5:30am Subject: There are people There are people in this universe who are going to be, Maithree Buddha, his diciples, his son, his wife, his mother, his father, and there are people in this universe who are going to be, future Buddhas, Paceka Buddhas, Arhaths... And all this people are among us. with us. (why not) even us. The world is not so bad after all... :) ~with meththa ranil 15054 From: robmoult Date: Mon Aug 19, 2002 8:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Phassa Hi Azita, I couldn't agree with your more (in spite of the fact that "feeling fortunate" is probably a form of mana, conceit). Such good kamma (or should I say vipaka?) to be born a human, to be born at a time that the Dhamma is accessible and to have the opportunity to be in contact (phassa?) with the Dhamma. All of these fortunate events have taken a "huge chunk out of my kamma bank account" and I feel obliged to work diligently to replenish it. Dana (in all its forms), Sila (precepts and more) and bhavana not only replenish the "kamma bank account" but generate their own positive energy as well. With metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., azita gill wrote: > it was a condition for me to now feel > quite fortunate to have heard the Dhamma from such > wonderful people, and to have this opportunity to > continue to have this Dhamma contact [not Phassa type > contact] may we continue to support and help each > other. 15055 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 19, 2002 10:00am Subject: Perfections, Ch 4, Renunciation, no. 5 Perfections Ch 4, Renunciation, no 5. We read in the ³Jatukannimånavapucchå², Jatukanní¹s Questions, of the Cúlaniddesa, ³Khuddhaka Nikåya²: (There is) renunciation, nekkhamma (when there is) seeing, seeing clearly, comparing, considering, developing, so that one clearly understands the right practice, the proper practice, the practice that is an enemy 3), the practice that is beneficial, the practice of Dhamma according to the Dhamma that leads to purity of síla. (There is renunciation, when there is) the guarding of the sensedoors 4) , moderation in eating, the application of energy so that one is alert and awake, sati sampajañña (sati and paññå). (There is renunciation, when there are) the four applications of mindfulness, the four right efforts, the four bases of success, the five spiritual faculties, the five powers, the seven factors of enlightenment, the eight Path factors 5), nibbåna and the practice leading to nibbåna. (When there is renunciation) with happiness, (there is) resistance, a refuge, a protection, no danger, unshakable, the deathlessness, a dhamma departing from clinging, which is like a thread that fastens. Having seen(all this), there is renunciation with happiness. It is not easy to see that renunciation means happiness. We should understand that it must be paññå that sees the benefit , that compares and considers the practice, so that one should follow the right and proper practice that opposes attachment and clinging to visible object, sound, odour, flavour and tangible object. One should see the benefit of the practice of Dhamma according to the Dhamma and develop the thirtyseven factors of enlightenment. Therefore it must be paññå which understands and knows that renunciation which departs from sense objects is to be achieved by sati sampajañña, the thirtyseven factors of enlightenment, the attainment of nibbåna and the practice leading to nibbåna, as stated by the Cúlaniddesa. And all this is practised with happiness, which means, that one should see the disadvantage and danger of defilements. One should have an unshakable determination to develop paññå in order to completely eradicate clinging to sense objects. This has to begin by listening and considering the Dhamma so that one first sees the benefit of the practice. One should realize that renunciation means happiness, and this kind of happiness is without a self who seeks enjoyment. We should see that detachment from the sense objects leads to the highest calm and wellbeing. Each of the perfections should be developed together with paññå, otherwise kusala is not of the degree of a perfection. If one does not see the danger of akusala and if one does not realize the benefit of the perfections, they cannot be developed. In that case paññå is too weak to see the benefit of their development. Footnotes 3. An enemy, opposed to attachment. 4. The guarding of the sensedoors, indriya samvara síla. 5.The four bases of success, iddhipådas, are: wish-to-do, chanda, energy, viriya, citta and vímaósa, investigation. The four right efforts, sammå-padhånas, are: the effort of avoiding akusala, of overcoming akusala, of developing kusala and of maintaining kusala. The five faculties, indriyas are: confidence, energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom. The five powers, balas, are the same realities as the five spiritual faculties, indriyas, but when the indriyas have been developed so that they are unshakable by their opposites, they have become powers. The seven factors of enlightenment are: sati, investigation of the Dhamma (dhamma-vicaya), energy (viriya), rapture (píti), tranquillity (passaddhi), concentration (samådhi) and equanimity (upekkhå). All these thirtyseven factors, bodhipakkhiya dhammas, are the factors pertaining to enlightenment; if they are developed, they lead to enlightenment. 15056 From: egberdina Date: Mon Aug 19, 2002 3:40pm Subject: Dilemma Nr 183 & 184 Hi all, Following on from the discussion re the debt we owe our parents, regardless of the quality of the parenting, I have the following questions and would appreciate your consideration. Is it wisdom to not have children, because: 1 ]that way one can devote much more effort to the realisation of the path, and 2 ]there is no control over the being one brings into the world. One may well be consigning a being to aeons of hell by virtue of having brought this being into this world. Whatever way one looks at it, samsara goes yet another revolution. or is it selfish and unwise to not have children, because: 1 ]children are very adept at exposing all the preconceptions one clings to, thus opening the way for the possibility of the shedding of some views, and 2 ]by not having children, one is preventing a being from experiencing birth in this realm, with all it's concomitant benefits. All the best Herman 15057 From: Date: Mon Aug 19, 2002 4:54pm Subject: ADL ch. 21 (1) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 21 (1) SAMATHA We would like to have more wholesomeness in our life, but often we are unable to do wholesome deeds, to speak in a wholesome way or to think wholesome thoughts. Our accumulated defilements hinder us in the performing of kusala. We learn from the Buddhist teachings that there are 'hindrances' (nivarana), which are akusala cetasikas, arising with akusala cittas. We all have these hindrances. They are: - sensuous desire, in Pali: kamacchandha - ill-will, in Pali: vyapada - torpor and languor, in Pali: thina and middha - restlessness and worry, in Pali: uddhacca and kukkucca - doubt, in Pali: vicikiccha Kamacchandha or sensuous desire is the cetasika which is lobha (attachment). It is attachment to the objects we can experience through the sense-doors and the mind-door. We all have kamacchandha in different forms and intensities. Because of economic progress and technical inventions there is more prosperity in life. One can afford more things which make life pleasant and comfortable. This, however, does not bring contentedness; on the contrary, we are not satisfied with what we have and we are forever looking for more enjoyment and happiness. There is kamacchandha with our deeds, words and thoughts. Even when we think that we are doing good deeds and helping others, kamacchandha can arise. Kamacchandha makes us restless and unhappy. Vyapada or ill-will is the cetasika which is dosa. Vyapada can trouble us many times a day; we feel irritated about other people or about things which happen in life. Vyapada prevents us from kusala. When there is vyapada we cannot have lovingkindness and compassion for other people. Thina and middha are translated as 'torpor' and 'languor', or as 'sloth' and 'torpor'. Thina and middha cause us to have lack of energy for kusala. The 'Visuddhimagga' (XIV, 167) states concerning thina and middha : ... Herein, stiffness (thina) has the characteristic of lack of driving power. Its function is to remove energy. It is manifested as subsiding. Torpor (middha) has the characteristic of unwieldiness. Its function is to smother. It is manifested as laziness, or it is manifested as nodding and sleep. The proximate cause of both is unwise attention to boredom, sloth, and so on. Don't we all have moments in a day when there is laziness and lack of energy to perform kusala? When, for example, we are listening to the preaching of Dhamma or reading the scriptures, there are opportunities for kusala cittas. Instead, we may feel bored and we lack the energy for kusala. It may happen that we see someone else who needs our help, but we are lazy and do not move. Then we are hindered by thina and middha. Thina and middha make the mind unwieldy (Vis XIV 105, where the hindrances are mentioned as being specifically obstructive to jhana.). Uddhacca is translated as 'agitation' or 'excitement' and kukkucca as 'worry' or 'flurry'. Uddhacca arises with each and every type of akusala citta. It prevents the citta from wholesomeness. As regards kukkucca, worry, the 'Visuddhimagga' (XIV, 174) states: ...It has subsequent regret as its characteristic. Its function is to sorrow about what has and what has not been done, It is manifested as remorse. Its proximate cause is what has and what has not been done. It should be regarded as slavery. When we have done something wrong or we have not done the good deed we should have done, we might be inclined to think about it again and again. We may ask ourselves why we acted in the way we did, but we cannot change what is past already. While we worry we have akusala cittas; worry makes us enslaved. Uddhacca and kukkucca prevent us from being tranquil. As regards vicikiccha, doubt, there are many kinds of doubt. One may have doubts about the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, or doubt about the Eightfold Path. Doubt is akusala and a hindrance to the performing of kusala. All of the hindrances are obstructions to the performing of kusala. Is there a way to eliminate them? Samatha or the development of calm is a way to temporarily eliminate the hindrances. The calm which is developed in samatha has to be wholesome calm, it cannot arise with akusala citta. There is a degree of calm with each kusala citta but it is hard to know the characteristic of calm precisely, because there are bound to be akusala cittas very shortly after the kusala cittas. In order to develop the calm which is temporary freedom from the hindrances, right understanding (panna) is indispensable. If one merely tries to concentrate on a meditation subject without right understanding of kusala and akusala and of the characteristic of calm, calm cannot grow. The panna of samatha does not eradicate defilements, but it knows the characteristic of calm and it knows how it can be developed by means of a suitable meditation subject. Akusala citta is likely to arise time and again, also when one applies oneself to samatha. One may be attached to silence and then there is akusala citta instead of the calm of samatha. Or one may think that when there is no pleasant feeling nor unpleasant feeling but indifferent feeling there is calm. However, indifferent feeling can arise with kusala citta as well as with akusala citta; lobha-mula-citta can be accompanied by indifferent feeling and moha-mula-citta is invariably accompanied by indifferent feeling. Thus, when there is indifferent feeling it may seem that one is calm, but there is not necessarily the wholesome calm of samatha. The panna of samatha must be very keen in order to recognize the defilements which arise, even when they are more subtle. We read in the scriptures about people who could attain jhana if they cultivated the right conditions for it. Before the Buddha's enlightenment jhana was the highest form of kusala people could attain. Jhana, which is sometimes translated as absorption, is a high degree of calm. At the moment of jhanacitta one is free from sense-impressions and from the defilements which are bound up with them. The attainment of jhana is extremely difficult, not everybody who develops samatha can attain it. However, even if one has no intention to cultivate jhana there can be conditions for moments of calm in daily life if there is right understanding of the characteristic of calm and of the way to develop it. 15058 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Mon Aug 19, 2002 8:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness of Breathing, hindrances and concentration. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > Dear Nina, > > Maybe you won't find my point in a book. I think you have to try > one-pointed concentration with tranquility for yourself. It is a matter > of practical experience that if one tries to focus on one thing > continuously, a myriad of other thoughts with feelings usually arise. > Recognizing these thoughts as thoughts, I maintain, is an insight into > anatta, . You can do this; anyone can. Every Buddhist > organization in the world, except this one, teaches this basic technique > to beginning students. > > As for the development of tranquility, this also is a beginners > practice, though not mastered until realization. at least dip one's toe into the experience of meditation. > Without this you simply will not know what we are talking about. > > Best wishes, and strong encouragement, > > Larry _____________ Dear Larry, Just time for a few comments at an internet cafe in Bangkok. You say: ""one-pointed concentration with tranquility is a matter of practical experience that if one tries to focus on one thing continuously, a myriad of other thoughts with feelings usually arise."" What little I have seen of tranquility is that if it is genuine then there is no "myriad of thoughts" arising at the same time. I was also interested to hear that this is what all Buddhists in the world (except for a very few on this list) are teaching. You say that this is insight into anatta, why do you say so? How long does it take to come to this "insight into anatta" , is it a matter of minutes or hours (in your own case)? Robert 15059 From: Date: Mon Aug 19, 2002 9:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness of Breathing, hindrances and concentration. Hi Robert, in the time it takes a thought to go from a subject to an object it is seen as anatta. If you noticed, I made a point of separating samadhi and samatha. That is the way I experience it when I practice one pointed meditation. One pointed focus does not come easily. Thoughts keep flowing but because there is the intention to focus on one object, thoughts must be disengaged, seen as not 'me'. At this stage in my practice, samatha is something I bring to samadhi. My impression is that at more advanced levels, samatha is the fruition of samadhi. best wishes, Larry --------------- Robert wrote: Dear Larry, Just time for a few comments at an internet cafe in Bangkok. You say: ""one-pointed concentration with tranquility is a matter of practical experience that if one tries to focus on one thing continuously, a myriad of other thoughts with feelings usually arise."" What little I have seen of tranquility is that if it is genuine then there is no "myriad of thoughts" arising at the same time. I was also interested to hear that this is what all Buddhists in the world (except for a very few on this list) are teaching. You say that this is insight into anatta, why do you say so? How long does it take to come to this "insight into anatta" , is it a matter of minutes or hours (in your own case)? Robert 15060 From: Seylan Bank - DBD (Sumane Rathnasuriya) Date: Mon Aug 19, 2002 9:38pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Anguttara Nikaya Book of Two's 15. 'Repaying One'sParents' Yes Purnomo, Your gratitude is your action - your Kamma. Your gratitude may be on account of one good action they may have done for you, at least in bringing you to this world & help you see the world right and do good. All the other bad they may be doing or have done, need not be your problem, if you cannot accommodate them in your good kamma. What one should be worried about first is the nobility of one's own action. Thereafter one may try help another, even one's own parents. If possible, well and good. If not possible, it should not perturb the one who tried. That worry itself is bad -akusala. He/she could make it to make bad parents good, his/her life's ambition and try in various ways, use strategy OR discard that effort & devote to some other good in this world. It is how you think & act. It is for you. Metta! Sumane Rathnasuriya > -----Original Message----- > From: Purnomo . [mailto:purnomo9@h...] > Sent: 19 August 2002 13:12 > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] Anguttara Nikaya Book of Two's 15. > 'Repaying One's Parents' > > > if the parents is thieves or have bad attitude, should we > gratitude them? > > > metta, > > purnomo 15061 From: robmoult Date: Mon Aug 19, 2002 10:37pm Subject: Four Sublime States Hi All, Last week's class (right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration) was a bit heavy, but went well. This week's class is on the four sublime states (metta, karuna, mudita and upekkha). I am looking for practical applications, stories, analogies, interesting facts, etc. to share with the class. I know many people who practice metta meditation, but I don't know of anybody who has experience with karuna or mudita meditation. Does anybody have any experiences to share? I would appreciate any assistance you could provide. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15062 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Aug 19, 2002 11:36pm Subject: Re: Let go Hello Victor, Christine posted a scholarly, elucidating message on the doctrine of anatta. The main aim of my bumbling effort, was to express appreciation for what she had written but, by concentrating on your reply, it created unnecessary misunderstanding. So, I'll take that part back, if I may. Kind regards Ken H 15063 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Aug 20, 2002 4:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samatha, Samadhi and Right Concentration Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > =============================== > I find little to disagree with in the foregoing. By in large I > agree > with what you wrote. Where we differ I think is in the following: "To > put my > 'concerns' in a nutshell, I do not understand the Buddha to be saying > that > kusala can be developed by *directed attention* or *conscious effort* > and, in > particular, I don't read him as saying that insight is developed by > directed > attention to a *selected object or range of objects*." It is not so much > the > part about the restriction to a "selected object or range of objects" > that we > differ on, because I think that seeing the tilakkhana is possible in all > > conditioned dhammas, but moreso in the first part of what you say here. > I DO > see the Buddha as teaching that "kusala can be developed [or at least > encouraged/fostered] by directed attention or conscious effort". The > effort, > however, cannot consist in mere *willing* of kusala traits, including > wisdom, > but rather should consist in conscious efforts at guarding the senses > cultivating samatha and vipassana through mindfulness practice, both > during > "ordinary times" as well as during the restricted-input context of > formal > meditation practice. In all of this, I see effort at maintaining > mindfulness > and clear comprehension as primary. > > With metta, > Howard I agree when you say that the effort that is right effort "cannot consist in mere *willing* of kusala traits". The kusala that is guarding the sense doors, or cultivating samatha or vipassana cannot arise without some other conditioning factor/s. It is the 'other factor(s)' that we need to consider further and in detail, as given in the teachings, since this is what distinguishes the akusala from the kusala. I am not so sure about your next point, though;-)). You say "I see effort at maintaining mindfulness and clear comprehension as primary". What is this effort that you describe as the 'effort at maintaining mindfulness' etc. Is it really any different from the willing of kusala traits referred to earlier, or is it simply another twist on the latter? As I have mentioned before, all forms of kusala can arise naturally, without the 'willing'-type effort, given the right conditions. Is there ever any awareness of these dhammas as and when they do arise in this manner? If not, how can we know at the 'willed' moments whether the mental state is truly kusala or whether it only seems to be so? Jon 15064 From: Date: Tue Aug 20, 2002 4:52am Subject: Patisambhidamagga # 4 , and the meeting in BKK Path of Discrimination / Patisambhidamagga # 4 Dear Nina, Kom and everyone. Sarah asked me rgd the usefulness of studying PTSM in daily life when we had a group discussion in BKK on the weekend. The only answer I could come up with is; it’s very helpful for me to remind myself how little I know. A.Sujin stressed more on the benefit of listening to dhamma and reflecting about it. We talked briefly about the quest for a shortcut of practice for both samadhi and vipassana. It usually is a well-disguised form of our own subtle lobha, clinging to an idea of getting quickest possible result. The discussion was somewhat short, but it’s very nice feeling to meet nice, knowledgeable, and a very eager to learn group of people. I was little surprised to hear that BKK was cooler than Hong Kong and Kyushu! OK, I try to continue with PTSM. Last time I talked about 4 n~ana: 1) Sutamayan~a_n.a : knowledge in remembering dhamma from listening. 2) Silamayan~ana : Knowledge in listening to dhamma and then restrain. 3) Samadhibhavanamayan~na : Knowledge in restraint and then concentrate. 4) Dhammat.hitin~ana (thiti:sustain) : Knowledge in discernment of conditions. ************** This time I am going to continue with 3 more n~ana: 5. Sammasanan~ana (sammasana: grasp, sum) Matika: wisdom in summing up dhammas: past, future, present, and then discerning is sammasanan~ana. Commentary: The Com. talks about definition of past, future, and present. The Com. says that “present” here refers to paccupanna-santati (continuos present), not the paccupanna-addha(lifelong present) nor khanigapaccupanna (present moment). It’s said that this n~ana sees a group (kala_pa) of khandha and able to discern that khandha in a group or mass. In this n~ana, tilakkhana of a group of khandha can be appreciated. At times this n~ana called kala_pasammasanan~ana b/c it sees the change of a group of khandha. 6. Udayabbayanupassana~nana (udaya: rise, baya: decay) Matika: Wisdom in seeing the change (uncertainty) of present dhamma is udayabbayan~ana. Commentary: Wisdom in seeing the arising and deforming of the present khandha. (tilakhana of khandha can be appreciated, this called tiranaparin~n~a.) 7. Vipassana~nana (bhanganupassanan~ana) (bhanga: fall away, break, dissolute) Matika: Wisdom in discerning an object, and in seeing that the wisdom has fallen away is vipassana~nana. Commentary: (Bhanganupassane pan~n~a vipassane n~an.am.) This n~ana refers to 2 wisdoms, 1) wisdom in seeing the falling away of an object, and 2) wisdom in seeing the falling away of the wisdom in 1), (that why this n~ana called vipassanan~ana). The commentary then talks about magga_maggan~nadassana (wisdom in seeing what is the path and what is not the path: Magga+ Amagga+ N~ana+ Dassana). The knowledge of magga_magga is perfected by wisdom at this level, bhanganupassana~nana (wisdom in seeing dhamma (rupa&nama) falling away. << A.Supee: Amagga here refers to 10 vipassanukilesas: 1) Obhasa (illumination) 2) Piti 3) passaddhi (tranquility if mind) 4) adhimokkha (determination) 5) paggaha (viriya cetasika) 6) sukha 7) n~ana (panna) 8) upat.th.ana (ekaggata, samadhi) 9) upekkha, and 10) nikanti (lobha). They can be categorized in 3 groups 1.Abhayakata: illumination 2.Kusala: piti, tranquility, determination, viriya, sukha, panna, ekaggata, and upekkha 3.Akusala: lobha. The 10-vipassanukilesa is the possible object of kilesa, which at this level is the group of lotikacetasika (lobha, mana, and dit.thi). Some call this “the 30 vipassanakilesas” (3 cetasika*their 10 possible objects). Here it shows that kusala, even panna from the previous n~ana can conditions fine and subtle kilesa, the lobha group. If one wrongly takes those as magga, he is off the right path. The 10 vipassanukilesas occur in udayabbayan~ana when it’s still weak (tarun.a-udayabbayan~ana ), when the udayabbayan~ana becomes stronger (balava-udayabbayan~ana) and able to overcome those 10 possible objects, one is on the path (pat.ipadan~anadassanavisuddhi).>> <> Best wishes, Num 15065 From: yuzhonghao Date: Tue Aug 20, 2002 4:27am Subject: Re: Let go Hi Ken, The message you wrote was ambiguous. I thought if you wanted to express appreciation for what Christine had written, the message should be addressed to her, not to me. What you wrote about the "Buddhists" who have lost it and "letting go" as product of New Age religion certainly does not express appreciation in any sense. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hello Victor, > > Christine posted a scholarly, elucidating message on the doctrine of > anatta. The main aim of my bumbling effort, was to express > appreciation for what she had written but, by concentrating on your > reply, it created unnecessary misunderstanding. So, I'll take that > part back, if I may. > > Kind regards > Ken H 15066 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Aug 20, 2002 4:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] rupas out there Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > > << The phenomenalist and pragmatist ask how this [i.e., that > rupas do > > arise at times other than when they are the object of consciousness] > is to > > be known.>> > > > > However, no such question arises for the student of the dhamma, since > the > > issue is seen as having no direct bearing on the discernment of the > true > > nature of the presently appearing dhamma. > > > > Dhamma > > or by modern science, sometimes views existence in the following > manner: > > What exists is what is experienced or is able to be experienced > subject to > > the satisfaction of various conditions.>> > > > > In terms of the teachings, this is pure ‘fabricated view’, as I > understand > > the context. This of course allows the person to defing his terms > (like > > "existence" here) in a way that begs the position he holds. > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, I can't imagine any sort of really adequate definition of > 'existence', and it is clear to me that exactly what 'existence' is is > not > completely evident. To me, however, "existence" implies the actuality or > > possibility of being experienced. > But you are correct in pointing out the danger in making one's > definitions fit one's preconceived views. This is, of course, what we > all do > all the time, and I will not claim to be immune from this disease, not > even > with regard to this particular matter. It is certainly possible. > -------------------------------------------------------- 'Existence' is a concept, at least as I understand the term. There is no actuality that this term describes or represents. So the very question 'What is existence' may not be of any real value as far as the development of understanding and release from samsara is concerned. > > When I said that the abhidhamma speaks of rupas arising in groups, I > meant > > arising contemporaneously, not sequentially (unlike, say, cittas which > > arise in sequential ‘groups’ called processes). These groups of > rupas are > > called kalapas. There is no kalapa of rupas with less than 8 rupas. > See > > the entry from Nyanatiloka's Dictionary pasted below. Thus, according > to > > the Abhidhamma, whenever say visible object is the object of > consciousness > > there are at least 7 other rupas also arising that are not, and could > > never be, the object of the same moment of consciousness. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Ahh, I understand. I didn't realize that these are groups of > co-occurring, and not sequential, rupas. This would be a point at which > Abhidhamma and the phenomenalist perspective might well diverge. Yet I > read > the Kalakarama Sutta and the Bahiya Sutta as expressing phenomenalism. > The > possible harmonizing of the two could lie in the understanding of > "existence" > as including the *potentiality* for being experienced as well as the > actuality. But you are quite correct in pointing directly at this to > highlight a very possible point of divergence. > -------------------------------------------------- I see you are still keen to find a way to reconcile phenomenalism with the dhamma ;-)). May I ask what you would see as being the consequence of achieving, or not achieving, that reconciliation? Jon 15067 From: Sarah Date: Tue Aug 20, 2002 4:43am Subject: To Howard & Rita with our best wishes Dear Howard & Rita, I know you're out of town but I hope you may check in to receive our best wishes for your wedding anniversary today (35th, I believe)and for many more happy years together.We know it's a special day for you. When we got married in England, Ven Saddhatissa gave us a blessing and discussed the 'Different Kinds of Marriages' (AN, Bk of 4s,53 p94 B.Bodhi's anthology: ***** "Householders, there are these four kinds of marriages. What four? A wretch lives together with a wretch; a wretch lives together with a godess; a god lives together with a wretch; a god lives together with a goddess." A wretch is described as one "who destroys life, takes what is not given, engages in sexual misconduct, speaks falsely, and indulges in wines, liquor and intoxicants which are a basis for negligence; he is immoral, of bad character; he dwells at home with a heart obsessed by the stain of stinginess; he abuses and reviles ascetics and brahmins." A god or goddess, on the otherhand, is described as one who "abstains from the destruction of life.....from wines, liquor and intoxicants;(s)he is virtuous, of good character; (s)he dwells at home with a heart free from the stain of stinginess; (s)he does not abuse or revile ascetics and brahmins." ***** I know you have a good example of the 4th kind of marriage mentioned above and may we all learn to live a little more like 'gods and goddesses'. metta, Sarah (& Jon) p.s I know, Howard, you'll be particularly happy to know we just returned from a very pleasant afternoon with Erik and Eath at their home up on the side of a mountain. They live simply but healthily and both are looking very contented and relaxed. Eath now speaks very fluent English and offered us beautiful fruits and tea. She told us how she doesn't judge people by their age, nationality or the colour of their hair, but only by 'heart'. In other words, the 'inside' is what counts. Thank you Eath. We had useful discussions on some favourite themes with Erik -- mindfulness in daily life, concentration, practice, conventional and ultimate realities and quite a bit on lobha (attachment). We discussed lobha for results in practice, lobha for kusala( wholesome) states and one more area that was particularly helpful for me in light of some recent difficulties. This was with regard to attachment to harmony in relationships and friendships and attachment to helping others in trouble. Erik gave me many good pointers from his own experience and study and always gives good reminders that we can only ever know our 'own' citta at this moment as opposed to others' cittas which can only be the subject of speculation or inference. Finally we discussed different realities whilst falling over - hearing, sound, hardness, mana, dosa and so on. Hopefully we'll continue over breakfast at our hotel on Thursday. Finding an internet cafe in Samui that doesn't have a loud TV blaring, doesn't lose posts sent or lose the connection every 5 mins has not been easy.....I'd better sign off before I push my luck too far;-) Appreciating all the fine posts, More next week, Sarah ====== 15068 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness of Breathing, hindrances and concentration. Dear Larry, It is quite all right you expressed your own thoughts. I fully endorse Christine's post. What I prefer to do now is studying the scriptures, and I must say, often your questions are very helpful to consider the Dhamma more. You have such enthusiasme to study. With appreciation, Nina. op 19-08-2002 07:01 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Dear Christine, > > I expressed only my own experience and thoughts. Sorry, no scriptural > references. 15069 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:57pm Subject: Re: Four Sublime States Hi Rob, Compassion is easy to think about and talk about, but hard to consistently practice. Is compassion a mind-state or action? It is 'easy' to feel compassion (or one of its near enemies?) for beings while on the cushion, or distant victims of horrific experiences, especially if the newpapers or TV provide accompanying images of cute children or animals or distressed people. It is 'easy' to show compassion for those we love in a 'one-off' situation that will be resolved with love and support. It is 'easy' to show compassion for those who are 'grateful' for our compassion. The hardest thing in my experience is to feel compassion for the person who has caused and keeps on causing grave harm to others. Those demonized by Society (e.g. the serial paedophile, rapist, the addict, or someone with a personality disorder) - In my case, especially when I also have contact with the victims of such people. Another difficult category is where someone is, inescapably, caring for a near relative in their own home - perhaps an ex-alchoholic relative (with all the family dynamics surrounding that), now helpless and bedridden, likely to live for years, who has no bladder or bowel control and who is full of hate for the world - which finds its expression in verbal abuse of the carer. The daily grind of such a relationship is incrredibly exhausting and can wreck the quality of many person's lives. Would a half hour a day, meditating on the Brahma Viharas (especially when angry demanding shouts are coming from the sick person's room) help? As a Buddhist working in an acute public hospital (never ending conveyor belt supply of short stay patients), a particular interest for me is Compassion Fatigue. http://pspinformation.com/caregiving/thecaregiver/compassion.shtml Q: What is compassion fatigue? A: This term has replaced the more familiar term "burn-out." It refers to a physical, emotional and spiritual fatigue or exhaustion that takes over a person and causes a decline in his or her ability to experience joy or to feel and care for others. Compassion fatigue is a one-way street, in which individuals are giving out a great deal of energy and compassion to others over a period of time, yet aren't able to get enough back to reassure themselves that the world is a hopeful place. It's this constant outputting of compassion and caring over time that can lead to these feelings Q: What are some telltale signs of compassion fatigue? A: First, you should understand that it's a process. It's not a matter of one day, you're living your life with a great deal of energy and enjoyment, and the next, you wake up exhausted and devoid of any energy - both physical and emotional. Compassion fatigue develops over time - taking weeks, sometimes years to surface. Basically, it's a low level, chronic clouding of caring and concern for others in your life - whether you work in or outside the home. Over time, your ability to feel and care for others becomes eroded through overuse of your skills of compassion. You also might experience an emotional blunting - whereby you react to situations differently than one would normally expect. I also wonder if 'idiot compassion' - as expressed by Chogyam Trungpa "the abdication of discriminating wisdom and the loss of moral fiber to voice it - is too often equated with spirituality" comes within the boundaries of your lesson? Chogyam Trungpa's distinction between actual compassion and idiot compassion seems to include things like the short-term fix we offer a suffering person in order to console him, even though it might encourage him to keep doing what brought on his pain (and the pain of others). I agree with the "highest manifestation of compassion" in the brief article below. http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/four_sublime_states.php#II "Compassion (Karuna) The world suffers. But most men have their eyes and ears closed. They do not see the unbroken stream of tears flowing through life; they do not hear the cry of distress continually pervading the world. Their own little grief or joy bars their sight, deafens their ears. Bound by selfishness, their hearts turn stiff and narrow. Being stiff and narrow, how should they be able to strive for any higher goal, to realize that only release from selfish craving will effect their own freedom from suffering? It is compassion that removes the heavy bar, opens the door to freedom, makes the narrow heart as wide as the world. Compassion takes away from the heart the inert weight, the paralyzing heaviness; it gives wings to those who cling to the lowlands of self. Through compassion the fact of suffering remains vividly present to our mind, even at times when we personally are free from it. It gives us the rich experience of suffering, thus strengthening us to meet it prepared, when it does befall us. Compassion reconciles us to our own destiny by showing us the life of others, often much harder than ours. Behold the endless caravan of beings, men and beasts, burdened with sorrow and pain! The burden of every one of them, we also have carried in bygone times during the unfathomable sequence of repeated births. Behold this, and open your heart to compassion! And this misery may well be our own destiny again! He who is without compassion now, will one day cry for it. If sympathy with others is lacking, it will have to be acquired through one's own long and painful experience. This is the great law of life. Knowing this, keep guard over yourself! Beings, sunk in ignorance, lost in delusion, hasten from one state of suffering to another, not knowing the real cause, not knowing the escape from it. This insight into the general law of suffering is the real foundation of our compassion, not any isolated fact of suffering. Hence our compassion will also include those who at the moment may be happy, but act with an evil and deluded mind. In their present deeds we shall foresee their future state of distress, and compassion will arise. The compassion of the wise man does not render him a victim of suffering. His thoughts, words and deeds are full of pity. But his heart does not waver; unchanged it remains, serene and calm. How else should he be able to help? May such compassion arise in our hearts! Compassion that is sublime nobility of heart and intellect which knows, understands and is ready to help. Compassion that is strength and gives strength: this is highest compassion. And what is the highest manifestation of compassion? To show to the world the path leading to the end of suffering, the path pointed out, trodden and realized to perfection by Him, the Exalted One, the Buddha." Just some thoughts, metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi All, > > Last week's class (right effort, right mindfulness, right > concentration) was a bit heavy, but went well. > > This week's class is on the four sublime states (metta, karuna, > mudita and upekkha). I am looking for practical applications, > stories, analogies, interesting facts, etc. to share with the class. > > I know many people who practice metta meditation, but I don't know > of anybody who has experience with karuna or mudita meditation. Does > anybody have any experiences to share? > > I would appreciate any assistance you could provide. > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) 15070 From: robmoult Date: Tue Aug 20, 2002 3:21pm Subject: Re: Four Sublime States Hi All, In her last posting, Christine touched on a very important issue - compassion. At some point in our lives, it is likely that we will all have to deal with a family member who is losing physical / mental capacity, is self-destructive or chronically depressed. What is the "correct Buddhist way" of dealing with this all too common situation? We are warned against trying to radiate metta to our spouse as it would be too easy to fall prey to the near enemy of sensual desire. Does the same hold true about trying to radiate karuna to a family member? Should we avoid it because it is too easy to slip into the near enemy of aversion (due to the accompanying emotional baggage)? Thanks, Rob M :-) 15071 From: robmoult Date: Tue Aug 20, 2002 3:47pm Subject: Re: Four Sublime States Hi Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Another difficult category is where someone is, inescapably, caring > for a near relative in their own home - perhaps an ex-alchoholic > relative (with all the family dynamics surrounding that), now > helpless and bedridden, likely to live for years, who has no bladder > or bowel control and who is full of hate for the world - which finds > its expression in verbal abuse of the carer. The daily grind of such > a relationship is incrredibly exhausting and can wreck the quality of > many person's lives. Would a half hour a day, meditating on the > Brahma Viharas (especially when angry demanding shouts are coming > from the sick person's room) help? I remember listening to a Steven Covey tape a few years ago where he talked about the experience of a chronic care nurse whose job it was to support an ungrateful patient. He talked of the liberation of realizing that we are all responsible... response-able, able to choose our own response to a situation. We do not have to empower the weaknesses of others ruin our lives. That there is a space between stimulus and response where we have the freedom of choice and our happiness depends on our choice, not on our situation. He used the simile of "pressing the PAUSE button" and then using one or more of the following four strategies [I will now use Buddhist terminology]: - Sati (mindfulness / self awareness): examine our thoughts, moods and behaviour - Sila (conscience): understanding right from wrong and following personal integrity - Yoniso Manasikara (wise attention): acting independently of external influences - Positive thinking / imagination : visualizing beyond experience and present reality. I visualize myself as a "black box" receiving negative vibrations. If I choose to react in a negative way, I am responsible for continuing the vibrations and making the world more negative. If I choose not to react, I am stopping that stream of negative vibrations. If I choose to react in a positive way, I am creating a stream of positive vibrations and the world will be a better place. I am going to summarize the information you provided on "compassion fatigue" to the class. I would like to use your situation as a case study (withoout mentioning your name). How do you use your Buddhist training to help you cope with the emotional demands of your job? Thanks, Rob M :-) PS: Thanks, Christine, for other link as well. This was extracted from a larger piece that I am summarizing for the class as well. The complete piece is at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel006.html 15072 From: Date: Tue Aug 20, 2002 4:00pm Subject: ADL ch. 21 (2) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 21 (2) In the cultivation of samatha one develops five cetasikas which can eliminate the hindrances; they are the jhana-factors. The first jhana-factor is vitakka, which is translated into English as 'applied thinking'. Vitakka is a mental factor (cetasika) which arises with many kinds of citta ; it can arise with kusala citta as well as with akusala citta. When the wholesome kind of vitakka is developed in samatha it is one of the jhana-factors. The 'Visuddhimagga' (lV, 88) states concerning vitakka: ... Herein, applied thinking (vitakkana) is applied thought (vitakka); hitting upon, is what is meant. It has the characteristic of directing the mind onto an object (mounting the mind on its object). Its function is to touch and strike-- for the meditator is said, in virtue of it, to have the object touched at by applied thought, struck by applied thought. It is manifested as the leading of the mind onto an object... Vitakka, when it is a jhana-factor, is opposed to thina and middha (sloth and torpor). In 'thinking' of the meditation-subject vitakka helps to inhibit thina and middha temporarily. Another jhana-factor is vicara, which is translated as 'sustained thinking'. This cetasika arises with different kinds of citta, but when it is developed in samatha, it is a jhana-factor. The 'Visuddhimagga' (IV, 88) states concerning vicara: ... Sustained thinking (vicarana) is sustained thought (vicara); continued sustainment (anusancarana), is what is meant. It has the characteristic of continued pressure on (occupation with) the object. Its function is to keep conascent (mental) states (occupied) with that. It is manifested as keeping consciousness anchored (on that object). In samatha, vicara keeps the citta anchored on the meditation subject. When we continue to think of wholesome subjects such as the Buddha's virtues or his teachings there is no vicikiccha or doubt. Vicara helps to inhibit doubt. Another jhana-factor is piti, translated as 'rapture', 'enthusiasm' or 'happiness'. Piti arises also with akusala cittas, but when it is developed in samatha it is a jhana-factor. The 'Visuddhimagga' (IV, 94) states concerning piti: ...It refreshes (pinayati), thus it is happiness (piti). It has the characteristic of endearing (sampiyayana). Its function is to refresh the body and the mind; or its function is to pervade (thrill with rapture). It is manifested as elation. But it is of five kinds as minor happiness, momentary happiness, showering happiness, uplifting happiness, and pervading (rapturous) happiness. According to the 'Visuddhimagga' (IV, 99) the jhana-factor piti is the 'pervading happiness' which is the root of absorption and comes by growth into association with absorption. When piti is developed in samatha it inhibits the hindrance which is ill-will (vyapada). However, keen understanding is needed in order to know whether there is akusala piti which arises with attachment or kusala piti. Even when one thinks that there is wholesome enthusiasm about a meditation subject, there may be clinging. The jhana-factor piti takes an interest in the meditation subject without clinging. Wholesome piti which delights in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha or in another meditation subject refreshes the mind and then there is no aversion, no boredom as to kusala. Another jhana-factor is sukha. This jhana-factor is not bodily pleasant feeling (sukha vedana), but it is somanassa or mental happy feeling. Sukha which is developed in samatha is happy feeling about a meditation subject. However, as we know, happy feeling arises also with attachment. Panna should know precisely when happy feeling is akusala and when it is kusala. The jhana-factor which is wholesome sukha inhibits the hindrances which are restlessness and worry (uddhacca and kukkucca). When there is wholesome happy feeling about a meditation subject there is no restlessness and no worry. Piti and sukha are not the same. Sukha, which is translated as happiness, bliss, ease or joy, is happy feeling. Piti, which is translated as joy, rapture, zest, and sometimes also as happiness, is not feeling; it is not vedanakkhandha, but sankharakkhandha (the khandha which is all the cetasikas, except vedana and sanna). When reading the English translations, we have to find out from the context which cetasika is referred to, piti or sukha. The 'Visuddhimagga' (IV, 100) states concerning the difference between happiness (piti) and bliss (sukha): And wherever the two are associated, happiness (piti) is the contentedness at getting a desirable object, and bliss (sukha) is the actual experiencing of it when got. Where there is happiness there is bliss (pleasure); but where there is bliss there is not necessarily happiness. Happiness is included in the sankharakkhandha; bliss is included in the vedanakkhandha (feeling). If a man exhausted in a desert saw or heard about a pond on the edge of a wood, he would have happiness; if he went into the wood's shade and used the water, he would have bliss... The jhana-factor which is samadhi or concentration is the cetasika which is ekaggata cetasika. This cetasika arises with every citta and its function is to focus on an object. Each citta can have only one object and ekaggata cetasika focuses on that one object. Ekaggata cetasika or samadhi can be kusala as well as akusala. Samadhi when it is developed in samatha is wholesome concentration on a meditation subject. Together with samadhi there must be right understanding which knows precisely when the citta is kusala citta and when akusala citta and which knows how to develop calm, otherwise the right concentration of samatha will not grow. If one tries very hard to concentrate without there being right understanding there may be attachment to one's effort to become concentrated, or, if one cannot become concentrated, aversion may arise. Then calm cannot grow. If there is right understanding there are conditions for samadhi to develop. The 'Visuddhimagga' (XIV, 139) states concerning samadhi: It puts (adhiyati) consciousness evenly (samam) on the object, or it puts it rightly (samma) on it, or it is just the mere collecting (samadhana) of the mind, thus it is concentration (samadhi). Its characteristic is non-wandering, or its characteristic is non-distraction. Its function is to conglomerate conascent states as water does bath powder. It is manifested as peace. Usually its proximate cause is bliss. It should be regarded as steadiness of the mind, like the steadiness of a lamp's flame when there is no draught. Samadhi inhibits kamacchandha (sensuous desire). When there is right concentration on a subject of meditation, one is at that moment not hindered by kamacchandha. Summarizing the five jhana-factors necessary for the attainment of the first stage of jhana, they are: - vitakka, which is translated as applied thinking. - vicara, which is translated as sustained thinking. - piti, which is translated as enthusiasm, rapture or happiness. - sukha, which is translated as happy feeling or bliss. - samadhi, which is concentration. 15073 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:55pm Subject: Re: Let go --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > Hi Ken, > > The message you wrote was ambiguous. I thought if you wanted to > express appreciation for what Christine had written, the message > should be addressed to her, not to me. What you wrote about > the "Buddhists" who have lost it and "letting go" as product of New > Age religion certainly does not express appreciation in any sense. > > Metta, > Victor Dear Victor, I think we all realise that I was in the wrong. But we should also realise that there was no being who was in the wrong; there were only fleeting, conditioned nama and rupa. This right understanding may be only at the intellectual stage, but it is none-the-less, precious and hard to come by. It is not always there when we need it because there is no self who can hold on to it. That doesn't mean we should let go of it. Kind regards Ken H 15074 From: Date: Tue Aug 20, 2002 7:51pm Subject: Re: Pernicious view Hello Robert, Christine, Victor, all If I may jump back into this discussion I'd like attempt to disentangle anatta from the other threads, especially whether beings exist. Robert asked if I agreed with: >"There is no doer of the deed, >Or one who reaps the deed's result." VM XIX 19 >"The mental (nama) and material (rupa) are really here, >But here there is no human being to be found..." VM The first, yes, in a way, but not the second. The Buddha denied a self under certain descriptions, and these have been clearly stated. For instance, in the Bhikkhu Bodhi quote, four: 1. The idea of duration or lastingness; 2. Simplicity, incomposite entity; 3. Unconditioned; 4. Susceptibility to control. (Though on #4 what the Buddha said: one can't just, e.g., will to be handsome or healthy, not the uncontrollability of flashes of consciousness.) Or, in another post, on what the teachings deny: " A substantial ego entity, a lasting subject existing at the core of the psycho-physical personality." This is anatta, and I completely agree. But there is a self that doesn't have these properties, one that is conditioned, and changing or insubstantial, and composite. In rejecting a permanent substratum the Buddha was not rejecting the idea of a continuing being. This concept is necessary to distinguish one stream of being/consciousness from another, to account for the unity of personality within a stream, and (key) as an agent of moral action*. This person is a flux of conditioned processes, not a substantial entity or soul; so we can say that such a person is a conventional usage. The self is the functional unity of the five aggregates. I reject the search for ultimate realities, for something hidden under experience, both within (atta) and without (sabhava dhamma). ("The Buddha did not analyze experience into discrete entities or momentary impressions and then try to find a way of unifying them. Such an enterprise was undertaken by his misguided disciples a few centuries later..." Kalupahana, The Principles of Buddhist Psychology, p. 22) So you can see that I agree with the first but, in accepting various and sundry beings, have problems with the second. >If that situation is analyzed there was really no Buddha or Rahula. Yes, there is; one should just not be deceived about what they are. (I also have problems with positing two fundamental modes of being, material and mental stuff, nama and rupa; with Cartesian dualism.) (Further, I find the entire project of distinguishing paramattha dhammas / pure experiences from panatti / concepts dubious at best. To quote Kalupahana again: "Each one of our perceptions constitutes a mixed bag of memories, concepts, and dispositions as well as the material elements...A pure percept undiluted by such conditions is not recognized by the Buddha or any subsequent Buddhist psychologist who has remained faithful to the Buddha. A pure percept is as metaphysical as a pure a priori category." p. 18) We are so far apart it's no wonder you didn't understand my position. Perhaps, hopefully, we agree on anatta. Otherwise I hope your trip to Bangkok is going well and that you are in good health and spirits. metta, stephen *As I argued before, when this thread was focused on free will, one can't build a moral agent out of paramattha dhammas. It's simply no good to say it's mundanely or conventionally true, but in actuality false. Victor's example of killing is exactly right; with no beings, it's just rupas penetrating rupas. 15075 From: Date: Tue Aug 20, 2002 7:53pm Subject: Re: rupas out there Hello Howard, Jon, >Howard: To me, however, "existence" implies the actuality or > possibility of being experienced. How so? Bees can see the ultraviolet patterns on flowers, sharks can sense electric currents in water, and such; we can't. Now all these things can be 'experienced' indirectly (say by using film that will record ultraviolet light then printing it on paper that translates this into the slice of the spectrum we can see). This commonplace is relevant if you mean to limit 'existence' to only things that can be experienced directly (as a paramattha dhamma and not pannatti?). That is, I see your project as identifying a sense-datum (phenomenalism) with a dhamma (Buddhadhamma). Is this correct? The Buddha was certainly an empiricist. But the above is a statement of the core principle of Logical Positivism, which was never able to give a coherent account of the Verification Principle (that kept out metaphysics, i.e., pannatti ;-). Do you mean to go down this road? [How would one experience the statement "Existence implies the actuality or possibility of being experienced." --or is it unreal?] "[The] programme of translating talk about physical objects and their locations into talk about possible experiences...is widely supposed to have failed, and the priority the approach gives to experience has been much criticized. It is more common in contemporary philosophy to see experience as itself a construct from the actual way of the world rather than the other way around." Phenomenalism, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy" This, incidentally, is essentially a restatement of my previous post where I argued that one can't construct the world (specifically of free choice and ethics) out of paramattha dhammas. metta, stephen 15076 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 5:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go Hi Ken H > This right understanding may be only at the > intellectual stage, but it is none-the-less, > precious > and hard to come by. It is not always there when we > need it because there is no self who can hold on to > it. That doesn't mean we should let go of it. if there is no self to hold it, why bother to let it go in the first place :) cheers Ken O 15077 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 5:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Four Sublime States Rob M I am not sure there is such a thing as a 'correct Buddhist way' of dealing with a situation. For an example of how differently the members of this list see a given situation where compassion is concerned, see the earlier thread initiated by Lisa and set out below;-)). Could you perhaps mention to your class the difficulty of developing kusala (whether metta, karuna or whatever) when there is little or no understanding by direct experience of the characteristic of moments of kusala vs moments of akusala? Your listeners may also like to have it pointed out that metta, karuna etc do arise at times naturally and spontaneously in their lives, but that there may be moments of akusala (attachment or aversion, for example) intermingled with the kusala, and it is not possible to say that one or the other would be more apparent or liable to be the object of direct discernment in any given instance. This to me is the 'practical' side of the abhidhamma. I hope this helps. Jon --- robmoult wrote: > Hi All, > > In her last posting, Christine touched on a very important issue - > compassion. > > At some point in our lives, it is likely that we will all have to > deal with a family member who is losing physical / mental capacity, > is self-destructive or chronically depressed. What is the "correct > Buddhist way" of dealing with this all too common situation? > > We are warned against trying to radiate metta to our spouse as it > would be too easy to fall prey to the near enemy of sensual desire. > Does the same hold true about trying to radiate karuna to a family > member? Should we avoid it because it is too easy to slip into the > near enemy of aversion (due to the accompanying emotional baggage)? > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) 15078 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 5:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] There are people Ranil --- ranil gunawardena wrote: > There are people in this universe who are going to be, > Maithree Buddha, his diciples, his son, his wife, his mother, his > father, > and there are people in this universe who are going to be, > future Buddhas, Paceka Buddhas, Arhaths... > > And all this people are among us. with us. (why not) even us. > > The world is not so bad after all... :) > > ~with meththa > ranil You seem to know something that the rest of us don't! What makes you so sure that these future enlightened ones are among us now (and do you have a way of identifying them)? Jon 15079 From: yuzhonghao Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 6:34am Subject: Re: Let go Hi Ken, Let me put forth these questions: Are you a human being? Were you born? Do you get old? Will you die someday? Are birth, aging-and- death satisfactory or unsatisfactory? Regarding right understanding, is the view "there is no being" right understanding? How do you know it is right understanding? By what criteria do you accept it as right understanding? Let go the self-view "I am fleeting, conditioned nama-and-rupa". The fleeting, conditioned nama-and-rupa is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Metta, Victor > > Dear Victor, > > I think we all realise that I was in the wrong. But > we should also realise that there was no being who was > in the wrong; there were only fleeting, conditioned > nama and rupa. > > This right understanding may be only at the > intellectual stage, but it is none-the-less, precious > and hard to come by. It is not always there when we > need it because there is no self who can hold on to > it. That doesn't mean we should let go of it. > > Kind regards > Ken H 15080 From: yuzhonghao Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 6:34am Subject: Re: Pernicious view Hi Stephen and all, The view "there is no doer of the deed, or one who reaps the deed's result" is pernicious. Why is it pernicious? Because it denies/contradicts the very foundation for living a virtuous life, the law of kamma. Any delineation/description/definition of self is speculative self- view, and it is not assumed it in the teaching of "anatta" as recorded in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta. Self-view such as "the self is a substantial ego entity, a lasting subject existing at the core of the psycho-physical personality" or "the self is the functional unity of the five aggregates" are to be abandoned, put away. Any of these views are not to be assumed in the first place. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., oreznoone@a... wrote: > Hello Robert, Christine, Victor, all > If I may jump back into this discussion I'd like attempt to disentangle > anatta from the other threads, especially whether beings exist. > Robert asked if I agreed with: > >"There is no doer of the deed, > >Or one who reaps the deed's result." VM XIX 19 > >"The mental (nama) and material (rupa) are really here, > >But here there is no human being to be found..." VM > The first, yes, in a way, but not the second. > The Buddha denied a self under certain descriptions, and these have been > clearly stated. For instance, in the Bhikkhu Bodhi quote, four: 1. The idea > of duration or lastingness; 2. Simplicity, incomposite entity; 3. > Unconditioned; 4. Susceptibility to control. (Though on #4 what the Buddha > said: one can't just, e.g., will to be handsome or healthy, not the > uncontrollability of flashes of consciousness.) Or, in another post, on what > the teachings deny: " A substantial ego entity, a lasting subject existing at > the core of the psycho-physical personality." This is anatta, and I > completely agree. But there is a self that doesn't have these properties, one > that is conditioned, and changing or insubstantial, and composite. > In rejecting a permanent substratum the Buddha was not rejecting the idea of > a continuing being. This concept is necessary to distinguish one stream of > being/consciousness from another, to account for the unity of personality > within a stream, and (key) as an agent of moral action*. This person is a > flux of conditioned processes, not a substantial entity or soul; so we can > say that such a person is a conventional usage. The self is the functional > unity of the five aggregates. > I reject the search for ultimate realities, for something hidden under > experience, both within (atta) and without (sabhava dhamma). ("The Buddha did > not analyze experience into discrete entities or momentary impressions and > then try to find a way of unifying them. Such an enterprise was undertaken by > his misguided disciples a few centuries later..." Kalupahana, The Principles > of Buddhist Psychology, p. 22) So you can see that I agree with the first > but, in accepting various and sundry beings, have problems with the second. > >If that situation is analyzed there was really no Buddha or Rahula. > Yes, there is; one should just not be deceived about what they are. > (I also have problems with positing two fundamental modes of being, material > and mental stuff, nama and rupa; with Cartesian dualism.) > (Further, I find the entire project of distinguishing paramattha dhammas / > pure experiences from panatti / concepts dubious at best. To quote Kalupahana > again: "Each one of our perceptions constitutes a mixed bag of memories, > concepts, and dispositions as well as the material elements...A pure percept > undiluted by such conditions is not recognized by the Buddha or any > subsequent Buddhist psychologist who has remained faithful to the Buddha. A > pure percept is as metaphysical as a pure a priori category." p. 18) > We are so far apart it's no wonder you didn't understand my position. > Perhaps, hopefully, we agree on anatta. > Otherwise I hope your trip to Bangkok is going well and that you are in good > health and spirits. > metta, stephen > *As I argued before, when this thread was focused on free will, one can't > build a moral agent out of paramattha dhammas. It's simply no good to say > it's mundanely or conventionally true, but in actuality false. Victor's > example of killing is exactly right; with no beings, it's just rupas > penetrating rupas. 15081 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 7:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pernicious view Dear Victor, When you say 'we grow old' and 'there is a being' these are assumptions. You speak of these things like anyone should realize that they are there, but you do not discuss the idea that these are not actual things. You say 'Of course we are beings! Of course we are alive!' But this is just common language. It is not inspected for whether it is actually true or not. I will agree that there are cells, organs, blood, activity, brainwaves, thoughts, perceptions, feelings. I will agree that we are aware that these things are taking place and that awareness notes them and so there is consciousness. But in all of that you still do not show me any part of this process that in itself is a 'self' or a 'being'. If you want to say that the whole process is a 'being' i will agree with you, but then I will say in that case, that a 'being' is not a 'person', an 'entity' that you can identify in its own right, but it is nothing but a collection of processes. You say that the 'being' is greater than the sum of its parts, but you can only claim this in a general way. You cannot actually show that this is the case. Buddha asked us to be detached from all of these processes, and all of its objects, not to cling to them. Clinging creates suffering, because all of these objects, all of these processes, are temporary and unsatisfying. We cannot hold onto them. We cannot even hold onto self. Buddha asks us to let go of the idea of 'self' and 'being' and to stop thinking of ourselves as separate individuals identified with the body and the mind. Buddha also says not to cling to 'non-being' or 'annihilation' because that is still involvement with the idea of a being, either to preseve it or to destroy it. Either way we are caught in the self-idea and cannot be released from it. This is my understanding of the Buddha's admonitions not to either assert or deny the existence of a being. But it is clear that we are to let go of all ideas and formulations of a self or entity, and not to cling to any such notion, or comfort ourselves with the idea that we really exist or really do not exist. Best, Robert Ep. ============================== --- yuzhonghao wrote: > Hi Robert Ep, > > Please read the first part of my message to Howard again: > > "The usage of the word "being" is bound by agreed-upon usage of > language, or in your term, "convention." From what I understand in > reading the discourses, how and what the Buddha spoke is always > bounded within the agreed-upon usage of language, or in your term, > convention. A being is not a convention, not a verbal usage. It is > the word "being" that is bounded within the agreed-upon usage of > language in communication, or in your term, convention." > > If you are holding the view that the self did break down to the five > aggregates and nothing more, I suggest you let go that assumption. > > I also suggest you let go the assumption "If there is a true self > beyond the five aggregates, it must be something that is neither > within nor composed of the components of the psychophysical being, > since the psychophysical being is completely composed of the five > aggregates." > > There are beings, Robert, and we as human beings were born. We get > old and we will die some day. Birth, aging-and-death is stressful, > suffering, unsatisfactory, dukkha. > > Metta, > Victor 15082 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 10:00am Subject: Perfections, Ch IV, Renunciation, no 6. Perfections, Ch IV, Renunciation, no 6. If one¹s goal is the realization of the four noble Truths, one should not only develop paññå but also the perfections. Each of the perfections is an important and helpful condition for the realization of the four noble Truths. Some people may wonder why it is necessary to develop day after day the perfections together with satipaììhåna. The reason is that satipaììhåna does not arise all the time. Someone may understand the development of the eightfold Path. He may know that sati should be aware of the characteristics of realities that are appearing, and that paññå gradually considers, notices and understands the characteristics of the dhammas that are non-self, as nåma, the reality which experiences, or rúpa, the reality which does not experience. Satipatthåna cannot arise all the time, but still, the fact that one is developing it, that one has listened to the Dhamma and accumulated understanding of the way of developing satipatthåna, all these factors are conditions for the arising of a level of sati other than sati of satipatthåna. This means: sati of the level of all the excellent qualities which are the perfections 6. Therefore, each perfection implies a level of refined sati. This kind of sati is conditioned by one¹s development of satipatthåna. Satipatthåna cannot arise all the time, it does not arise when there are no conditions for its arising, when akusala citta arises. However, the fact that the development of satipatthåna has been accumulated can be a condition for the arising of sati of another level which can be mindful, non-forgetful of kusala. We should develop satipatthåna together with all the perfections, and this for an endlessly long time. We shall know that satipatthåna gradually will grow, together with the perfections which we have developed and accumulated. As we have seen, even when sati of the level of satipatthåna does not arise, the perfections are accompanied by sati of another level, and this level of sati is very refined. In order to realize the four noble Truths all the perfections should be developed, not only generosity and morality, but also renunciation, the giving up of clinging to the sense objects. We also need to have the perfections of energy and patience, we should have endurance and we should not be disturbed by the sense objects, be they desirable or undesirable. We read that the Bodhisatta in one of his former lives considered the true nature of his akusala, he knew that it often arose. He realized how difficult it was to give up clinging to the sense objects. We read in the Commentary to the ³Susíma Jåtaka²(no. 411) that the Bodhisatta considered the citta which had to strive after the giving up of clinging to sense objects, to visible object, sound, odour, flavour and tangible object: The Bodhisatta considered: a sick person cannot turn himself over by his own strength. The hospital nurse has to attach a string so that he can pull himself up, and he should exhort him with the words, ³come, pull this string so that you can turn yourself over.² When he pulls that string he can turn himself over and experiences bodily wellbeing, but he does not find mental ease, be it even slight. This situation is the same as when beings are inflamed because of their defilements: they cannot uplift themselves and turn away from defilements by means of happiness arising from solitude. If there is no clinging to the sense objects, one will have true calm, there will be happiness arising from solitude; one is tranquil and free from clinging to the sense objects. However, in order to become uplifted and turn away from defilements, to become free from clinging, to depart from sensepleasures, we need the assistance of the perfections we have accumulated. Only in that way can we renounce the sense pleasures. Footnote; 6. Each kusala citta is accompanied by sati that is heedful, non-forgetful of what is kusala. Thus, there are many levels of sati: sati of dåna, of síla, of samatha and of satipatthåna. Sati of satipttìhåna is non-forgetful of the characteristic of reality, nåma or rúpa, that appears. 15083 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga # 4 , remarks Dear Num, I am just delighted with your report on Path of Discrimination, thank you very much. I have some remarks and questions, interspersed. op 20-08-2002 13:52 schreef sinsk@m... op sinsk@m...: > Path of Discrimination / Patisambhidamagga # 4 > > Sarah asked me rgd the usefulness of studying PTSM in daily life Nina: Very good question. The whole book is about panna, and here are more details on the stages of insight than in the Vis. It is very beneficial to know more details, because it will help one not to take for insight what is not insight, only one's own thinking, thinking with attachment to a result one wishes for so much. It becomes clearer how subtle the clinging to result is, see what Num wrote about the discussion, which can be applied at any time, even now: Num: We talked > briefly > about the quest for a shortcut of practice for both samadhi and vipassana. It > usually is a well-disguised form of our own subtle lobha, clinging to an idea > of > getting quickest possible result. > Nina: How well disguised it is, so hard to see oneself if someone else does not point it out. The lobha can condition anger, aversion, distress, frustration, downheartedness. One wonders where the progress is one wants so much. >Num: This time I am going to continue with 3 more n~ana: Nina: this can be found in the English: Path of Discrimination, p. 53. Compare with Vis. XX,6. Num: 5. Sammasanan~ana (sammasana: grasp, sum) > Matika: wisdom in summing up dhammas: past, future, present, and then > discerning is sammasanan~ana. > Commentary: The Com. talks about definition of past, future, and present. The > Com. says that “present” here refers to paccupanna-santati (continuos > present), > not the paccupanna-addha(lifelong present) nor khanigapaccupanna (present > moment). It’s said that this n~ana sees a group (kala_pa) of khandha and able > to > discern that khandha in a group or mass. In this n~ana, tilakkhana of a group > of > khandha can be appreciated. At times this n~ana called kala_pasammasanan~ana > b/c it sees the change of a group of khandha. Nina: I find it difficult to understand this, especially to understand a whole group. What is continuous presence? When I hear the word khandha I am inclined to consider one nama or one rupa, not a mass, because than I would be thinking of a whole, a concept. This ~naana is insight, direct experience, not thinking. How can the five khandhas be experienced all at the same time? Also the Vis. text about this is difficult to understand. The feeling khandha can be understood at one moment, the sa~n~naa khandha at another moment. How can they be understood in a group? I remember that A. Sujin explained that the realization of the falling away of realities, of this ~naana, is not as precise as the following ~naana, the udayabhaya ~naana, where this is realized of one nama or rupa very precisely, one at a time. Num: 6. Udayabbayanupassana~nana (udaya: rise, baya: decay) > Matika: Wisdom in seeing the change (uncertainty) of present dhamma is > udayabbayan~ana. > Commentary: Wisdom in seeing the arising and deforming of the present khandha. > (tilakhana of khandha can be appreciated, this called tiranaparin~n~a.) > > 7. Vipassana~nana (bhanganupassanan~ana) (bhanga: fall away, break, > dissolute) > Matika: Wisdom in discerning an object, and in seeing that the wisdom has > fallen > away is vipassana~nana. > Commentary: (Bhanganupassane pan~n~a vipassane n~an.am.) This n~ana > refers to 2 wisdoms, 1) wisdom in seeing the falling away of an object, and 2) > wisdom in seeing the falling away of the wisdom in 1), (that why this n~ana > called > vipassanan~ana). Nina: this is very important, one may forget to consider the panna itself which realizes the falling away. Then one gets stuck again, taking the panna for self. The Vis. XX, 78 has something similar, but not as clear as this passage of the Co. Even listening to the Dhamma is not self, as I was recently reminded on a tape. We are so intently listening and considering that we forget that this is only a dhamma, arisen because of conditions, not self. Num: The commentary then talks about magga_maggan~nadassana > (wisdom in seeing what is the path and what is not the path: Magga+ Amagga+ > N~ana+ Dassana). The knowledge of magga_magga is perfected by wisdom at > this level, bhanganupassana~nana (wisdom in seeing dhamma (rupa&nama) > falling away. > > << A.Supee: Amagga here refers to 10 vipassanukilesas: Here it shows that kusala, even panna from the previous > n~ana > can conditions fine and subtle kilesa, the lobha group. If one wrongly takes > those > as magga, he is off the right path. Nina: I like the reminder that even insight can condition fine and subtle kilesa. Is it not beneficial to know about all this, to know how intricate and tricky lobha is? We learn from studying the subject of the Path of Discrimination. Num: The 10 vipassanukilesas occur in > udayabbayan~ana when it’s still weak (tarun.a-udayabbayan~ana ), when the > udayabbayan~ana becomes stronger (balava-udayabbayan~ana) and able to > overcome those 10 possible objects, one is on the path > (pat.ipadan~anadassanavisuddhi).>> > > < first peak is bhangan~ana: this peak is when one can overcome amagga. And the > second peak is gotarabhun~ana, the last lokiyan~ana before entering > maggan~ana>> Nina: Thank you, Num, very good reminders. With appreciation, Nina. 15084 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 10:20am Subject: [dsg] Re: Let go Hi KenO, (and KenH, Victor, RobK, RobEp, and Stephen) and All, KenO - How wonderful to *see* you! Are you just slipping back in as if you wouldn't have been missed? (You were) .... I do notice these things you know. :) We are still talking about Anatta, so it could be anytime in the last year, no? :) If you hadn't re-surfaced soon, I was going to get desperate and post something on 'luminous mind' ... Think what you have saved the List from experiencing! :) I've been reading U Silananda's NO INNER CORE - ANATTA again, and, as always, find that I get a lot to think about - even from the Introduction. This time about Personality and Kamma. Part of the Intro is pasted below: http://www.buddha.per.sg/dharma01/anatta1.htm metta, Christine Introduction Impermanence, Suffering and No-Soul Direct Experience of Anatta Analysis of the Discourse on the Characteristic of No-Soul Understanding Anatta Misunderstanding Anatta Questions and Answers "Introduction The following discourse is based on a collection of lectures on the Anatta doctrine given by Sayadaw U Silananda. Anatta is a Pali word consisting of a negative prefix, `an' meaning not, plus atta, soul, and is most literally translated as no-soul. The word atta, however has a wide range of meanings, and some of those meanings cross over into the fields of psychology philosophy and everyday terminology as, for example, when atta can mean self, being, ego, and personality. Therefore, in this preface, we will examine and elucidate the wide range of meanings which atta can signify in order to determine exactly what the Buddha denied when He proclaimed that He teaches anatta, that is, when He denied the existence of atta. We will examine both Buddhist and non-Buddhist definitions of the term soul, and we will also examine modern definitions of terms such as ego and self. Most writers in the field of religion, when writing about soul or anatta specifically use the terms self, ego, being and soul interchangeably, while psychologists define those terms as totally different entities. If we define atta as including the terms self ego, personality, and being, we may make the mistake of claiming that Buddha denied the phenomena of individual differences, individual personalities, individual kamma and other features of individuality in people. But if we say that Buddha denied only the theological entity of a soul, while leaving intact a psychological entity such as an ego or self, then we are also mistaken. The resolution of this dilemma lies in the fact that we must deal with two levels of reality simultaneously, the ultimate level and the conventional level. In the absolute sense, the anatta doctrine denies any and all psychological entities or agents inside the person. In the absolute sense, all phenomena, including what is called a person, are composed of elements, forces, and a stream of successive states. The Buddha organised these phenomena into conceptual groups, known as khandhas (aggregates), and they are: (1) material processes, also known as bodily form, corporeality or matter; (2) feeling; (3) perception; (4) mental formations; and (S) consciousness. Most importantlý when all mental and physical phenomena are analysed into those elements, no residual entity, such as a soul, self, or ego, can be found. In short, there are actions executed by these groups, but no actor The workings of these groups of forces and elements appear to us as an ego or personality but in reality the ego or self or agent of the actions has only an illusory existence. However on the conventional level, the workings of these forces, elements, and states are organised by causal laws, and, although they in no way constitute any extra-phenomenal self or soul, they do produce a human individual, a person - if we want to call a certain combination of material and mental processes a person. This complex combination of material and mental processes is dependent entirely on previous processes, especially the continuity of kamma which is the process of ethical volitions and the results of those volitions. Thus individual differences are accounted for even though the self or ego or personality is, in the ultimate sense, denied. An individual may be an angry, hot-tempered person, for example, because in the past he or she has performed actions which leave conditions for traits, which are kamma results, to arise in the present. But this happens because kamma leaves a potential for those traits of anger and ill will to arise, not because any kind of self of the person is continuing. Actually the human individual does not remain the same for two consecutive moments; everything is a succession of forces and elements, and there is nothing substantial. Therefore, on the conventional level, we may say that individual differences have an illusory existence. Common everyday conceptions, such as ego, self, and personality seem to be very real, obvious, and well-defined by psychologists and laymen alike, but they are, on the absolute level and in the eyes of those who have achieved enlightenment, illusory. Another way to approach Buddhist psychology is to examine the very complex and technical psychological system known as Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma is, in the words of Narada Maha Thera, "a psychology without a psyche. Abhidhamma teaches that ultimate reality consists of four elementary constituents. One, Nibbana (in Sanskrit, Nirvana) is unconditioned, and the other three, citta, cetasika, and rupa - consciousness, mental factors, and matter respectively - are conditioned. These elementary constituents, called dhammas, alone possess ultimate reality. The familiar world of objects and persons, and the interior world of ego and self are only conceptual constructs created by the mind out of the elemental dhammas. Abhidhamma thus restricts itself to terms that are valid from the standpoint of ultimate realities: it describes reality in terms of ultimate truth. Thus it describes dhammas, their characteristics, their functions, and their relations. All conceptual entities such as self or being or person, are resolved into their ultimates, into bare mental and material phenomena, which are impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, and empty of any abiding self or substance. Consciousness, for example, which seems like one continual flow, is described as a succession of discrete evanescent mental events, the cittas, and a complex set of mental factors, the cetasikas, which perform more specialised tasks in the act of consciousness. There is no self, soul, or any kind of agent inside a person involved in this process." <<<<<<>>>>>> ------------------------------------------ --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Ken H > > > > This right understanding may be only at the > > intellectual stage, but it is none-the-less, > > precious > > and hard to come by. It is not always there when we > > need it because there is no self who can hold on to > > it. That doesn't mean we should let go of it. > > > if there is no self to hold it, why bother to let it > go in the first place :) > > cheers > Ken O 15085 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 0:05pm Subject: Re: Four Sublime States Hi Rob, You are quite welcome to use whatever you consider helpful. I liked your description of the Steven Covey tape, the term 'response-able', and his simile of the 'PAUSE button' - a few of us use our'Drafts' folder like that to delay impulsive email responses. Not always managing the Pause in my 'face to face' dealings, though. :) One difference in Steven Covey's situation is that he is not tied by an emotional and biological relationship to the patient, he can only work a certain number of hours by law, and then he goes somewhere else to his own life, his own loved ones and friends. He gets paid for what he does and has had professional training, supervision and support. He also knows he can leave, without stigma, and take a job with a more amenable patient. Not so the relative, with the 24 hours/7 days job, emotional 'baggage', no pay, no training , no break, very little support, and little ability to leave and go elsewhere. You ask: >How do you use your Buddhist > training to help you cope with the emotional demands of your job?< When I came to Buddhism, I had been working professionally for many years, with continuous skills training, professional supervision and debriefing, and valuable peer support. Initially, I tried to use Buddhism as a sedative, to provide sweet calm and peace. This worked for a while but 'sweet calm and peace'never lasted and the reality of suffering kept breaking through. Then I changed my focus and sought to find in Buddhism an explanation of why the world and its multitude of sentient beings is the way it is. Buddhism (principally Suttas, Abhidhamma, and Admirable Friends) has taught me to be much more aware of what is happening *now*, moment by moment. It has revealed how I mostly live in the past or the future. I have become only too aware of my defilements and their tremendous, repetitive power. The Buddhist teachings - on beginningless time, impermanence, anatta and no-control, suffering, conditions, kamma and rebirth - revitalised my view of each person as unique, deserving of respect, kindness, understanding, and compassion. I realised that no matter how heinous a person's actions, they were doing nothing that I was not capable of and had probably done in uncountable lifetimes. That though causing suffering, they were suffering also. Their behaviour was the result of conditions and accumulations, and, in turn, would be a condition for more suffering now and in future rebirths. Though believing I was non- judgmental, I gained a deeper understanding of the meaning by seeing the example of some of my Admirable friends. The teaching on anatta is slowly reducing attachment to persons, things, and to gaining particular outcomes. Buddhism has helped to loosen the shackles that have kept me a slave to emotional reactions like 'righteous anger', contempt and fear. The gap between instant emotional turmoil and a reasonable calm understanding is closing a little. A bit garbled I'm afraid - hard to separate the 'how it is' from the 'how it was' ..... metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Another difficult category is where someone is, inescapably, > caring > > for a near relative in their own home - perhaps an ex-alchoholic > > relative (with all the family dynamics surrounding that), now > > helpless and bedridden, likely to live for years, who has no > bladder > > or bowel control and who is full of hate for the world - which > finds > > its expression in verbal abuse of the carer. The daily grind of > such > > a relationship is incrredibly exhausting and can wreck the quality > of > > many person's lives. Would a half hour a day, meditating on the > > Brahma Viharas (especially when angry demanding shouts are coming > > from the sick person's room) help? > > I remember listening to a Steven Covey tape a few years ago where he > talked about the experience of a chronic care nurse whose job it was > to support an ungrateful patient. He talked of the liberation of > realizing that we are all responsible... response-able, able to > choose our own response to a situation. We do not have to empower > the weaknesses of others ruin our lives. That there is a space > between stimulus and response where we have the freedom of choice > and our happiness depends on our choice, not on our situation. He > used the simile of "pressing the PAUSE button" and then using one or > more of the following four strategies [I will now use Buddhist > terminology]: > - Sati (mindfulness / self awareness): examine our thoughts, moods > and behaviour > - Sila (conscience): understanding right from wrong and following > personal integrity > - Yoniso Manasikara (wise attention): acting independently of > external influences > - Positive thinking / imagination : visualizing beyond experience > and present reality. I visualize myself as a "black box" receiving > negative vibrations. If I choose to react in a negative way, I am > responsible for continuing the vibrations and making the world more > negative. If I choose not to react, I am stopping that stream of > negative vibrations. If I choose to react in a positive way, I am > creating a stream of positive vibrations and the world will be a > better place. > > I am going to summarize the information you provided on "compassion > fatigue" to the class. I would like to use your situation as a case > study (withoout mentioning your name). How do you use your Buddhist > training to help you cope with the emotional demands of your job? > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) > > PS: Thanks, Christine, for other link as well. This was extracted > from a larger piece that I am summarizing for the class as well. The > complete piece is at > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel006.html 15086 From: yuzhonghao Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 0:10pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pernicious view Robert, Are you human being? What kind of language do you speak besides common language? Did I say whether or not the 'being' is greater than the sum of its parts? If the Buddha asks us to let go of the idea of 'self' and 'being', then why are you coming up with the assumption that the whole process is being, is self? And did I talk about whether we really exist or really do not exist? Read Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta. Pay close attention in how the Buddha explained what birth, aging and death are. What kind of language did the Buddha use? Uncommon language? Read Saccavibhanga Sutta and Sammaditthi Sutta, and pay close attention in what Venerable Sariputta said about birth, aging and death. What kind of language did Venerable Sariputta use? Uncommon language? Also, read about what the Buddha said on wrong view and right view in Maha-cattarisaka Sutta. However, don't go by scripture. Ask yourself: Is the view "there is no being" skillful? Is it blameless? Is it praised by the wise? When adopted, does it lead to welfare and to happiness? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Victor, > When you say 'we grow old' and 'there is a being' these are assumptions. You > speak of these things like anyone should realize that they are there, but you do > not discuss the idea that these are not actual things. You say 'Of course we are > beings! Of course we are alive!' But this is just common language. It is not > inspected for whether it is actually true or not. I will agree that there are > cells, organs, blood, activity, brainwaves, thoughts, perceptions, feelings. I > will agree that we are aware that these things are taking place and that awareness > notes them and so there is consciousness. But in all of that you still do not > show me any part of this process that in itself is a 'self' or a 'being'. If you > want to say that the whole process is a 'being' i will agree with you, but then I > will say in that case, that a 'being' is not a 'person', an 'entity' that you can > identify in its own right, but it is nothing but a collection of processes. You > say that the 'being' is greater than the sum of its parts, but you can only claim > this in a general way. You cannot actually show that this is the case. Buddha > asked us to be detached from all of these processes, and all of its objects, not > to cling to them. Clinging creates suffering, because all of these objects, all > of these processes, are temporary and unsatisfying. We cannot hold onto them. We > cannot even hold onto self. Buddha asks us to let go of the idea of 'self' and > 'being' and to stop thinking of ourselves as separate individuals identified with > the body and the mind. Buddha also says not to cling to 'non- being' or > 'annihilation' because that is still involvement with the idea of a being, either > to preseve it or to destroy it. Either way we are caught in the self-idea and > cannot be released from it. This is my understanding of the Buddha's admonitions > not to either assert or deny the existence of a being. But it is clear that we > are to let go of all ideas and formulations of a self or entity, and not to cling > to any such notion, or comfort ourselves with the idea that we really exist or > really do not exist. > > Best, > Robert Ep. 15087 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 0:14pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pernicious view Dear Group, A short article by Joseph Goldstein on anatta. http://www.tricycle.com/buddhistbasics/noself.html metta, Christine "If there is no self, who is born, who dies, who meditates? ONE OF THE MOST PUZZLING ASPECTS OF the Buddha's teachings is the idea of no self. If there's no self, who gets angry, who falls in love, who makes effort, who has memories or gets reborn? What does it mean to say there is no self? Sometimes people are afraid of this idea, imagining themselves suddenly disappearing in a cloud of smoke, like a magician's trick. We can understand no-self in several ways. The Buddha described what we call "self" as a collection of aggregates—elements of mind and body—that function interdependently, creating the appearance of woman or man. We then identify with that image or appearance, taking it to be "I" or "mine," imagining it to have some inherent self-existence. For example, we get up in the morning, look in the mirror, recognize the reflection, and think, "Yes, that's me again." We then add all kinds of concepts to this sense of self: I'm a woman or man, I'm a certain age, I'm a happy or unhappy person—the list goes on and on. When we examine our experience, though, we see that there is not some core being to whom experience refers; rather it is simply "empty phenomena rolling on." Experience is "empty" in the sense that there is no one behind the arising and changing phenomena to whom they happen. A rainbow is a good example of this. We go outside after a rainstorm and feel that moment of delight if a rainbow appears in the sky. Mostly, we simply enjoy the sight without investigating the real nature of what is happening. But when we look more deeply, it becomes clear that there is no "thing" called "rainbow" apart from the particular conditions of air and moisture and light. Each one of us is like that rainbow—an appearance, a magical display, arising out of the various elements of mind and body. So when anger arises, or sorrow or love or joy, it is just anger angering, sorrow sorrowing, love loving, joy joying. Different feelings arise and pass, each simply expressing its own nature. The problem arises when we identify with these feelings, or thoughts, or sensations as being self or as belonging to "me": "I'm angry, I'm sad." By collapsing into the identification with these experiences, we contract energetically into a prison of self and separation. As an experiment in awareness, the next time you feel identified with a strong emotion or reaction or judgment, leave the story line and trace the physical sensation back to the energetic contraction, often felt at the heart center. It might be a sensation of tightness or pressure in the center of the chest. Then relax the heart, simply allowing the feelings and sensations to be there. Open to the space in which everything is happening. In that moment, the sense of separation disappears, and the union of lovingkindness and emptiness becomes clear. We see that there is no one there to be apart. As the Chinese poet Li Po wrote: "We sit together the mountain and me/ Until only the mountain remains." --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Victor, > When you say 'we grow old' and 'there is a being' these are assumptions. You > speak of these things like anyone should realize that they are there, but you do > not discuss the idea that these are not actual things. You say 'Of course we are > beings! Of course we are alive!' But this is just common language. It is not > inspected for whether it is actually true or not. I will agree that there are > cells, organs, blood, activity, brainwaves, thoughts, perceptions, feelings. I > will agree that we are aware that these things are taking place and that awareness > notes them and so there is consciousness. But in all of that you still do not > show me any part of this process that in itself is a 'self' or a 'being'. If you > want to say that the whole process is a 'being' i will agree with you, but then I > will say in that case, that a 'being' is not a 'person', an 'entity' that you can > identify in its own right, but it is nothing but a collection of processes. You > say that the 'being' is greater than the sum of its parts, but you can only claim > this in a general way. You cannot actually show that this is the case. Buddha > asked us to be detached from all of these processes, and all of its objects, not > to cling to them. Clinging creates suffering, because all of these objects, all > of these processes, are temporary and unsatisfying. We cannot hold onto them. We > cannot even hold onto self. Buddha asks us to let go of the idea of 'self' and > 'being' and to stop thinking of ourselves as separate individuals identified with > the body and the mind. Buddha also says not to cling to 'non- being' or > 'annihilation' because that is still involvement with the idea of a being, either > to preseve it or to destroy it. Either way we are caught in the self-idea and > cannot be released from it. This is my understanding of the Buddha's admonitions > not to either assert or deny the existence of a being. But it is clear that we > are to let go of all ideas and formulations of a self or entity, and not to cling > to any such notion, or comfort ourselves with the idea that we really exist or > really do not exist. > > Best, > Robert Ep. > > ============================== > > --- yuzhonghao wrote: > > Hi Robert Ep, > > > > Please read the first part of my message to Howard again: > > > > "The usage of the word "being" is bound by agreed-upon usage of > > language, or in your term, "convention." From what I understand in > > reading the discourses, how and what the Buddha spoke is always > > bounded within the agreed-upon usage of language, or in your term, > > convention. A being is not a convention, not a verbal usage. It is > > the word "being" that is bounded within the agreed-upon usage of > > language in communication, or in your term, convention." > > > > If you are holding the view that the self did break down to the five > > aggregates and nothing more, I suggest you let go that assumption. > > > > I also suggest you let go the assumption "If there is a true self > > beyond the five aggregates, it must be something that is neither > > within nor composed of the components of the psychophysical being, > > since the psychophysical being is completely composed of the five > > aggregates." > > > > There are beings, Robert, and we as human beings were born. We get > > old and we will die some day. Birth, aging-and-death is stressful, > > suffering, unsatisfactory, dukkha. > > > > Metta, > > Victor 15088 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 0:23pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Four Sublime States Dear Rob M, > -----Original Message----- > From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] > > At some point in our lives, it is likely that we will all have to > deal with a family member who is losing physical / mental capacity, > is self-destructive or chronically depressed. What is the "correct > Buddhist way" of dealing with this all too common situation? The best way to handle this is obviously with kusala and panna! How is it done outwardly? That depends on accumulations, I think. > > We are warned against trying to radiate metta to our spouse as it > would be too easy to fall prey to the near enemy of sensual desire. > Does the same hold true about trying to radiate karuna to a family > member? Should we avoid it because it is too easy to slip into the > near enemy of aversion (due to the accompanying emotional baggage)? I would be interested in hearing more about the practice of radiating metta and karuna (etc) to other beings. What do you think are relevant references? When can we do it? Why would we want to do? How do we do it? What are the causes and conditions for such events? kom 15089 From: yuzhonghao Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 0:32pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Let go Hi Christine and all, I suggest that instead of reading U Silananda's NO INNER CORE - ANATTA, read Anatta-lakkhana Sutta without the assumption "self is a complex combination of material and mental processes" or the assumption "self is a residual entity" or the assumption "self is psychological entities or agents inside the person." Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi KenO, (and KenH, Victor, RobK, RobEp, and Stephen) and All, > > KenO - How wonderful to *see* you! Are you just slipping back in as > if you wouldn't have been missed? (You were) .... I do notice these > things you know. :) We are still talking about Anatta, so it could > be anytime in the last year, no? :) If you hadn't re-surfaced > soon, I was going to get desperate and post something on 'luminous > mind' ... Think what you have saved the List from experiencing! :) > > I've been reading U Silananda's NO INNER CORE - ANATTA again, and, > as always, find that I get a lot to think about - even from the > Introduction. This time about Personality and Kamma. Part of the > Intro is pasted below: > http://www.buddha.per.sg/dharma01/anatta1.htm > > metta, > Christine > > > Introduction > > Impermanence, Suffering and No-Soul > > Direct Experience of Anatta > > Analysis of the Discourse on the Characteristic of No-Soul > > Understanding Anatta > > Misunderstanding Anatta > > Questions and Answers > > > > "Introduction > > The following discourse is based on a collection of lectures on the > Anatta doctrine given by Sayadaw U Silananda. Anatta is a Pali word > consisting of a negative prefix, `an' meaning not, plus atta, soul, > and is most literally translated as no-soul. The word atta, however > has a wide range of meanings, and some of those meanings cross over > into the fields of psychology philosophy and everyday terminology as, > for example, when atta can mean self, being, ego, and personality. > Therefore, in this preface, we will examine and elucidate the wide > range of meanings which atta can signify in order to determine > exactly what the Buddha denied when He proclaimed that He teaches > anatta, that is, when He denied the existence of atta. We will > examine both Buddhist and non-Buddhist definitions of the term soul, > and we will also examine modern definitions of terms such as ego and > self. > Most writers in the field of religion, when writing about soul or > anatta specifically use the terms self, ego, being and soul > interchangeably, while psychologists define those terms as totally > different entities. If we define atta as including the terms self > ego, personality, and being, we may make the mistake of claiming that > Buddha denied the phenomena of individual differences, individual > personalities, individual kamma and other features of individuality > in people. > > But if we say that Buddha denied only the theological entity of a > soul, while leaving intact a psychological entity such as an ego or > self, then we are also mistaken. The resolution of this dilemma lies > in the fact that we must deal with two levels of reality > simultaneously, the ultimate level and the conventional level. > > In the absolute sense, the anatta doctrine denies any and all > psychological entities or agents inside the person. In the absolute > sense, all phenomena, including what is called a person, are composed > of elements, forces, and a stream of successive states. > > The Buddha organised these phenomena into conceptual groups, known as > khandhas (aggregates), and they are: (1) material processes, also > known as bodily form, corporeality or matter; (2) feeling; (3) > perception; (4) mental formations; and (S) consciousness. Most > importantlý when all mental and physical phenomena are analysed into > those elements, no residual entity, such as a soul, self, or ego, can > be found. In short, there are actions executed by these groups, but > no actor The workings of these groups of forces and elements appear > to us as an ego or personality but in reality the ego or self or > agent of the actions has only an illusory existence. > > However on the conventional level, the workings of these forces, > elements, and states are organised by causal laws, and, although they > in no way constitute any extra-phenomenal self or soul, they do > produce a human individual, a person - if we want to call a certain > combination of material and mental processes a person. > > This complex combination of material and mental processes is > dependent entirely on previous processes, especially the continuity > of kamma which is the process of ethical volitions and the results of > those volitions. Thus individual differences are accounted for even > though the self or ego or personality is, in the ultimate sense, > denied. > > An individual may be an angry, hot-tempered person, for example, > because in the past he or she has performed actions which leave > conditions for traits, which are kamma results, to arise in the > present. But this happens because kamma leaves a potential for those > traits of anger and ill will to arise, not because any kind of self > of the person is continuing. Actually the human individual does not > remain the same for two consecutive moments; everything is a > succession of forces and elements, and there is nothing substantial. > > Therefore, on the conventional level, we may say that individual > differences have an illusory existence. Common everyday conceptions, > such as ego, self, and personality seem to be very real, obvious, and > well-defined by psychologists and laymen alike, but they are, on the > absolute level and in the eyes of those who have achieved > enlightenment, illusory. > > Another way to approach Buddhist psychology is to examine the very > complex and technical psychological system known as Abhidhamma. The > Abhidhamma is, in the words of Narada Maha Thera, "a psychology > without a psyche. Abhidhamma teaches that ultimate reality consists > of four elementary constituents. > > One, Nibbana (in Sanskrit, Nirvana) is unconditioned, and the other > three, citta, cetasika, and rupa - consciousness, mental factors, and > matter respectively - are conditioned. These elementary constituents, > called dhammas, alone possess ultimate reality. The familiar world of > objects and persons, and the interior world of ego and self are only > conceptual constructs created by the mind out of the elemental > dhammas. > > Abhidhamma thus restricts itself to terms that are valid from the > standpoint of ultimate realities: it describes reality in terms of > ultimate truth. Thus it describes dhammas, their characteristics, > their functions, and their relations. All conceptual entities such > as self or being or person, are resolved into their ultimates, into > bare mental and material phenomena, which are impermanent, > conditioned, dependently arisen, and empty of any abiding self or > substance. > > Consciousness, for example, which seems like one continual flow, is > described as a succession of discrete evanescent mental events, the > cittas, and a complex set of mental factors, the cetasikas, which > perform more specialised tasks in the act of consciousness. There is > no self, soul, or any kind of agent inside a person involved in this > process." > <<<<<<>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------ > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Hi Ken H > > > > > > > This right understanding may be only at the > > > intellectual stage, but it is none-the-less, > > > precious > > > and hard to come by. It is not always there when we > > > need it because there is no self who can hold on to > > > it. That doesn't mean we should let go of it. > > > > > > if there is no self to hold it, why bother to let it > > go in the first place :) > > > > cheers > > Ken O 15090 From: yuzhonghao Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 0:37pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pernicious view Hi Christine and all, The question "If there is no self, who is born, who dies, who meditate?" is not a valid question because it starts with the speculative view "there is no self." This question is to be put aside in the first place. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > A short article by Joseph Goldstein on anatta. > http://www.tricycle.com/buddhistbasics/noself.html > > metta, > Christine > > "If there is no self, who is born, who dies, who meditates? 15091 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 1:45pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Let go Hi Victor, In reading anything, particularly the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, one must understand the meaning the author intended for the terms he used. Otherwise a completely wrong perception will develop. With regard to the Buddha's words - it is extremely risky for someone living 2500 years after his death, in a different culture, reading a translation in a different language, to want to read the page and attribute his/her own contemporary meaning to the term. Particularly the term that is of such crucial importance that it underpins the Buddha's teachings. Far safer to rely on the understanding that has been faithfully passed down within the Theravada tradition initially from those of the ariya sangha who knew the Blessed One and were in his presence when he explained this term and the doctrine of anatta. I believe Human rebirth is so rare, samsara so long, suffering so painful and anatta too important a topic to waste this chance by accepting a colloquial meaning of the term or by leaning towards one's own desire of what that meaning should be. Best wishes, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > Hi Christine and all, > > I suggest that instead of reading U Silananda's NO INNER CORE - > ANATTA, read Anatta-lakkhana Sutta without the assumption "self is a > complex combination of material and mental processes" or the > assumption "self is a residual entity" or the assumption "self is > psychological entities or agents inside the person." > > Metta, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Hi KenO, (and KenH, Victor, RobK, RobEp, and Stephen) and All, > > > > KenO - How wonderful to *see* you! Are you just slipping back in > as > > if you wouldn't have been missed? (You were) .... I do notice these > > things you know. :) We are still talking about Anatta, so it could > > be anytime in the last year, no? :) If you hadn't re-surfaced > > soon, I was going to get desperate and post something on 'luminous > > mind' ... Think what you have saved the List from experiencing! :) > > > > I've been reading U Silananda's NO INNER CORE - ANATTA again, and, > > as always, find that I get a lot to think about - even from the > > Introduction. This time about Personality and Kamma. Part of the > > Intro is pasted below: > > http://www.buddha.per.sg/dharma01/anatta1.htm > > > > metta, > > Christine > > > > > > Introduction > > > > Impermanence, Suffering and No-Soul > > > > Direct Experience of Anatta > > > > Analysis of the Discourse on the Characteristic of No-Soul > > > > Understanding Anatta > > > > Misunderstanding Anatta > > > > Questions and Answers > > > > > > > > "Introduction > > > > The following discourse is based on a collection of lectures on the > > Anatta doctrine given by Sayadaw U Silananda. Anatta is a Pali word > > consisting of a negative prefix, `an' meaning not, plus atta, soul, > > and is most literally translated as no-soul. The word atta, however > > has a wide range of meanings, and some of those meanings cross over > > into the fields of psychology philosophy and everyday terminology > as, > > for example, when atta can mean self, being, ego, and personality. > > Therefore, in this preface, we will examine and elucidate the wide > > range of meanings which atta can signify in order to determine > > exactly what the Buddha denied when He proclaimed that He teaches > > anatta, that is, when He denied the existence of atta. We will > > examine both Buddhist and non-Buddhist definitions of the term > soul, > > and we will also examine modern definitions of terms such as ego > and > > self. > > Most writers in the field of religion, when writing about soul or > > anatta specifically use the terms self, ego, being and soul > > interchangeably, while psychologists define those terms as totally > > different entities. If we define atta as including the terms self > > ego, personality, and being, we may make the mistake of claiming > that > > Buddha denied the phenomena of individual differences, individual > > personalities, individual kamma and other features of individuality > > in people. > > > > But if we say that Buddha denied only the theological entity of a > > soul, while leaving intact a psychological entity such as an ego or > > self, then we are also mistaken. The resolution of this dilemma > lies > > in the fact that we must deal with two levels of reality > > simultaneously, the ultimate level and the conventional level. > > > > In the absolute sense, the anatta doctrine denies any and all > > psychological entities or agents inside the person. In the absolute > > sense, all phenomena, including what is called a person, are > composed > > of elements, forces, and a stream of successive states. > > > > The Buddha organised these phenomena into conceptual groups, known > as > > khandhas (aggregates), and they are: (1) material processes, also > > known as bodily form, corporeality or matter; (2) feeling; (3) > > perception; (4) mental formations; and (S) consciousness. Most > > importantlý when all mental and physical phenomena are analysed > into > > those elements, no residual entity, such as a soul, self, or ego, > can > > be found. In short, there are actions executed by these groups, but > > no actor The workings of these groups of forces and elements appear > > to us as an ego or personality but in reality the ego or self or > > agent of the actions has only an illusory existence. > > > > However on the conventional level, the workings of these forces, > > elements, and states are organised by causal laws, and, although > they > > in no way constitute any extra-phenomenal self or soul, they do > > produce a human individual, a person - if we want to call a certain > > combination of material and mental processes a person. > > > > This complex combination of material and mental processes is > > dependent entirely on previous processes, especially the continuity > > of kamma which is the process of ethical volitions and the results > of > > those volitions. Thus individual differences are accounted for even > > though the self or ego or personality is, in the ultimate sense, > > denied. > > > > An individual may be an angry, hot-tempered person, for example, > > because in the past he or she has performed actions which leave > > conditions for traits, which are kamma results, to arise in the > > present. But this happens because kamma leaves a potential for > those > > traits of anger and ill will to arise, not because any kind of self > > of the person is continuing. Actually the human individual does not > > remain the same for two consecutive moments; everything is a > > succession of forces and elements, and there is nothing > substantial. > > > > Therefore, on the conventional level, we may say that individual > > differences have an illusory existence. Common everyday > conceptions, > > such as ego, self, and personality seem to be very real, obvious, > and > > well-defined by psychologists and laymen alike, but they are, on > the > > absolute level and in the eyes of those who have achieved > > enlightenment, illusory. > > > > Another way to approach Buddhist psychology is to examine the very > > complex and technical psychological system known as Abhidhamma. The > > Abhidhamma is, in the words of Narada Maha Thera, "a psychology > > without a psyche. Abhidhamma teaches that ultimate reality consists > > of four elementary constituents. > > > > One, Nibbana (in Sanskrit, Nirvana) is unconditioned, and the other > > three, citta, cetasika, and rupa - consciousness, mental factors, > and > > matter respectively - are conditioned. These elementary > constituents, > > called dhammas, alone possess ultimate reality. The familiar world > of > > objects and persons, and the interior world of ego and self are > only > > conceptual constructs created by the mind out of the elemental > > dhammas. > > > > Abhidhamma thus restricts itself to terms that are valid from the > > standpoint of ultimate realities: it describes reality in terms of > > ultimate truth. Thus it describes dhammas, their characteristics, > > their functions, and their relations. All conceptual entities such > > as self or being or person, are resolved into their ultimates, into > > bare mental and material phenomena, which are impermanent, > > conditioned, dependently arisen, and empty of any abiding self or > > substance. > > > > Consciousness, for example, which seems like one continual flow, is > > described as a succession of discrete evanescent mental events, the > > cittas, and a complex set of mental factors, the cetasikas, which > > perform more specialised tasks in the act of consciousness. There > is > > no self, soul, or any kind of agent inside a person involved in > this > > process." > > <<<<<<>>>>>> > > ------------------------------------------ > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > > > Hi Ken H > > > > > > > > > > This right understanding may be only at the > > > > intellectual stage, but it is none-the-less, > > > > precious > > > > and hard to come by. It is not always there when we > > > > need it because there is no self who can hold on to > > > > it. That doesn't mean we should let go of it. > > > > > > > > > if there is no self to hold it, why bother to let it > > > go in the first place :) > > > > > > cheers > > > Ken O 15092 From: yuzhonghao Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 2:29pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Let go Hi Christine, What do you think the word "self" mean? What is the colloquial meaning of the word "self"? How did the Buddha use the word "self" as recorded in Anatta-lakkhana Sutta and other discourses? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > In reading anything, particularly the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, one > must understand the meaning the author intended for the terms he > used. Otherwise a completely wrong perception will develop. With > regard to the Buddha's words - it is extremely risky for someone > living 2500 years after his death, in a different culture, reading a > translation in a different language, to want to read the page and > attribute his/her own contemporary meaning to the term. Particularly > the term that is of such crucial importance that it underpins the > Buddha's teachings. Far safer to rely on the understanding that has > been faithfully passed down within the Theravada tradition initially > from those of the ariya sangha who knew the Blessed One and were in > his presence when he explained this term and the doctrine of anatta. > I believe Human rebirth is so rare, samsara so long, suffering so > painful and anatta too important a topic to waste this chance by > accepting a colloquial meaning of the term or by leaning towards > one's own desire of what that meaning should be. > > Best wishes, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > > Hi Christine and all, > > > > I suggest that instead of reading U Silananda's NO INNER CORE - > > ANATTA, read Anatta-lakkhana Sutta without the assumption "self is > a > > complex combination of material and mental processes" or the > > assumption "self is a residual entity" or the assumption "self is > > psychological entities or agents inside the person." > > > > Metta, > > Victor 15093 From: robmoult Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 2:46pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Four Sublime States Hi Kom, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Rob M, > I would be interested in hearing more about the practice of radiating metta > and karuna (etc) to other beings. What do you think are relevant > references? When can we do it? Why would we want to do? How do we do it? > What are the causes and conditions for such events? > > kom I summarized the writings in a BPS Wheel publication 365 on the subject of Metta in my class notes (available in the Files section) pages 94-101 and added some of my own ideas on page 102 of my class notes. The full Wheel publication is at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel365.html Pages 104-107 of my class notes summarizes Gregory Kramer's experience of sharing Metta meditation with his children. Full text available at http://www.buddhanet.net/imol/lovkids.htm As for meditating on karuna, mudita, etc., I found references in Wheel Publication #6 (Four Sublime States by Nyanaponika Thera) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel006.html The September version of my class notes will include a summary of this material. Kom, did I address your questions? Thanks, Rob M :-) 15094 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 2:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Let go Hi Victor, I have included my understanding from the scriptures and from teachers in my posts over the last week. I think the frustration at the centre of this discussion is that a number of us have asked you to clearly state what you consider to be the meaning of the Buddha's teaching on anatta and his use of the term self, and have failed to elicit this from you. In post no. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/15006, I stated: "I just realised Victor that nearly every time you post on the question of 'self' 'non-self' or 'anatta', you either post hyperlinks to suttas with no discussion, or you pose questions as a reply and don't respond to many questions put to yourself. I am not going to answer a series of leading questions out of the very little knowledge I have, but I would be deeply interested in hearing what your understanding is, and learning from it. You have alluded to a strongly held knowledge on the subject of anatta, but I have never yet seen it articulated. I hope you will do so as I believe it could be very helpful for us all to hear it I would hope you feel moved to write a few paragraphs on what your position is. In this instance, as you commented very strongly on Robert's post, it would be a courtesy, and very interesting for us all if you would give an explanation of your thoughts on the matter." And so, 86 posts later, at post no. 15092, we are still marching on the same spot. I think this is another case of "I asked you first?" :):) It's been fun, but I have to go to work now. Best wishes, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > What do you think the word "self" mean? What is the colloquial > meaning of the word "self"? How did the Buddha use the word "self" > as recorded in Anatta-lakkhana Sutta and other discourses? > > Metta, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Hi Victor, > > > > In reading anything, particularly the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, one > > must understand the meaning the author intended for the terms he > > used. Otherwise a completely wrong perception will develop. With > > regard to the Buddha's words - it is extremely risky for someone > > living 2500 years after his death, in a different culture, reading > a > > translation in a different language, to want to read the page and > > attribute his/her own contemporary meaning to the term. > Particularly > > the term that is of such crucial importance that it underpins the > > Buddha's teachings. Far safer to rely on the understanding that > has > > been faithfully passed down within the Theravada tradition > initially > > from those of the ariya sangha who knew the Blessed One and were in > > his presence when he explained this term and the doctrine of > anatta. > > I believe Human rebirth is so rare, samsara so long, suffering so > > painful and anatta too important a topic to waste this chance by > > accepting a colloquial meaning of the term or by leaning towards > > one's own desire of what that meaning should be. > > > > Best wishes, > > Christine > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > > > Hi Christine and all, > > > > > > I suggest that instead of reading U Silananda's NO INNER CORE - > > > ANATTA, read Anatta-lakkhana Sutta without the assumption "self > is > > a > > > complex combination of material and mental processes" or the > > > assumption "self is a residual entity" or the assumption "self is > > > psychological entities or agents inside the person." > > > > > > Metta, > > > Victor 15095 From: yuzhonghao Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 2:55pm Subject: Re: Let go Hi Christine, I would suggest examining the criterion for accepting what the word "self" mean. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Christine, when you yourself know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them. Examine very closely the assumption "self is a complex combination of material and mental processes" or the assumption "self is a residual entity" or the assumption "self is psychological entities or agents inside the person." Are these assumptions good? Are they not blamable? Are they praised by the wise? Undertaken and observed, do they lead to benefit and happiness? How did the Buddha used the word "self"? When teaching, did he use the word "self" as reflexive pronoun without any assumption? Is using the word "self" as reflexive pronoun without any assumption bad? Is it blamable? Is it praised by the wise? Undertaken and observed, does it lead to harm and ill? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > In reading anything, particularly the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, one > must understand the meaning the author intended for the terms he > used. Otherwise a completely wrong perception will develop. With > regard to the Buddha's words - it is extremely risky for someone > living 2500 years after his death, in a different culture, reading a > translation in a different language, to want to read the page and > attribute his/her own contemporary meaning to the term. Particularly > the term that is of such crucial importance that it underpins the > Buddha's teachings. Far safer to rely on the understanding that has > been faithfully passed down within the Theravada tradition initially > from those of the ariya sangha who knew the Blessed One and were in > his presence when he explained this term and the doctrine of anatta. > I believe Human rebirth is so rare, samsara so long, suffering so > painful and anatta too important a topic to waste this chance by > accepting a colloquial meaning of the term or by leaning towards > one's own desire of what that meaning should be. > > Best wishes, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > > Hi Christine and all, > > > > I suggest that instead of reading U Silananda's NO INNER CORE - > > ANATTA, read Anatta-lakkhana Sutta without the assumption "self is > a > > complex combination of material and mental processes" or the > > assumption "self is a residual entity" or the assumption "self is > > psychological entities or agents inside the person." > > > > Metta, > > Victor 15096 From: Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 11:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samatha, Samadhi and Right Concentration Hi, Jon - In a message dated 8/20/02 7:18:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > ... > > =============================== > > I find little to disagree with in the foregoing. By in large I > > agree > > with what you wrote. Where we differ I think is in the following: "To > > put my > > 'concerns' in a nutshell, I do not understand the Buddha to be saying > > that > > kusala can be developed by *directed attention* or *conscious effort* > > and, in > > particular, I don't read him as saying that insight is developed by > > directed > > attention to a *selected object or range of objects*." It is not so much > > the > > part about the restriction to a "selected object or range of objects" > > that we > > differ on, because I think that seeing the tilakkhana is possible in all > > > > conditioned dhammas, but moreso in the first part of what you say here. > > I DO > > see the Buddha as teaching that "kusala can be developed [or at least > > encouraged/fostered] by directed attention or conscious effort". The > > effort, > > however, cannot consist in mere *willing* of kusala traits, including > > wisdom, > > but rather should consist in conscious efforts at guarding the senses > > cultivating samatha and vipassana through mindfulness practice, both > > during > > "ordinary times" as well as during the restricted-input context of > > formal > > meditation practice. In all of this, I see effort at maintaining > > mindfulness > > and clear comprehension as primary. > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > I agree when you say that the effort that is right effort "cannot consist > in mere *willing* of kusala traits". The kusala that is guarding the > sense doors, or cultivating samatha or vipassana cannot arise without some > other conditioning factor/s. It is the 'other factor(s)' that we need to > consider further and in detail, as given in the teachings, since this is > what distinguishes the akusala from the kusala. > > I am not so sure about your next point, though;-)). You say "I see effort > at maintaining mindfulness and clear comprehension as primary". What is > this effort that you describe as the 'effort at maintaining mindfulness' > etc. Is it really any different from the willing of kusala traits > referred to earlier, or is it simply another twist on the latter? > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Gee, I dunno! ;-)) All I mean is making it a point to pay attention to what is going on, to notice when there is a lapse in that, and particularly, by repeated attempts to turn this attentiveness into a *habit*. If that is *willing* something I'm not sure. It is certainly goal-directed bahavior. ------------------------------------------------------- > As I have mentioned before, all forms of kusala can arise naturally, > without the 'willing'-type effort, given the right conditions. Is there > ever any awareness of these dhammas as and when they do arise in this > manner? If not, how can we know at the 'willed' moments whether the > mental state is truly kusala or whether it only seems to be so? > > Jon > > =========================== 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) 15097 From: Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 3:24pm Subject: ADL ch. 21 (3) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 21 (3) The jhana-factors have to be developed in order to temporarily eliminate the hindrances. For the person who wants to develop the jhana-factors and attain jhana a great deal of preparation is required. We read in the 'Visuddhimagga' (II, 1; III, 1) that the person who wants to cultivate samatha should be well established in sila (morality), which is purified by such qualities as fewness of wishes, contentment, effacement, seclusion, energy, and, modest needs. In observing some of the ascetic practices (as described in Ch. II of the 'Visuddhimagga'), which pertain mostly to the monk with regard to the use of his robes, his almsfood and his place of dwelling, virtue will become more perfected. In the Buddha's time laypeople too could attain jhana, if they would lead a life which was compatible with its development (An example is Nanda's mother, about whom we read in the 'Gradual Sayings', Book of the Sevens, Ch. V, par, 10.), One should lead a secluded life and many conditions have to be fulfilled. Jhana is quite incompatible with sense-desires. One has to be 'quite secluded from sense-desires...' in order to attain the first jhana, as we read in many suttas. The 'Visuddhimagga' (IV, 81) explains: When absoluteness is introduced thus 'quite secluded from sense desires', what is expressed is this: sense desires are certainly incompatible with this jhana: when they exist, it does not occur, just as when there is darkness, there is no lamplight; and it is only by letting go of them that it is reached just as the further bank is reached by letting go of the near bank. That is why absoluteness is introduced. Thus we see that the development of jhana is not for everyone. Jhana cannot be attained if one leads a 'worldly life', full of sense-pleasures, instead of a life of 'fewness of wishes, seclusion, modest needs'. The 'Visuddhimagga' (III, 129) also states that one should sever any impediments to the development of samatha. Among them are one's dwelling, travelling and sickness. These can be hindrances to samatha. One should avoid living in a monastery which, for various reasons, is unfavourable to the development of samatha. Thus, even before one starts to develop samatha, many conditions have to be fulfilled. For the development of samatha one has to apply oneself to a suitable subject of meditation. There are forty meditation subjects which can condition calm and they are the following: 10 kasina exercises, which are, for example, coloured disks, a piece of earth, light. 10 loathsome subjects (in Pali: asubha), the 'cemetery meditations'. 10 recollections, comprising the recollection of the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha, virtue, generosity, deities, and also the recollections which are: mindfulness of death, mindfulness of the body, mindfulness of breathing and the recollection of peace (nibbana). The perception of repulsiveness in nutriment. The definition of the four elements (earth, water, fire and wind). 4 brahma-viharas (divine abidings) comprising: lovingkindness (metta), compassion (karuna), altruistic joy (mudita) and equanimity (upekkha) which, in this case, is not upekkha vedana or neutral feeling, but the wholesome cetasika which is tatramajjhattata. 4 meditation subjects for the development of the arupa-jhanas (immaterial jhanas), which will be mentioned later on. Not all subjects are suitable for everybody, it depends on the individual which subject is a means for him to become calm. If there is right understanding of the way to become calm by means of a suitable meditation subject calm can grow, even in our daily life. Metta and karuna, for instance, can and should be developed in our daily life, when we are in the company of other people and then there are kusala cittas instead of akusala cittas. Recollection on the Dhamma includes also reflection on the teachings and this is beneficial for everybody; it helps one to begin to understand one's life. While we reflect with kusala citta on the teachings or on one of the other meditation subjects, there are moments of calm if we do not cling to calm. In the 'Visuddhimagga' it is explained how one can develop higher degrees of calm by means of a meditation subject. It is explained (Vis. III, 119) that meditation subjects are learned by sight, by touch and by hearsay (words), depending on the nature of the subject. As regards the subjects which are learned by sight (such as nine of the kesinas and the 'ten cemetery-meditations'), the 'Visuddhimagga' (IV, 31) states that in the beginning one has to look closely at the meditation subject and later on one acquires a 'mental image' ('sign', in Pali: nimitta) of it; one no longer needs to look at the original object. At first the mental image is still unsteady and unclear, but later on it appears 'a hundred times, a thousand times more purified...' The original object, for example a coloured disk or a piece of earth, could have flaws, but the perfected mental image which one acquires when one is more advanced, does not have the imperfections of the original object one was looking at in the beginning. This perfected mental image is called the 'counterpart sign' (patibhaga nimitta). At the moment the 'counterpart sign' arises, there is a higher degree of calm and concentration is more developed. This stage is called 'access concentration' (upacara samadhi). The citta is not jhanacitta, it is still kamavacara citta (of the sense-sphere), but the hindrances do not arise at the moment of 'access concentration'. However, the jhana-factors are not developed enough yet for the attainment of jhana and now one has to cultivate the right conditions in order to attain jhana. 'Access concentration' is already very difficult to attain, but 'guarding the sign' which has to be done in order to attain jhana is also very difficult. One has to 'guard the sign' (nimitta) in order not to lose the perfected mental image one has developed. The conditions for guarding the sign are, among others, the right dwelling-place, suitable food, avoidance of aimless talk. One should ' balance' the 'five faculties' (indriyas) which are the following cetasikas: - saddha (confidence in wholesomeness) - viriya (energy) - sati (mindfulness) - samadhi (concentration) - panna (wisdom) Confidence should be balanced with wisdom so that one has not confidence uncritically and groundlessly. Concentration should be balanced with energy, because if there is too much energy and not enough concentration, there is a danger of becoming agitated and then one cannot attain jhana. If there is concentration but not enough energy there will be idleness and jhana cannot be attained either. All five indriyas should be balanced. From the foregoing examples we see that samatha cannot be cultivated without a basic understanding of the realities taught in the Abhidhamma which are in fact the realities of daily life, and without careful consideration of them. One should know precisely when the citta is kusala citta and when it is akusala citta. One should know which realities the jhana-factors are and one should realize as regards oneself whether the jhana-factors are developed or not. One should know whether the cetasikas which are the five indriyas (faculties) are developed or not, whether they are balanced or not. If there is not the right understanding of all these different factors and conditions necessary for the attainment of 'access concentration' and of jhana, one is in danger of taking for 'access concentration' what is not 'access concentration' and taking for jhana what is not jhana. Neither 'access concentration' nor jhana can be attained without having cultivated the right conditions. 15098 From: Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 11:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] rupas out there Hi, Jon - In a message dated 8/20/02 7:35:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > I see you are still keen to find a way to reconcile phenomenalism with the > dhamma ;-)). May I ask what you would see as being the consequence of > achieving, or not achieving, that reconciliation? > > ========================= The consequence would be a release of tension! ;-)) They both seem true to me and mutually supportive. I would prefer not having to "give up" phenomenalism, as it helps me to understand the Dhamma, and, as a mathematician, I find it "lovely". So what's it all about? Why, clinging, of course, Jon! That's the bottom line. (But you knew that!! ;-)) 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) 15099 From: yuzhonghao Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 3:36pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Let go Hi Christine, In understanding what the Buddha taught: "Form is not self. Form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self.'" the word "self" is to be seen as a reflexive pronoun, without making any assumption on what self is. I hope I have answered your question. I don't think frustration can be fun. Otherwise, I would frustrate myself everyday. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > I have included my understanding from the scriptures and from > teachers in my posts over the last week. > I think the frustration at the centre of this discussion is that a > number of us have asked you to clearly state what you consider to be > the meaning of the Buddha's teaching on anatta and his use of the > term self, and have failed to elicit this from you. > In post no. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/15006, I > stated: > "I just realised Victor that nearly every time you > post on the question of 'self' 'non-self' or 'anatta', you either > post hyperlinks to suttas with no discussion, or you pose questions > as a reply and don't respond to many questions put to yourself. I am > not going to answer a series of leading questions out of the > very little knowledge I have, but I would be deeply interested in > hearing what your understanding is, and learning from it. You have > alluded to a strongly held knowledge on the subject of anatta, but I > have never yet seen it articulated. I hope you will do so as I > believe it could be very helpful for us all to hear it I would hope > you feel moved to write a few paragraphs on what your position is. > In this instance, as you commented very strongly on Robert's post, it > would be a courtesy, and very interesting for us all if you would > give an explanation of your thoughts on the matter." > > And so, 86 posts later, at post no. 15092, we are still marching on > the same spot. > > I think this is another case of "I asked you first?" :):) > > It's been fun, but I have to go to work now. > Best wishes, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > > Hi Christine, > > > > What do you think the word "self" mean? What is the colloquial > > meaning of the word "self"? How did the Buddha use the word "self" > > as recorded in Anatta-lakkhana Sutta and other discourses? > > > > Metta, > > Victor 15100 From: Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 11:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Howard & Rita with our best wishes Hi, Sarah (and Jon) - In a message dated 8/20/02 7:45:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Dear Howard & Rita, > > I know you're out of town but I hope you may check in to receive our best > wishes for your wedding anniversary today (35th, I believe)and for many > more happy years together.We know it's a special day for you. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I did have just a second yesterday (the 20th), between sessions at the conference, to ck my e-mail and see that you had written, but I couldn't get to read it until now. Thank you!! ------------------------------------------------------ > > When we got married in England, Ven Saddhatissa gave us a blessing and > discussed the 'Different Kinds of Marriages' (AN, Bk of 4s,53 p94 > B.Bodhi's anthology: > ***** > > "Householders, there are these four kinds of marriages. What four? A > wretch lives together with a wretch; a wretch lives together with a > godess; a god lives together with a wretch; a god lives together with a > goddess." > > A wretch is described as one "who destroys life, takes what is not given, > engages in sexual misconduct, speaks falsely, and indulges in wines, > liquor and intoxicants which are a basis for negligence; he is immoral, > of bad character; he dwells at home with a heart obsessed by the stain of > stinginess; he abuses and reviles ascetics and brahmins." > > A god or goddess, on the otherhand, is described as one who "abstains from > the destruction of life.....from wines, liquor and intoxicants;(s)he is > virtuous, of good character; (s)he dwells at home with a heart free from > the stain of stinginess; (s)he does not abuse or revile ascetics and > brahmins." > ***** > I know you have a good example of the 4th kind of marriage mentioned above > and may we all learn to live a little more like 'gods and goddesses'. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, we come *close* to type 4 - maybe type 3.95!! ;-)) --------------------------------------------------------- > > metta, > > Sarah (& Jon) > > p.s > I know, Howard, you'll be particularly happy to know we just returned from > a very pleasant afternoon with Erik and Eath at their home up on the side > of a mountain. They live simply but healthily and both are looking very > contented and relaxed. Eath now speaks very fluent English and offered us > beautiful fruits and tea. She told us how she doesn't judge people by > their age, nationality or the colour of their hair, but only by 'heart'. > In other words, the 'inside' is what counts. Thank you Eath. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: How wonderful! I am, indeed, happy to hear this. Thanks, Sarah! ---------------------------------------------------- > > We had useful discussions on some favourite themes with Erik -- > mindfulness in daily life, concentration, practice, conventional and > ultimate realities and quite a bit on lobha (attachment). We discussed > lobha for results in practice, lobha for kusala( wholesome) states and one > more area that was particularly helpful for me in light of some recent > difficulties. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Sorry that you've had difficulties. There's just no way we can escape them. ------------------------------------------------ This was with regard to attachment to harmony in> > relationships and friendships and attachment to helping others in trouble. > Erik gave me many good pointers from his own experience and study and > always gives good reminders that we can only ever know our 'own' citta at > this moment as opposed to others' cittas which can only be the subject of > speculation or inference. Finally we discussed different realities whilst > falling over - hearing, sound, hardness, mana, dosa and so on. Hopefully > we'll continue over breakfast at our hotel on Thursday. > > Finding an internet cafe in Samui that doesn't have a loud TV blaring, > doesn't lose posts sent or lose the connection every 5 mins has not been > easy.....I'd better sign off before I push my luck too far;-) > > Appreciating all the fine posts, > > More next week, > > Sarah > ============================ With much metta and genuine thanks from both Rita and me, 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) 15101 From: Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 4:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness of Breathing, hindrances and concentration. Dear Nina, Could we at least say that insight could arise at any time, even while attempting to practice jhana? Incidentally, it occured to me that panna that cognizes an object as not self does not count as insight into the tilakkhana unless the object could be seen as me or mine. For example, to observe that the breath is impermanent and not self is not insight unless it is also seen that there is, or could be, a belief that the breath is me or mine. The "me or mine" adds the element of dukkha that makes it insight. Correct? Larry 15102 From: Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 4:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 21 (3) ADL 21 (3): 4 brahma-viharas (divine abidings) comprising: lovingkindness (metta), compassion (karuna), altruistic joy (mudita) and equanimity (upekkha) which, in this case, is not upekkha vedana or neutral feeling, but the wholesome cetasika which is tatramajjhattata. ---------------- Hi all, in case you are curious, here is the definition of tatramajjhattata from Vism. XIV 153: Specific neutrality (tatra-majjhattata--lit. 'neutrality in regard thereto') is neutrality (majjhattata) in regard to those states [of consciousness and consciousness-concomitants arisen in association with it]. It has the characteristic of conveying consciousness and consciousness-concomitants evenly. Its function is to prevent deficiency and excess, or its function is to inhibit partiality. It is manifested as neutrality. It should be regarded as like a conductor (driver) who looks with equanimity on thoroughbreds progressing evenly. 15103 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 5:17pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Four Sublime States Dear Rob M, > -----Original Message----- > From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > > Dear Rob M, > > I would be interested in hearing more about the practice of > radiating metta > > and karuna (etc) to other beings. What do you think are relevant > > references? When can we do it? Why would we want to do? How do > we do it? > > What are the causes and conditions for such events? > > > > kom > > I summarized the writings in a BPS Wheel publication 365 on the > subject of Metta in my class notes (available in the Files section) > pages 94-101 and added some of my own ideas on page 102 of my class > notes. The full Wheel publication is at: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel365.html > > Pages 104-107 of my class notes summarizes Gregory Kramer's > experience of sharing Metta meditation with his children. Full text > available at > http://www.buddhanet.net/imol/lovkids.htm > > As for meditating on karuna, mudita, etc., I found references in > Wheel Publication #6 (Four Sublime States by Nyanaponika Thera) > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel006.html > > The September version of my class notes will include a summary of > this material. > > Kom, did I address your questions? > I would say, given the scope of the subject, it will take a while to get the answers for the quetions, so I will have to ask you to be patient with me on this one. The first and third links look promising: they have many references that can be checked and studied in details. Your study materials understandably don't have specific references, but I think I have the benefits of the author available to answer the questions! I want to look at your materials first, and will get back to you with some more questions. I will digest the other two references slowly... kom 15104 From: robmoult Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 5:19pm Subject: Upekkha vs. Tatramajjhattata (was Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 21 (3)) Hi All, What is the difference difference between upekkha and tatramajjhattata? Thanks, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > ADL 21 (3): 4 brahma-viharas (divine abidings) comprising: > lovingkindness (metta), compassion (karuna), altruistic joy (mudita) and > equanimity (upekkha) which, in this case, is not upekkha vedana or > neutral feeling, but the wholesome cetasika which is tatramajjhattata. > ---------------- > Hi all, in case you are curious, here is the definition of > tatramajjhattata from Vism. XIV 153: > > Specific neutrality (tatra-majjhattata--lit. 'neutrality in regard > thereto') is neutrality (majjhattata) in regard to those states [of > consciousness and consciousness-concomitants arisen in association with > it]. It has the characteristic of conveying consciousness and > consciousness-concomitants evenly. Its function is to prevent deficiency > and excess, or its function is to inhibit partiality. It is manifested > as neutrality. It should be regarded as like a conductor (driver) who > looks with equanimity on thoroughbreds progressing evenly. 15105 From: Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 2:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pernicious view Hi, Stephen (and Robert, Christine, Victor, and all) - Gosh, I like this post of yours! First of all, I've been a fan of Kalupahana for quite a while. Also, at one point in the following you sound dangerously close to being a phenomenalist! ;-)) This is where you write "I reject the search for ultimate realities, for something hidden under experience, both within (atta) and without (sabhava dhamma)." I had written something quite close to this at one point to the effect of reifying neither subject nor object. (There is the mere subject and the mere object - the mere seeing and the merely seen, the mere hearing and the merely heard, etc.) I don't, however, *completely* agree with the final assertion of yours. There is a moral agent only conventionally, only in a manner of speaking. However, speaking of a moral agent is not complete nonsense either. Though no "true and real being" puts a sword through another, there is yet pain and suffering resulting from what we conventionally call "the killing if a sentient being by a sentient being", and this is not "good". Moreover, such kamma (the killing of a sentient being) results in painful kamma vipaka in the mindstream we conventionally refer to as "the perpetrator" as well. We go to extremes, avoiding the middle way. One mistake we make lies, I think, not in saying that conventional objects fail to be ultimate existents, but in saying that they have no reality at all and that all statements about them are meaningless. Conventional objects that are the named, intended referents of well grounded concepts are quite meaningfully talked about, because those concepts are knowledge-packed mental shorthand for intricate networks of interrelated, directly apprehended "realities". It is one extreme to believe that these conventional objects are complete fictions, and another extreme to think that they are fundamental realities - true, separate, and self-existent "things". With metta, Howard In a message dated 8/21/02 2:53:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, oreznoone@a... writes: > > Hello Robert, Christine, Victor, all > If I may jump back into this discussion I'd like attempt to disentangle > anatta from the other threads, especially whether beings exist. > Robert asked if I agreed with: > >"There is no doer of the deed, > >Or one who reaps the deed's result." VM XIX 19 > >"The mental (nama) and material (rupa) are really here, > >But here there is no human being to be found..." VM > The first, yes, in a way, but not the second. > The Buddha denied a self under certain descriptions, and these have been > clearly stated. For instance, in the Bhikkhu Bodhi quote, four: 1. The > idea > of duration or lastingness; 2. Simplicity, incomposite entity; 3. > Unconditioned; 4. Susceptibility to control. (Though on #4 what the Buddha > said: one can't just, e.g., will to be handsome or healthy, not the > uncontrollability of flashes of consciousness.) Or, in another post, on > what > the teachings deny: " A substantial ego entity, a lasting subject existing > at > the core of the psycho-physical personality." This is anatta, and I > completely agree. But there is a self that doesn't have these properties, > one > that is conditioned, and changing or insubstantial, and composite. > In rejecting a permanent substratum the Buddha was not rejecting the idea > of > a continuing being. This concept is necessary to distinguish one stream of > being/consciousness from another, to account for the unity of personality > within a stream, and (key) as an agent of moral action*. This person is a > flux of conditioned processes, not a substantial entity or soul; so we can > say that such a person is a conventional usage. The self is the functional > unity of the five aggregates. > I reject the search for ultimate realities, for something hidden under > experience, both within (atta) and without (sabhava dhamma). ("The Buddha > did > not analyze experience into discrete entities or momentary impressions and > then try to find a way of unifying them. Such an enterprise was undertaken > by > his misguided disciples a few centuries later..." Kalupahana, The > Principles > of Buddhist Psychology, p. 22) So you can see that I agree with the first > but, in accepting various and sundry beings, have problems with the second. > >If that situation is analyzed there was really no Buddha or Rahula. > Yes, there is; one should just not be deceived about what they are. > (I also have problems with positing two fundamental modes of being, > material > and mental stuff, nama and rupa; with Cartesian dualism.) > (Further, I find the entire project of distinguishing paramattha dhammas / > pure experiences from panatti / concepts dubious at best. To quote > Kalupahana > again: "Each one of our perceptions constitutes a mixed bag of memories, > concepts, and dispositions as well as the material elements...A pure > percept > undiluted by such conditions is not recognized by the Buddha or any > subsequent Buddhist psychologist who has remained faithful to the Buddha. A > > pure percept is as metaphysical as a pure a priori category." p. 18) > We are so far apart it's no wonder you didn't understand my position. > Perhaps, hopefully, we agree on anatta. > Otherwise I hope your trip to Bangkok is going well and that you are in > good > health and spirits. > metta, stephen > *As I argued before, when this thread was focused on free will, one can't > build a moral agent out of paramattha dhammas. It's simply no good to say > it's mundanely or conventionally true, but in actuality false. Victor's > example of killing is exactly right; with no beings, it's just rupas > penetrating rupas. > /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) 15106 From: bodhi2500 Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 6:09pm Subject: Re: Perfections, Ch IV, Renunciation, no 6./Sati Hi I would like to thank Andrew for his hospitality on the SEQLD,DSG weekend. It was great to meet some of the DSGers and others interested in the Abhidhamma. I also recieved a hard copy of Nina's "Abhidhamma in daily life". Thanks to all involved. Looking forward to the next get together. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Perfections, Ch IV, Renunciation, no 6. > Footnote; > 6. Each kusala citta is accompanied by sati that is heedful, non- forgetful > of what is kusala. Thus, there are many levels of sati: sati of dåna, of > síla, of samatha and of satipatthåna. Sati of satipttìhåna is non- forgetful > of the characteristic of reality, nåma or rúpa, that appears. Could someone please explain the differance between, Sati and Sammaasati. My understanding is that Sati arises with all kusala citta's (all kusala citta's?) and Sammaasati is a magga moment? Is this correct? Also what would be a example of micchaasati? Is micchasati a cetasika? Thanks Steve 15107 From: Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 2:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: rupas out there Hi, Stephen - In a message dated 8/21/02 2:54:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, oreznoone@a... writes: > > Hello Howard, Jon, > > >Howard: To me, however, "existence" implies the actuality or > > > possibility of being experienced. > How so? > Bees can see the ultraviolet patterns on flowers, sharks can sense electric > > currents in water, and such; we can't. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: So? ------------------------------------------------ Now all these things can be > > 'experienced' indirectly (say by using film that will record ultraviolet > light then printing it on paper that translates this into the slice of the > spectrum we can see). This commonplace is relevant if you mean to limit > 'existence' to only things that can be experienced directly (as a > paramattha > dhamma and not pannatti?). ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I never said that *I* needed to experience everything. ------------------------------------------------------- > That is, I see your project as identifying a > sense-datum (phenomenalism) with a dhamma (Buddhadhamma). Is this correct? > The Buddha was certainly an empiricist. But the above is a statement of the > > core principle of Logical Positivism, which was never able to give a > coherent > account of the Verification Principle (that kept out metaphysics, i.e., > pannatti ;-). Do you mean to go down this road? > [How would one experience the statement "Existence implies the actuality or > > possibility of being experienced." --or is it unreal?] > "[The] programme of translating talk about physical objects and their > locations into talk about possible experiences...is widely supposed to have > > failed, and the priority the approach gives to experience has been much > criticized. It is more common in contemporary philosophy to see experience > as > itself a construct from the actual way of the world rather than the other > way > around." Phenomenalism, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy" This, > incidentally, is essentially a restatement of my previous post where I > argued > that one can't construct the world (specifically of free choice and ethics) > > out of paramattha dhammas. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know, Stephen. I think that is exactly what we do all the time! (But I'm no philosopher.) ---------------------------------------------------- > metta, stephen > > ========================= 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) 15108 From: Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 2:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go Hi, Victor - You give questions. You act as "the teacher" using the Socratic method. But we can all be teachers here and we can all be students. Why not give answers as well as questions. Many of us would like to be clearer on what you mean/believe, and we would be very happy if you were to straight-out say what that might be. With metta, Howard In a message dated 8/21/02 5:57:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, victoryu@s... writes: > > Hi Christine, > > I would suggest examining the criterion for accepting what the > word "self" mean. > > Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon > tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon > surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a > bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's > seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our > teacher.' > > Christine, when you yourself know: 'These things are good; these > things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; > undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' > enter on and abide in them. > > Examine very closely the assumption "self is a complex combination of > material and mental processes" or the assumption "self is a residual > entity" or the assumption "self is psychological entities or agents > inside the person." > > Are these assumptions good? Are they not blamable? Are they praised > by the wise? Undertaken and observed, do they lead to benefit and > happiness? > > How did the Buddha used the word "self"? When teaching, did he use > the word "self" as reflexive pronoun without any assumption? > > Is using the word "self" as reflexive pronoun without any assumption > bad? Is it blamable? Is it praised by the wise? Undertaken and > observed, does it lead to harm and ill? > > Metta, > Victor > /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) 15109 From: robmoult Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 7:22pm Subject: Re: Perfections, Ch IV, Renunciation, no 6./Sati Hi Steve, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "bodhi2500" wrote: > Could someone please explain the differance between, Sati and > Sammaasati. > My understanding is that Sati arises with all kusala citta's (all > kusala citta's?) and Sammaasati is a magga moment? Is this correct? > Also what would be a example of micchaasati? Is micchasati a cetasika? "Sammasati" is "Right Mindfulness", the seventh factor of the Eightfold Noble Path. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/s-sati1.htm http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/waytoend.html By "magga moment", I assume you mean the instantaneous magga-citta that occurs when one reaches a stage of enlightenment (followed by phala-citta, fruit consciousness). In our cycles of existence, we will only experience four magga-cittas (if we work really, really, really hard): one when we achieve sotapanna, one when we achieve sakadagami, one when we achieve anagami and one when we achieve arahanthood. Magga-cittas are beyond the Noble Eightfold path; once the Noble Eightfold path is perfected, it is used as an instrument to develop wisdom and achive these ariyan states. Sati, as a cetasika, arises with every kusala citta. When sati appears as a path factor, it is also supported by the other path factors. In other words, anybody can do dana, and when they do so, there is a moment that includes sati. This type of sati is not a path factor because it is not supported by Right View, etc. In brief, sammasati is a special form of sati (when applied as part of the Noble Eightfold Path) and magga-citta is another subject entirely. I found one reference to micchasati on line: "Therefore one can deduce from methods of practice which one is not the development of panna that studies and notes the characteristics of nama-dhamma and rupa-dhamma, but an attempt to do something different from what is actually the normal daily life. That path is micchamagga comprising micchaditthi, micchasankappa, micchavaca, micchakammanta, micchaajiva, micchavayama, micchasati and micchasamadhi, not sammamagga, which is the development of sati- patthana, vipassana." http://www.dhammastudy.com/paramat3.html My "Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines" defines micchasati as part of the 'Eightfold Wrong Path' and states that it is bound to all akusala cittas. Micchasati is not a cetasika. My interpretation is that it would be closely linked with pananca, the layers of mental elaboration, embellishment, or conceptual proliferation that the latent defilements add to "actual reality" (that which sati is aware of) to create perceived reality. Steve, I hope that this helps. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15110 From: yuzhonghao Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 7:47pm Subject: Re: Pernicious view Hi, Howard, Let me put forth some questions: What is the difference between human being and the true and real human being? How would you speak ultimately about a sentient being killing sentient being? Would you say that ultimately, there is no sentient being, no killing? Would you say that conventionally, there was Holocaust, but ultimately, there was none? Would you say conventionally there is moral agent but ultimately there is none? You said that speaking of moral agent is not completely nonsense, is it partly nonsense? Would you say that conventionally one reaps the consequence of his or her action but ultimately there is no one that reaps the result his or her own action? What would you say about killing ultimately? Is it ultimately "good", "bad", neither "good" nor "bad"? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Stephen (and Robert, Christine, Victor, and all) - > > Gosh, I like this post of yours! First of all, I've been a fan of > Kalupahana for quite a while. Also, at one point in the following you sound > dangerously close to being a phenomenalist! ;-)) This is where you write "I > reject the search for ultimate realities, for something hidden under > experience, both within (atta) and without (sabhava dhamma)." I had written > something quite close to this at one point to the effect of reifying neither > subject nor object. (There is the mere subject and the mere object - the mere > seeing and the merely seen, the mere hearing and the merely heard, etc.) > I don't, however, *completely* agree with the final assertion of > yours. There is a moral agent only conventionally, only in a manner of > speaking. However, speaking of a moral agent is not complete nonsense either. > Though no "true and real being" puts a sword through another, there is yet > pain and suffering resulting from what we conventionally call "the killing if > a sentient being by a sentient being", and this is not "good". Moreover, such > kamma (the killing of a sentient being) results in painful kamma vipaka in > the mindstream we conventionally refer to as "the perpetrator" as well. > We go to extremes, avoiding the middle way. One mistake we make lies, > I think, not in saying that conventional objects fail to be ultimate > existents, but in saying that they have no reality at all and that all > statements about them are meaningless. Conventional objects that are the > named, intended referents of well grounded concepts are quite meaningfully > talked about, because those concepts are knowledge-packed mental shorthand > for intricate networks of interrelated, directly apprehended "realities". It > is one extreme to believe that these conventional objects are complete > fictions, and another extreme to think that they are fundamental realities - > true, separate, and self-existent "things". > > With metta, > Howard 15111 From: Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 4:15pm Subject: Re: Pernicious view Hello Victor, Your position confuses me; it *appears* to be an untenable middle ground. On one hand you have clearly stated that there are beings, especially human beings, as the agents of moral responsibility. But, on the other hand, that one should have no theory whatsoever about the concept 'self.' Now why shouldn't we simply call a human being a 'person' or 'self,' as long as it's understood this refers to a process, not an unchanging Self? This, I believe, is just what the Buddha did. Do this and come over to my side, the loyal opposition. On the other hand if you reject using 'self' in this manner how do you justify using human being and such; these are also simply the names of dynamic processes. Same deal. So, to be consistent, reject the use of 'beings' and go over to the dark side ;-) I don't see how you can have it both ways. Can you clarify this? metta, stephen 15112 From: Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 4:39pm Subject: Re: Let go Hello Christine, (from Silananada—downloaded his article, I'll read it as possible. Thank you.) >However on the conventional level, the workings of these forces, >elements, and states are organized by causal laws, and, although they >in no way constitute any extra-phenomenal self or soul, they do >produce a human individual, a person - if we want to call a certain >combination of material and mental processes a person. Why wouldn't one say that's exactly what a person or self is? A dynamic continuum. For two reasons, both metaphysical searches for ultimate realities. 1. (atta) Someone is looking for a Self, some unconditioned and substantial entity. We all agree this is wrong. 2. One has a theory of elemental bits of reality (dhammas). >Common everyday conceptions, >such as ego, self, and personality seem to be very real, obvious, and >well-defined by psychologists and laymen alike, but they are, on the >absolute level and in the eyes of those who have achieved >enlightenment, illusory. In what possible sense "illusory?" Table and trees are the paradigm cases by which terms such as 'real' and 'solid' are defined. Lets suppose they are made of parts; this has no consequences as (probably) everything is. Everything is conditioned (well, save one). Let me ask you for some examples of paramattha dhammas, these putative elementary things. If everything is made of them it's odd no one seems to know, or at least say, precisely what they are. I would suggest that any nama is going to turn out to be composite and not ultimate. If it's color it's going to be extended, not a point; so it has parts. And is dependent on photons, neuronal stim, etc. A salty taste consists of sodium chloride, which is made of two types of elements, which are made of leptons (electrons) and hadrons (protons, neutrons), the latter being made of quarks, which may be made of strings...So mental dhammas aren't elementary; so they aren't really real? (I really have no idea what ultimately real, means, in distinction to the everyday world; or in what possible sense it could be illusory or not real.) What if it's Chinese boxes ad infinitum? metta, stephen 15113 From: yuzhonghao Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 8:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Let go Hi, Howard, Instead of giving my answers to the questions below now, I would like you to come up with your answers, if you want to answer them at all. Given the assumption "self is a complex combination of material and mental processes", the assumption "self is a residual entity", and the assumption "self is psychological entities or agents inside the person." Q1) Are these assumptions good? Q2) Are they not blamable? Q3) Are they praised by the wise? Q4) Undertaken and observed, do they lead to benefit and happiness? Q5) How did the Buddha used the word "self"? Q6) When teaching, did he use the word "self" as reflexive pronoun without any assumption? Q7) Is using the word "self" as reflexive pronoun without any assumption bad? Q8) Is it blamable? Q9) Is it censured* by the wise? Q10) Undertaken and observed, does it lead to harm and ill? Metta, Victor * In the original message, I had the word "praised" in place of the word "censured" --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > You give questions. You act as "the teacher" using the Socratic > method. But we can all be teachers here and we can all be students. Why not > give answers as well as questions. Many of us would like to be clearer on > what you mean/believe, and we would be very happy if you were to straight-out > say what that might be. > > With metta, > Howard 15114 From: Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 9:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections, Ch IV, Renunciation, no 6./Sati Hi Steve and Rob, In a brief conversation with Kom about miccha magga he said miccha sati is lobha. Larry 15115 From: robmoult Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 9:20pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Let go Hi Victor, I have been silent on this ongoing stream because I am still trying to figure this anatta thing out myself. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that that many of the questions that you are asking below were taken from the Kalama Sutta. Here is part of Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary on the Kamala Sutta (full commentary at http://www.buddhistinformation.com/lecture_on_the_kalama_sutra.htm ) Now this passage, like everything else spoken by the Buddha, has been stated in a specific context -- with a particular audience and situation in view -- and thus must be understood in relation to that context. The Kalamas, citizens of the town of Kesaputta, had been visited by religious teachers of divergent views, each of whom would propound his own doctrines and tear down the doctrines of his predecessors. This left the Kalamas perplexed, and thus when "the recluse Gotama," reputed to be an Awakened One, arrived in their township, they approached him in the hope that he might be able to dispel their confusion. From the subsequent development of the Sutta, it is clear that the issues that perplexed them were the reality of rebirth and kammic retribution for good and evil deeds. In brief, I am not sure that the Buddha held up these questions to be used as the litmus test for all aspects of the Dhamma as you are applying them to anatta. Nonetheless, I don't have any better questions and I certainly don't have any answers on anatta. Thanks, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > Q1) Are these assumptions good? > > Q2) Are they not blamable? > > Q3) Are they praised by the wise? > > Q4) Undertaken and observed, do they lead to benefit and happiness? > > Q5) How did the Buddha used the word "self"? > > Q6) When teaching, did he use the word "self" as reflexive pronoun > without any assumption? > > Q7) Is using the word "self" as reflexive pronoun without any > assumption bad? > > Q8) Is it blamable? > > Q9) Is it censured* by the wise? > > Q10) Undertaken and observed, does it lead to harm and ill? 15116 From: Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 9:40pm Subject: Re: Upekkha vs. Tatramajjhattata (was Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 21 (3)) Hi Rob, According to Ven. Nyanatiloka upekkha as indifferent feeling is 'adukkha-m-asukha vedana'. So upekkha vedana is indifferent, doesn't care, while upekkha sankhara (tatramajjhattata) functions to "prevent deficiency and excess, or its function is to inhibit partiality". Larry ------------------- Rob: " Hi All, What is the difference between upekkha and tatramajjhattata? Thanks, Rob M :-)" 15117 From: robmoult Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 9:50pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Perfections, Ch IV, Renunciation, no 6./Sati Hi Larry, Hmmm.. interesting. Please help me to understand better. Miccha = wrong, Sati = mindfulness The paramattha (object of mindfulness) would become 'wrong' when it is corrupted, covered over by papanca; an action of one of the latent defilements. The latent defilement of sensuous desire would corrupt the paramattha object to allow lobha to arise. The latent defilement of ill will would corrupt the paramattha object to allow dosa to arise. The latent defilements of sloth & torpor, reslessness & worry and doubt would corrupt the paramattha object to allow moha to arise. Only wise attention (yoniso manasikara), which sees things as they truly are (and therefore is not part of 'wrong' mindfulness) will give rise to a beautiful citta. This covering over of the paramattha object caused by the latent defilements creates papanca (the covering). The covering (papanca) covers over and distorts the paramattha object as a layer of clouds obscures the moon, and creates a percieved reality which the defilement can hook into to come to the surface and direct the Votthapana citta. The optimist sees the glass as half full, the pessismist sees the glass as half empty. The mindful person sees no glass, no water, only visible object. Is it possible that Kom was giving one example of the result of miccha magga? Larry (and others), I have pieced the above together from a number of places, so I am not going to swear that it is 100% correct. I would appreciate anybody setting me right if I am confused. Thanks, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Steve and Rob, > > In a brief conversation with Kom about miccha magga he said miccha sati > is lobha. > > Larry 15118 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 1:04am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Perfections, Ch IV, Renunciation, no 6./Sati Dear Rob & Larry, I think Larry understood what I said right, where I equated micha-sati to lobha. Unfortunately, I can't find any references to back this up. There are commentaries in the sutta and abhidhamma that equate Micha-sati with akusala citta (and cetasikas?) in general though. In MN8, Sallekha Sutta, the brief discussion of micha-sati is this (translated from Thai commentaries...): [begin translation] In truth, Micha-sati is like micha-sangappa, it is not specific to a particular dhamma, but it is a name for the 4 akusala kandha, which arises in one who thinks of the past(???). When the Buddha said, "Bikkhu, the Tatagatha said that there is sati (micha), not that there isn't. There is sati in those who thinks of gaining sons, gaining properties and gaining honors". The Buddha meant the arising of the fake (artificial, untrue, etc.) sati. [end translation] In Pathamasamantapasatika, the commentaries to Suttanta pitakas, KN, Patisambhida magga, Maha vagga, nanna gatha, it says: [begin translation] Micha-sati - wrong mindfulness which is akusala citta which is the enemy of sati. [end translation] So it appears to me that micha-sati, by the explanation of the commentaries, mean all the akusala states. Thanks for bringing this up again giving me a chance to look. This gives me a good reminder that I should verify what I think the Buddha says! kom > -----Original Message----- > From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 9:50 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Perfections, Ch IV, > Renunciation, no 6./Sati > > > Hi Larry, > > Hmmm.. interesting. Please help me to understand better. > > Miccha = wrong, Sati = mindfulness 15119 From: bodhi2500 Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:08am Subject: [dsg] Re: Perfections, Ch IV, Renunciation, no 6./Sati Hi This is from Ven. Nyanatiloka's Manual of Buddhist Terms> "Miccha-sankappa,Miccha-vayama,Miccha-sati and Miccha-samadhi are inseparably bound up with every karmically unwholesome state of consciousness." Is this the "4 akusala khandha" that is talked about in the below post? Thanks for the replies. Steve --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Rob & Larry, > > I think Larry understood what I said right, where I equated > micha-sati to lobha. > > Unfortunately, I can't find any references to back this up. > There are commentaries in the sutta and abhidhamma that > equate Micha-sati with akusala citta (and cetasikas?) in > general though. > > In MN8, Sallekha Sutta, the brief discussion of micha-sati > is this (translated from Thai commentaries...): > > [begin translation] > In truth, Micha-sati is like micha-sangappa, it is not > specific to a particular dhamma, but it is a name for the 4 > akusala kandha, which arises in one who thinks of the > past(???). When the Buddha said, "Bikkhu, the Tatagatha > said that there is sati (micha), not that there isn't. > There is sati in those who thinks of gaining sons, gaining > properties and gaining honors". The Buddha meant the > arising of the fake (artificial, untrue, etc.) sati. > [end translation] > > In Pathamasamantapasatika, the commentaries to Suttanta > pitakas, KN, Patisambhida magga, Maha vagga, nanna gatha, it > says: > > [begin translation] > Micha-sati - wrong mindfulness which is akusala citta which > is the enemy of sati. > [end translation] > > So it appears to me that micha-sati, by the explanation of > the commentaries, mean all the akusala states. > > Thanks for bringing this up again giving me a chance to > look. This gives me a good reminder that I should verify > what I think the Buddha says! > > > kom > > -----Original Message----- > > From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 9:50 PM > > To: dhammastudygroup@y... > > Subject: [dsg] Re: Perfections, Ch IV, > > Renunciation, no 6./Sati > > > > > > Hi Larry, > > > > Hmmm.. interesting. Please help me to understand better. > > > > Miccha = wrong, Sati = mindfulness 15120 From: egberdina Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 6:01am Subject: Re: Let go Hi Stephen, Abhidhamma only makes sense as Abhidhamma, studied within the parameters of its domain, so to speak. The subject matter of the Abhidhamma is the "mechanics of the mind". Comparisons between Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, the periodic table of elements and Abhidhamma will add at least 33.2 aeons to your samsaric experience :-) I am about to score some brownie points with Howard here, and I do so unashamedly. Abhidhamma is pure phenomenology. I stopped getting the shits with Abhidhamma once I realised the limits and extent of it's subject matter. And then, yes, the irreducibles, the parramatha dhammas, make an awful lot of sense. I do not doubt that from within other systems of thought colour, taste, sound, smell etc can be further broken down, but limited to the study of raw experience I think the parramattha dhammas are pretty spot on. My opinion only, of course :-) (My kids enjoyed their stay at LA. Thanks.) Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., oreznoone@a... wrote: > Hello Christine, > > (from Silananadaâ€"downloaded his article, I'll read it as possible. Thank you.) > >However on the conventional level, the workings of these forces, > > >elements, and states are organized by causal laws, and, although they > > >in no way constitute any extra-phenomenal self or soul, they do > > >produce a human individual, a person - if we want to call a certain > > >combination of material and mental processes a person. > Why wouldn't one say that's exactly what a person or self is? A dynamic > continuum. > For two reasons, both metaphysical searches for ultimate realities. > 1. (atta) Someone is looking for a Self, some unconditioned and substantial > entity. We all agree this is wrong. > 2. One has a theory of elemental bits of reality (dhammas). > > >Common everyday conceptions, > > >such as ego, self, and personality seem to be very real, obvious, and > > >well-defined by psychologists and laymen alike, but they are, on the > > >absolute level and in the eyes of those who have achieved > > >enlightenment, illusory. > In what possible sense "illusory?" Table and trees are the paradigm cases by > which terms such as 'real' and 'solid' are defined. Lets suppose they are > made of parts; this has no consequences as (probably) everything is. > Everything is conditioned (well, save one). > > Let me ask you for some examples of paramattha dhammas, these putative > elementary things. If everything is made of them it's odd no one seems to > know, or at least say, precisely what they are. I would suggest that any nama > is going to turn out to be composite and not ultimate. If it's color it's > going to be extended, not a point; so it has parts. And is dependent on > photons, neuronal stim, etc. A salty taste consists of sodium chloride, which > is made of two types of elements, which are made of leptons (electrons) and > hadrons (protons, neutrons), the latter being made of quarks, which may be > made of strings...So mental dhammas aren't elementary; so they aren't really > real? (I really have no idea what ultimately real, means, in distinction to > the everyday world; or in what possible sense it could be illusory or not > real.) What if it's Chinese boxes ad infinitum? > metta, stephen 15121 From: Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pernicious view Hi, Victor (and Stephen) - In a message dated 8/21/02 10:47:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, victoryu@s... writes: > > Hi, Howard, > > Let me put forth some questions: > What is the difference between human being and the true and real > human being? How would you speak ultimately about a sentient being > killing sentient being? Would you say that ultimately, there is no > sentient being, no killing? Would you say that conventionally, there > was Holocaust, but ultimately, there was none? Would you say > conventionally there is moral agent but ultimately there is none? > You said that speaking of moral agent is not completely nonsense, is > it partly nonsense? Would you say that conventionally one reaps the > consequence of his or her action but ultimately there is no one that > reaps the result his or her own action? What would you say about > killing ultimately? Is it ultimately "good", "bad", neither "good" > nor "bad"? > > Metta, > Victor > ================================ Let *me* put forth some questions. First of all, I put to you exactly the questions you put to me, and with the request that you indicate your opinions/understanding by assertions instead of further questions. More generally, I ask you whether you believe that 'truth' has only one sense? I ask you whether you think there is any difference between the way things actually are and the way we speak about them. In particular, I ask you whether you think there are any distinctions among the usages of 'self', and whether the Buddha condemned any of them. I ask you whether or not you think there might be *degrees* of reality, or whether all things are equally real. I could go on and on and on. There is virtually no end to the homework assignment I can give to you in the way of questions to answer. But would it not be more reasonable for us to bite off a small chunk of the question cake (along with all the ingredients, Stephen! ;-)) at a time, each of us state straight-out how we understand the issues and our take on them, and then continue in that fashion, interactively, so that we might actually come to learn something from the other (though not necessarily agreeing)? I know - that's another question!! ;-)) With metta, Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Stephen (and Robert, Christine, Victor, and all) - > > > > Gosh, I like this post of yours! First of all, I've been a > fan of > > Kalupahana for quite a while. Also, at one point in the following > you sound > > dangerously close to being a phenomenalist! ;-)) This is where you > write "I > > reject the search for ultimate realities, for something hidden > under > > experience, both within (atta) and without (sabhava dhamma)." I had > written > > something quite close to this at one point to the effect of > reifying neither > > subject nor object. (There is the mere subject and the mere object - > the mere > > seeing and the merely seen, the mere hearing and the merely heard, > etc.) > > I don't, however, *completely* agree with the final > assertion of > > yours. There is a moral agent only conventionally, only in a manner > of > > speaking. However, speaking of a moral agent is not complete > nonsense either. > > Though no "true and real being" puts a sword through another, there > is yet > > pain and suffering resulting from what we conventionally call "the > killing if > > a sentient being by a sentient being", and this is not "good". > Moreover, such > > kamma (the killing of a sentient being) results in painful kamma > vipaka in > > the mindstream we conventionally refer to as "the perpetrator" as > well. > > We go to extremes, avoiding the middle way. One mistake we > make lies, > > I think, not in saying that conventional objects fail to be > ultimate > > existents, but in saying that they have no reality at all and that > all > > statements about them are meaningless. Conventional objects that > are the > > named, intended referents of well grounded concepts are quite > meaningfully > > talked about, because those concepts are knowledge-packed mental > shorthand > > for intricate networks of interrelated, directly > apprehended "realities". It > > is one extreme to believe that these conventional objects are > complete > > fictions, and another extreme to think that they are fundamental > realities - > > true, separate, and self-existent "things". > > > > 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) 15122 From: Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go Hi, Stephen - In a message dated 8/21/02 11:40:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, oreznoone@a... writes: > > Let me ask you for some examples of paramattha dhammas, these putative > elementary things. If everything is made of them it's odd no one seems to > know, or at least say, precisely what they are. I would suggest that any > nama > is going to turn out to be composite and not ultimate. If it's color it's > going to be extended, not a point; so it has parts. And is dependent on > photons, neuronal stim, etc. A salty taste consists of sodium chloride, > which > is made of two types of elements, which are made of leptons (electrons) and > > hadrons (protons, neutrons), the latter being made of quarks, which may be > made of strings...So mental dhammas aren't elementary; so they aren't > really > real? (I really have no idea what ultimately real, means, in distinction to > > the everyday world; or in what possible sense it could ============================== Just for the record, that would be just fine and dandy with me!! I have no commitment whatsoever to the particular inventory of "paramattha dhammas" given in the Abhidhamma nor to the principle that they are not further reducible. A thoroughgoing emptiness at levels beyond levels beyond levels, yet at the very same time being exactly "the world" of our experience, is very possibly the way things are, and bothers me not in the slightest. I do have a strong commitment (probably unshakeable) to both the tilakkhana and patticcasamuppada (sp?), and a (slightly less) strong commitment to phenomenalism and pragmatism. 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) 15123 From: robmoult Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 10:56am Subject: [dsg] Re: Perfections, Ch IV, Renunciation, no 6./Sati Hi Rob, YOU'RE WRONG!!! WRONG, I TELL YOU!!! Attachment to senses, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & worry and doubt are NOT "defilements"... they are "hindrances" to mental development (bhavana). It is ignorance (avijja), kammic disposition and current situation that determine the like / dislike / indifference toward an object. But if we have wise attention (yoniso manasikara), we can turn an unfavourable situation into kusala kamma. DON'T EVER LET ME CATCH YOU AGAIN MAKING A QUICK REPLY WITHOUT CHECKING YOUR SOURCES FIRST!!! OTHERWISE, I WILL BAN YOU FROM THIS DISCUSSION GROUP!!! Thanks, Rob :-( [My Mr. Hyde ;-)] --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Larry, > > Hmmm.. interesting. Please help me to understand better. > > Miccha = wrong, Sati = mindfulness > > The paramattha (object of mindfulness) would become 'wrong' when it > is corrupted, covered over by papanca; an action of one of the > latent defilements. The latent defilement of sensuous desire would > corrupt the paramattha object to allow lobha to arise. The latent > defilement of ill will would corrupt the paramattha object to allow > dosa to arise. The latent defilements of sloth & torpor, reslessness > & worry and doubt would corrupt the paramattha object to allow moha > to arise. Only wise attention (yoniso manasikara), which sees things > as they truly are (and therefore is not part of 'wrong' mindfulness) > will give rise to a beautiful citta. > > This covering over of the paramattha object caused by the latent > defilements creates papanca (the covering). The covering (papanca) > covers over and distorts the paramattha object as a layer of clouds > obscures the moon, and creates a percieved reality which the > defilement can hook into to come to the surface and direct the > Votthapana citta. > > The optimist sees the glass as half full, the pessismist sees the > glass as half empty. The mindful person sees no glass, no water, > only visible object. > > Is it possible that Kom was giving one example of the result of > miccha magga? > > Larry (and others), I have pieced the above together from a number > of places, so I am not going to swear that it is 100% correct. I > would appreciate anybody setting me right if I am confused. > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Hi Steve and Rob, > > > > In a brief conversation with Kom about miccha magga he said miccha > sati > > is lobha. > > > > Larry 15124 From: Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go Hi again, Victor - In a message dated 8/21/02 11:54:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, victoryu@s... writes: > > Hi, Howard, > > Instead of giving my answers to the questions below now, I would like > you to come up with your answers, if you want to answer them at all. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: So again you respond by giving questions. No, I really don't want to answer them. I think I have, over many posts, made my positon reasonably clear. As far as my ontological views are concerned, let me just say that I speak quite meaningfully about trees, tables, cars, and university curricula all the time without attributing essential existence to any of them and also without thinking that I'm talking total nonsense either. I see trees, tables, boxes of tissue paper - all the "things" of our day to day world as relatively real, but mind constructed. There is an objectivity to them, or, better, an intersubjectivity to them, because "we are all in this together"; that is, we share experiences (and relations among them), and we construct percepts/concepts from them in similar ways. To me, the notion that the soup that I am eating as I type in this message is a true, objective thing-in-itself, a core existent, with properties of liquidity, warmth, flavor, etc just does not ring true with me. But the co-occurrence of the experiences of liquidity, warmth, flavor, the patterned relations that exist among them, and the fact that what I experience is not foreign to what others can experience all do ring true to me. Moreover, while I have no problem talking of "the soup that I am eating as I type in this message" I don't understand that as you do or wish to. So be it. ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Given the assumption "self is a complex combination of > material and mental processes", the assumption "self is a residual > entity", and the assumption "self is psychological entities or agents > inside the person." > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I make no such assumptions. The word 'self' is used in various ways. The notion of 'self' that the Buddha took exception to was that of an unchanging, unconditioned, essence or core in, or associated with, the five khandhas. ------------------------------------------------------- > > Q1) Are these assumptions good? > > Q2) Are they not blamable? > > Q3) Are they praised by the wise? > > Q4) Undertaken and observed, do they lead to benefit and happiness? > > Q5) How did the Buddha used the word "self"? > > Q6) When teaching, did he use the word "self" as reflexive pronoun > without any assumption? > > Q7) Is using the word "self" as reflexive pronoun without any > assumption bad? > > Q8) Is it blamable? > > Q9) Is it censured* by the wise? > > Q10) Undertaken and observed, does it lead to harm and ill? > > > Metta, > Victor > > * In the original message, I had the word "praised" in place of the > word "censured" > ============================= With metta, Howard > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Victor - > > > > You give questions. You act as "the teacher" using the > Socratic > > method. But we can all be teachers here and we can all be students. > Why not > > give answers as well as questions. Many of us would like to be > clearer on > > what you mean/believe, and we would be very happy if you were to > straight-out > > say what that might be. > > > > 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) 15125 From: Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:02pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Perfections, Ch IV, Renunciation, no 6./Sati Hi all, Here's a coincidence. Four parts of miccha magga arise with every akusala state of consciousness: miccha-sankappa, miccha-vayama, miccha-sati, and miccha-samadhi. There are also four akusala universal cetasikas: delusion (moha), shamelessness (ahirika), fearlessness of wrong doing (anottappa), and restlessness (uddhacca). Larry 15126 From: yuzhonghao Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:37pm Subject: Re: Pernicious view Hi Stephen, First of all, I should say "there are beings" instead of "there is being". Second, the word "self" is to be used as a reflexive pronoun. When one thinks that there is self, the word "self" loses its usage as reflexive pronoun and becomes a something that needs to be defined/delineated, either in terms of the aggregates or any thing such as "residual entity", "psycho-physical entity", or "soul", or whatever. The view "there is self" reflects/presupposes the assumption of what self is. When one learns and studies one is said to be a student. When one teaches as profession, one is said to be a teacher. Regarding human being, I find the following very interesting and insightful: "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to be 'a being (satta).' "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications... "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' ~Satta Sutta The terms "student", "teacher", "human being" are used for one's identity. These terms are defined in terms of what one does, not what one is. However, when one delineates a student, a teacher, or a human being in terms of five aggregates or any other thing, he or she falls into self-view. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., oreznoone@a... wrote: > > Hello Victor, > Your position confuses me; it *appears* to be an untenable middle ground. On > one hand you have clearly stated that there are beings, especially human > beings, as the agents of moral responsibility. But, on the other hand, that > one should have no theory whatsoever about the concept 'self.' > Now why shouldn't we simply call a human being a 'person' or 'self,' as long > as it's understood this refers to a process, not an unchanging Self? This, I > believe, is just what the Buddha did. Do this and come over to my side, the > loyal opposition. > On the other hand if you reject using 'self' in this manner how do you > justify using human being and such; these are also simply the names of > dynamic processes. Same deal. So, to be consistent, reject the use of > 'beings' and go over to the dark side ;-) > I don't see how you can have it both ways. Can you clarify this? > metta, stephen 15127 From: Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:38pm Subject: ADL ch. 21 (4) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 21 (4) Not all meditation subjects lead to jhana, some have only 'access concentration' as their result, such as the recollections of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. Some meditation subjects lead only to the first stage of rupa-jhana {Both rupa-jhana (material jhana) and arupa-jhana (immaterial where the meditation subject is no longer dependent on materiality) developed in different stages of jhana. When one is more advanced, can attain a higher stage of jhana. Arupa-jhana is more refined than rupa-jhana }, some to all stages of rupa-jhana. The meditation subject which is 'mindfulness of breathing' can lead to all stages of rupa-jhana. This meditation subject which is considered by many to be relatively easy, is one of the most difficult. One has to be mindful of one's in-breath and out-breath where they touch the tip of the nose or the upper-lip. This meditation subject is not learnt by sight, but by touch: the in-breath and the out-breath are the 'sign' (nimitta) one has to continue one's attention to. We read in the 'Visuddhimagga' (VIII, 208): For while other meditation subjects become clearer at each higher stage, this one does not: in fact, as he goes on developing it, it becomes more subtle for him at each higher stage, and it even comes to the point at which it is no longer manifest. Further on (Vlll, 210, 211) we read: ... This was why the Blessed One said: 'Bhikkhus, I do not say of one who is forgetful, who is not fully aware, (that he practises) development of mindfulness of breathing.' (Middle Length Sayings III, No. 118, 84) Although any meditation subject, no matter what, is successful only in one who is mindful and fully aware, yet any meditation subject other than this one gets more evident as he goes on giving it his attention. But this mindfulness of breathing is difficult, difficult to develop, a field in which only the minds of Buddhas, Pacceka Buddhas, and Buddhas' sons are at home. It is no trivial matter, nor can it be cultivated by trivial persons. In proportion as continued attention is given to it it becomes more peaceful and more subtle. So strong mindfulness and understanding are necessary here. Mindfulness of breathing is very difficult, 'it is no trivial matter'. When one continues to be mindful of breathing, the in-breaths and out-breaths become more and more subtle and thus harder to notice. We just read in the quotation that strong mindfulness and understanding are necessary here. Not only in vipassana, but also in samatha, mindfulness (sati) and understanding (panna) are necessary but the object of awareness in samatha is different from the object of awareness in vipassana. In samatha the object of awareness is the meditation subject and the aim is to develop calm. In vipassana the object of awareness is any nama or rupa which appears at the present moment through one of the six doors, in order to eradicate the wrong view of self and eventually all defilements. Through samatha the latent tendencies of defilements are not eradicated; when there are conditions akusala cittas arise again. We read in the 'Gradual Sayings' (Book of the Sixes, Ch. VI, par. 6, Citta Hatthisariputta) that even the monk who can attain jhana, may 'disavow the training' and return to the layman's life. We read that when the Buddha stayed near Varanasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana, a number of 'elders' had a talk on Abhidhamma. Citta Hatthisariputta interrupted their talk from time to time. Maha Kotthita said to him: 'Let not the venerable Citta Hatthisariputta constantly interrupt the elders' Abhidhamma talk; the venerable Citta should wait until the talk is over!' And when he had thus spoken, Citta's friends said : 'The venerable Maha Kotthita should not censure the venerable Citta Hatthisariputta. A wise man is the venerable Citta and able to talk to the elders on Abhidhamma.' 'It is a hard thing, sirs, for those who know not another person's ways of thought. Consider, sirs, a person who, so long as he lives near the Master or a fellow-teacher in the brahman life, is the most humble of the humble, the meekest of the meek, the quietest of the quiet; and who, when he leaves the Master or his fellow-teachers, keeps company with monks, nuns, lay-disciples, men and women, rajahs, their ministers, course-setters or their disciples. Living in company, untrammeled, rude, given over to gossip, passion corrupts his heart; and with his heart corrupted by passion, he disavows the training and returns to the lower life. . . Consider again a person who, aloof from sensuous appetites... enters and abides in the first jhana. Thinking: 'I have won to the first jhana', he keeps company ...living in company, untrammeled, rude, given over to gossip, passion corrupts his heart; and with his heart corrupted by passion, he disavows the training and returns to the lower life...' The same is said about the other stages of jhana. We then read that Citta Hatthisariputta disavowed the training and returned to the lower life. But not long after that he 'went forth' (became a monk) again. We read: And the venerable Citta Hatthisariputta, living alone, secluded, earnest, ardent, resolved, not long after, entered and abode in that aim above all of the brahman life--realizing it here and now by his own knowledge--for the sake of which clansmen rightly go forth from home to the homeless life: and he knew: 'Birth is destroyed, the brahman life is lived, done is what was to be done, there is no more of this.' And the venerable Citta Hatthisariputta was numbered among the arahats. Even if one can attain the highest stage of jhana, one's heart can still become 'corrupted by passion', as we read in the sutta. When Citta Hatthisariputta had attained arahatship, he had realized the 'aim above all of the brahman life'. The hindrances could not arise any more. Through vipassana, hindrances are eradicated in the successive stages of enlightenment. The sotapanna (who has attained the first stage of enlightenment) has eradicated the hindrance which is doubt (vicikiccha); the anagami (who has attained the third stage of enlightenment) has eradicated the sensuous desire (kamacchandha), ill-will (vyapada) and worry (kukkucca); the arahat has eradicated sloth and torpor (thina and middha) and restlessness (uddhacca), he has eradicated all defilements. Questions 1. Which paramattha dhamma are the jhana-factors? 2. Which khandha is the jhana-factor which is piti (rapture)? 3. Which khandha is the jhana-factor which is sukha (pleasant feeling)? 4. When seeing now, is there ekaggata cetasika? What is its function? 5. What is the function of ekaggata cetasika which arises with the jhanacitta? What is its object? 6. What is the function of ekaggata cetasika arising with the panna (wisdom) of the Eightfold Path which realizes a characteristic of nama or rupa? What is its object at that moment? 7. Why is mindfulness of breathing one of the most difficult subjects of meditation? 8. What is the difference between samma-sati (right mindfulness) in samatha and samma-sati in vipassana? What are their respective objects of awareness? 9. If one only develops samatha and not vipassana, why can the hindrances not be eradicated? 15128 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 4:10pm Subject: Dhamma without abhidhamma : was: Pernicious view Dear Stephen, Did the Buddha teach anything you don't already know? In case that question sounds trivial or impertinent, I will try to explain my thinking: I once explained anatta to a friend of mine - a friend with no knowledge of Buddhism but with an education in science. He saw nothing new or extraordinary about it, and I had to agree with him. (Since atomism was replaced by quantum physics, there has been no serious, scientific belief in a self.) The difference between concepts and absolute realities though, had him completely stumped. He couldn't see past his, admittedly flawed, conventional view of the world. The Tathagatha's appearance in the world, together with the proclamation of his teaching, was an occasion like no other in history; I think it is said -- and I don't doubt it -- `the cosmos shook!' Without the explanation of absolute reality, what is there in the Buddha's teaching that is, even remotely, ground-breaking? Kind regards Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., oreznoone@a... wrote: > Hello Robert, Christine, Victor, all > If I may jump back into this discussion I'd like attempt to disentangle > anatta from the other threads, especially whether beings exist. > Robert asked if I agreed with: > >"There is no doer of the deed, > >Or one who reaps the deed's result." VM XIX 19 > >"The mental (nama) and material (rupa) are really here, > >But here there is no human being to be found..." VM > The first, yes, in a way, but not the second. > The Buddha denied a self under certain descriptions, and these have been > clearly stated. For instance, in the Bhikkhu Bodhi quote, four: 1. The idea > of duration or lastingness; 2. Simplicity, incomposite entity; 3. > Unconditioned; 4. Susceptibility to control. (Though on #4 what the Buddha > said: one can't just, e.g., will to be handsome or healthy, not the > uncontrollability of flashes of consciousness.) Or, in another post, on what > the teachings deny: " A substantial ego entity, a lasting subject existing at > the core of the psycho-physical personality." This is anatta, and I > completely agree. But there is a self that doesn't have these properties, one > that is conditioned, and changing or insubstantial, and composite. > In rejecting a permanent substratum the Buddha was not rejecting the idea of > a continuing being. This concept is necessary to distinguish one stream of > being/consciousness from another, to account for the unity of personality > within a stream, and (key) as an agent of moral action*. This person is a > flux of conditioned processes, not a substantial entity or soul; so we can > say that such a person is a conventional usage. The self is the functional > unity of the five aggregates. > I reject the search for ultimate realities, for something hidden under > experience, both within (atta) and without (sabhava dhamma). ("The Buddha did > not analyze experience into discrete entities or momentary impressions and > then try to find a way of unifying them. Such an enterprise was undertaken by > his misguided disciples a few centuries later..." Kalupahana, The Principles > of Buddhist Psychology, p. 22) So you can see that I agree with the first > but, in accepting various and sundry beings, have problems with the second. > >If that situation is analyzed there was really no Buddha or Rahula. > Yes, there is; one should just not be deceived about what they are. > (I also have problems with positing two fundamental modes of being, material > and mental stuff, nama and rupa; with Cartesian dualism.) > (Further, I find the entire project of distinguishing paramattha dhammas / > pure experiences from panatti / concepts dubious at best. To quote Kalupahana > again: "Each one of our perceptions constitutes a mixed bag of memories, > concepts, and dispositions as well as the material elements...A pure percept > undiluted by such conditions is not recognized by the Buddha or any > subsequent Buddhist psychologist who has remained faithful to the Buddha. A > pure percept is as metaphysical as a pure a priori category." p. 18) > We are so far apart it's no wonder you didn't understand my position. > Perhaps, hopefully, we agree on anatta. > Otherwise I hope your trip to Bangkok is going well and that you are in good > health and spirits. > metta, stephen > *As I argued before, when this thread was focused on free will, one can't > build a moral agent out of paramattha dhammas. It's simply no good to say > it's mundanely or conventionally true, but in actuality false. Victor's > example of killing is exactly right; with no beings, it's just rupas > penetrating rupas. 15129 From: yuzhonghao Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 4:17pm Subject: Re: Pernicious view Not only when one think that there is self, but also when one think that there is no self, the the word "self" loses its meaning as reflexive pronoun and becomes a something that needs to be defined/delineated, either in terms of the aggregates or any thing such as "residual entity", "psycho-physical entity", or "soul", or whatever. Both the view "there is self" and "there is no self" reflects/presupposes the assumption of what self is. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > First of all, I should say "there are beings" instead of "there is > being". Second, the word "self" is to be used as a reflexive > pronoun. When one thinks that there is self, the word "self" loses > its usage as reflexive pronoun and becomes a something that needs to > be defined/delineated, either in terms of the aggregates or any thing > such as "residual entity", "psycho-physical entity", or "soul", or > whatever. The view "there is self" reflects/presupposes the > assumption of what self is. > > When one learns and studies one is said to be a student. When one > teaches as profession, one is said to be a teacher. Regarding human > being, I find the following very interesting and insightful: > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one > is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to > be 'a being (satta).' > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... > perception... fabrications... > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: > when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a > being.' > > ~Satta Sutta > > The terms "student", "teacher", "human being" are used for one's > identity. These terms are defined in terms of what one does, not > what one is. However, when one delineates a student, a teacher, or a > human being in terms of five aggregates or any other thing, he or she > falls into self-view. > > Metta, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., oreznoone@a... wrote: > > > > Hello Victor, > > Your position confuses me; it *appears* to be an untenable middle > ground. On > > one hand you have clearly stated that there are beings, especially > human > > beings, as the agents of moral responsibility. But, on the other > hand, that > > one should have no theory whatsoever about the concept 'self.' > > Now why shouldn't we simply call a human being a 'person' > or 'self,' as long > > as it's understood this refers to a process, not an unchanging > Self? This, I > > believe, is just what the Buddha did. Do this and come over to my > side, the > > loyal opposition. > > On the other hand if you reject using 'self' in this manner how do > you > > justify using human being and such; these are also simply the names > of > > dynamic processes. Same deal. So, to be consistent, reject the use > of > > 'beings' and go over to the dark side ;-) > > I don't see how you can have it both ways. Can you clarify this? > > metta, stephen 15130 From: yuzhonghao Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 4:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Let go Hi Robert, Yes, these questions were adopted, or, as you said, taken from the Kalama Sutta, and I am aware of the context in the discourse. People who hold strongly any assumption on what self is might ignore or avoid these questions all together. I think these questions can be a challenge to the much-cherished views. For people who are in doubt, these questions can serve as a means for reflection on whether the assumptions on what self is are beneficial or harmful. These questions are not so much about anatta than the assumptions on what self is. However, with any self-view or assumption on what self is, it is impossible to see what the Buddha taught: "Form is not self. Form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self.'" Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > I have been silent on this ongoing stream because I am still trying > to figure this anatta thing out myself. > > Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that that many of the > questions that you are asking below were taken from the Kalama Sutta. > > Here is part of Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary on the Kamala Sutta (full > commentary at > http://www.buddhistinformation.com/lecture_on_the_kalama_sutra.htm ) > > Now this passage, like everything else spoken by the Buddha, has > been stated in a specific context -- with a particular audience and > situation in view -- and thus must be understood in relation to that > context. The Kalamas, citizens of the town of Kesaputta, had been > visited by religious teachers of divergent views, each of whom would > propound his own doctrines and tear down the doctrines of his > predecessors. This left the Kalamas perplexed, and thus when "the > recluse Gotama," reputed to be an Awakened One, arrived in their > township, they approached him in the hope that he might be able to > dispel their confusion. From the subsequent development of the > Sutta, it is clear that the issues that perplexed them were the > reality of rebirth and kammic retribution for good and evil deeds. > > > In brief, I am not sure that the Buddha held up these questions to > be used as the litmus test for all aspects of the Dhamma as you are > applying them to anatta. Nonetheless, I don't have any better > questions and I certainly don't have any answers on anatta. > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) 15131 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 4:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go Hi Herman, Sorry if u dont mind I asked, which branch of Buddhism is not phenomenology. Unless one reach the stage of Stream winner, what we learn in Buddhism is indeed limited by phenomenology. Even now, what we discuss in DSG is also phenomenology. Only through the right understanding of phenomenology, then we could lead the road to Nibbana. Without phenomenology as the base, Buddha could never explain Buddhism in the first place to the human beings. Kind regards Ken O > > Abhidhamma only makes sense as Abhidhamma, studied > within the > parameters of its domain, so to speak. The subject > matter of the > Abhidhamma is the "mechanics of the mind". > Comparisons between > Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, the periodic > table of > elements and Abhidhamma will add at least 33.2 aeons > to your samsaric > experience :-) > > I am about to score some brownie points with Howard > here, and I do so > unashamedly. Abhidhamma is pure phenomenology. I > stopped getting the > shits with Abhidhamma once I realised the limits and > extent of it's > subject matter. > And then, yes, the irreducibles, the parramatha > dhammas, make an > awful lot of sense. I do not doubt that from within > other systems of > thought colour, taste, sound, smell etc can be > further broken down, > but limited to the study of raw experience I think > the parramattha > dhammas are pretty spot on. > > My opinion only, of course :-) (My kids enjoyed > their stay at LA. > Thanks.) > > > > Herman 15132 From: yuzhonghao Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 5:55pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pernicious view Hi Howard, You asked: What is the difference between human being and the true and real human being? My response: Well, it was you who made a distinction between human being and the true and real human being. I was trying to figure out what you meant. You asked: How would you speak ultimately about a sentient being killing sentient being? Would you say that ultimately, there is no sentient being, no killing? Would you say that conventionally, there was Holocaust, but ultimately, there was none? Would you say conventionally there is moral agent but ultimately there is none? Would you say that conventionally one reaps the consequence of his or her action but ultimately there is no one that reaps the result his or her own action? What would you say about killing ultimately? Is it ultimately "good", "bad", neither "good" nor "bad"? My response: I don't know how to speak ultimately. I am not sure how speaking ultimately would be. You said that speaking of moral agent is not completely nonsense, and now you ask: is it partly nonsense? My response: I am not sure. You asked whether I believe that 'truth' has only one sense? My response: I am not sure what you mean by "one sense". You ask whether I think there is any difference between the way things actually are and the way we speak about them. My response: Please tell me about the way things actually are. In particular, you ask whether I think there are any distinctions among the usages of 'self', and whether the Buddha condemned any of them. My response: I think you can check a dictionary on the word "self" and see for your self if there is any distinctions among the usages. Any assumption on what self is is not beneficial, not leading to the cessation of dukkha. As I see it, the Buddha disapproved self-view. You ask whether or not I think there might be *degrees* of reality, or whether all things are equally real. My response:........... Howard, please do what you see appropriate. Metta, Victor 15133 From: Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:30pm Subject: Re: Dhamma without abhidhamma? Hello Ken, My apologies for so an incomplete reply, I'll attempt to put something substantial up on concepts V reality ;-) soon. >Did the Buddha teach anything you don't already know? Three things that come immediately to mind are anatta (and the fact that it's now widely accepted in psychology and possibly quantum physics, as you note, is a fairly recent confirmation—a good thing, wouldn't we agree?); thinking in terms of a/kusala or un/skillful actions instead of rights, duties, etc.; and a method, or methods (meditation, guarding the senses, etc.). I could go on: Right Livelihood pushes forward, paticcasamuppada... (Of course there's knowing, then there's actual insight.) Let me note that "paramattha," or the concept of ultimate realities does not occur in the suttas, and, furthermore (lets see if I can get into trouble here) does not even occur one time in the abhidhamma. It's a commentarial innovation that I see as at odds with both (though I'm not able to address the latter—and many would also say, also not the former ;-). >I once explained anatta to a friend of mine - a friend >with no knowledge of Buddhism but with an education in >science. He saw nothing new or extraordinary about >it, and I had to agree with him. (Since atomism was >replaced by quantum physics, there has been no >serious, scientific belief in a self.) This is the core, and possibly only, utterly new idea, of Buddhadhamma. >The difference between concepts and absolute realities >though, had him completely stumped. He couldn't see >past his, admittedly flawed, conventional view of the >world. Me too; I have no idea what 'degrees of reality' could mean. Perhaps I can say something soon about this, but I don't know if I'll be able to satisfy your next question: >Without the explanation of absolute reality, what is >there in the Buddha's teaching that is, even remotely, >ground-breaking? (How about: absolute reality is all around us but we can't see it, can't see things as they are, because of self-view and its entailed defilements of l obha/dosa? Which has nothing to do with concepts, or not.) metta, stephen 15134 From: Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:56pm Subject: Re: Let go Hello Herman, and Howard, and all >Abhidhamma only makes sense as Abhidhamma, studied within the >parameters of its domain, so to speak. The subject matter of the >Abhidhamma is the "mechanics of the mind". Comparisons between >Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, the periodic table of >elements and Abhidhamma will add at least 33.2 aeons to your samsaric >experience :-) Good deal; I guestimate it will take me 33.1 eons (give me a bit of spare time) to catch up on my reading, especially if people keep recommending things and I continue to accumulate faster than I read ;-) You do get to take your books with you, right? >I am about to score some brownie points with Howard here, and I do so >unashamedly. Abhidhamma is pure phenomenology. Perhaps so, depending on just how you mean the term. It need not, I think, mean the same as phenomenalism. >And then, yes, the irreducibles, the parramatha dhammas, make an >awful lot of sense. I do not doubt that from within other systems of >thought colour, taste, sound, smell etc can be further broken down, >but limited to the study of raw experience I think the parramattha >dhammas are pretty spot on. There's this story, perhaps apocryphal, about the joint appearance of Tibetan and Zen Buddhist. The Zen guy, typically, kept thrusting forward an orange, repeatedly demanding "What is this?" Finally the Tibetan asked his translator, "What's wrong with this fellow; hasn't he seen an orange before?" Well, there's something wrong with having to stay within a system (ditthi?); but, perhaps until we're enlightened, there's no choice. >My opinion only, of course :-) (My kids enjoyed their stay at LA. >Thanks.) I'm glad. metta, stephen PS, Howard, >Just for the record, that would be just fine and dandy with me!! I >have no commitment whatsoever to the particular inventory of "paramattha >dhammas" given in the Abhidhamma nor to the principle that they are not >further reducible. A thoroughgoing emptiness at levels beyond levels beyond >levels, yet at the very same time being exactly "the world" of our >experience, is very possibly the way things are, and bothers me not in the >slightest. It used to drive me crazy; I wanted a TOE, and in my lifetime. Hawking is right, I insisted! Now I love the idea that it won't happen, that it's emptiness all the way. (I note that Hawking is now starting his 20 year clock over.) >I do have a strong commitment (probably unshakeable) to both the >tilakkhana and patticcasamuppada (sp?), and a (slightly less) strong >commitment to phenomenalism and pragmatism. If I agree on 2 out of 4 (pragmatism! oh no...) that isn't too bad. I mean you're batting 500 Howard ;-) 15135 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 10:56pm Subject: Mr [Rob] Jeckyl and Mr [Rob] Hyde (was, Re: Perfections, Ch IV, Renunciation, no 6./Sati) Rob Hyde --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Rob, > > YOU'RE WRONG!!! WRONG, I TELL YOU!!! I'm sorry to say this, but I think Rob Jeckyl's post was quite in order in the first place ;-)). > Attachment to senses, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & worry > and doubt are NOT "defilements"... they are "hindrances" to mental > development (bhavana). It is ignorance (avijja), kammic disposition > and current situation that determine the like / dislike / > indifference toward an object. But if we have wise attention (yoniso > manasikara), we can turn an unfavourable situation into kusala kamma. The term 'kilesa' is used to refer to all akusala dhammas in general (in addition to its use as one way of classifying akusala dhammas). So to refer to the hindrances as kilesas is not wrong at all, as I understand things. > DON'T EVER LET ME CATCH YOU AGAIN MAKING A QUICK REPLY WITHOUT > CHECKING YOUR SOURCES FIRST!!! Rob Hyde may need to consider this admonition, too;-)) > ... OTHERWISE, I WILL BAN YOU FROM THIS > DISCUSSION GROUP!!! And anyway, THERE'S NO NEED TO BE SO TOUGH on the poor guy -- he was only doing his best! > Thanks, > Rob :-( [My Mr. Hyde ;-)] Jon (and other friends of Rob Jeckyl) > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > > The paramattha (object of mindfulness) would become 'wrong' when > it > > is corrupted, covered over by papanca; an action of one of the > > latent defilements. The latent defilement of sensuous desire would ... 15136 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 11:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma without abhidhamma? Hi, Stephen, and welcome to the list from me. With a subject heading like that, I just had to come in! --- oreznoone@a... wrote: > Hello Ken, > Let me note that "paramattha," or the concept of ultimate realities does > not > occur in the suttas, and, furthermore (lets see if I can get into > trouble > here) does not even occur one time in the abhidhamma. It's a > commentarial > innovation that I see as at odds with both (though I'm not able to > address > the latter—and many would also say, also not the former ;-). According to Nyanatiloka, the term does occur in the Abhidhamma pitaka -- see the extract pasted below. More importantly, though, is the point, also made in the extract, that while the term paramatha dhamma itself does not appear in the suttas, the suttas nevertheless contain numerous references to the importance of developing direct knowledge of paramattha dhammas as referred to by other names, such as 'khandhas'. So paramattha dhammas are there, and indeed I would say they run throughout the suttas. Thanks for your many intereseting comments of late. Jon From Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' paramattha (-sacca, -vacana, -desaná): 'truth (or term, exposition) that is true in the highest (or ultimate) sense', as contrasted with the 'conventional truth' (vohára-sacca), which is also called 'commonly accepted truth' (sammuti-sacca; in Skr: samvrti-satya). The Buddha, in explaining his doctrine, sometimes used conventional language and sometimes the philosophical mode of expression which is in accordance whith undeluded insight into reality. In that ultimate sense, existence is a mere process of physical and mental phenomena within which, or beyond which, no real ego-entity nor any abiding substance can ever be found. Thus, whenever the suttas speak of man, woman or person, or of the rebirth of a being, this must not be taken as being valid in the ultimate sense, but as a mere conventional mode of speech (vohára-vacana). It is one of the main characteristics of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, in distinction from most of the Sutta Pitaka, that it does not employ conventional language, but deals only with ultimates, or realities in the highest sense (paramattha-dhammá). But also in the Sutta Pitaka there are many expositions in terms of ultimate language (paramattha-desaná), namely, wherever these texts deal with the groups (khandha), elements (dhátu) or sense-bases (áyatana), and their components; and wherever the 3 characteristics (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) are applied. The majority of Sutta texts, however, use the conventional language, as appropriate in a practical or ethical context, because it "would not be right to say that 'the groups' (khandha) feel shame, etc." It should be noted, however, that also statements of the Buddha couched in conventional language, are called 'truth' (vohára-sacca), being correct on their own level, which does not contradict the fact that such statements ultimately refer to impermanent and impersonal processes. The two truths - ultimate and conventional - appear in that form only in the commentaries, but are implied in a sutta-distinction of 'explicit (or direct) meaning' (nítattha, q.v.) and 'implicit meaning (to be inferred)' (neyyattha). Further, the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect Qne (Tathágata) uses without misapprehending them." See also S. I. 25. The term paramattha, in the sense here used, occurs in the first para. of the Kathávatthu, a work of the Abhidhamma Pitaka (s. Guide, p. 62). (App: vohára). The commentarial discussions on these truths (Com. to D. 9 and M. 5) have not yet been translated in full. On these see K N. Jayatilleke, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (London, 1963), pp. 361ff. 15137 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Aug 22, 2002 11:37pm Subject: Samui update Hi All Just to report on a very pleasant meeting and chat with Erik and Eath yesterday morning, over an extended breakfast at our hotel's beachside restaurant. Among dhamma topics discussed too numerous to mention here were the meaning of knowing by direct experience the difference between kusala and akusala mind-states presently arising (and the relevance of this to mindfulness of breathing), and generally the conditions necessary for more awareness or understanding of the dhamma presently appearing whatever that dhamma may be. Erik was his usual enthusiastic and eloquent self, and I found the discussion both useful at the time and a cause for much reflection later on. In between the dhamma bits Eath had lots to say about her experiences settling into Thailand and studying two new or semi-new languages simultaneoulsy (and other developments -- expect a little announcement from the happy couple shortly). Jon 15138 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 0:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma without abhidhamma? Dear Group, Nyanatiloka in his Buddhist Dictionary defines dhatu, ayatana and khandha as: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm dhátu: 'elements', are the ultimate constituents of a whole. (I) The 4 physical elements (dhátu or mahá-bhúta), popularly called earth, water, fire and wind, are to be understood as the primary qualities of matter. (II) The 18 physical and mental elements that constitute the conditions or foundations of the process of perception. áyatana: . The 12 'bases' or 'sources' on which depend the mental processes, consist of five physical sense-organs and consciousness, being the six personal (ajjhattika) bases; and the six objects, the so-called external (báhira) bases khandha: the 5 'groups (of existence)' or 'groups of clinging' (upádánakkhandha); alternative renderings: aggregates, categories of clinging's objects. These are the 5 aspects in which the Buddha has summed up all the physical and mental phenomena of existence, and which appear to the ignorant man as his ego, or personality. A few of the Sutta references: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/022-alagagaddupama-sutta-e1.htm Majjhima Nikaya 22 Alagagadduupama Sutta - The Simile of the Snake http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/028-mahahatthipadopama-sutta- e1.htm Majjhima Nikaya 28 Mahaahatthipadopama Sutta - The Major Discourse on the Simile of the Elephant's Footprint http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/062-maha-rahulovada-e1.htm Majjhima Nikaya 62 Maharahulovada Sutta - Advice to Venerable Rahula - The Longer Discourse http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/109-mahapunnama-e.htm Majjhima Nikaya 109 Mahaapunnama Sutta - The Longer Discourse on the full moon night http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/112-chabbisodhana-e.htm Majjhima Nikaya 112 Chabbisodhana Sutta - The Six-Fold Examination http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/115-bahudhatuka-e.htm Majjhima Nikaya 115 Bahudhatuka Sutta - The Many Kinds of Elements http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/maj/mn140.htm Majjhima Nikaya 140 Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta - The Exposition of the Properties http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/148-chachakka-e.htm Majjhima Nikaya 148 Chachakka Sutta The Discourse of Six Sixes http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/149-mahasalayatanika-e.htm Majjhima Nikaya 149 Mahaasa.laayatanika Sutta - The Longer Discourse on the six spheres http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sam/sn22-56.htm Samyutta Nikaya XXII.56 Parivatta Sutta - The (Fourfold) Round Samyutta Nikaya 'The Connected Discourses of the Buddha' beginning at page 627 Part III 14 Dhatu-samyutta (in The Book of Causation) beginning at page 853 Part III 22 Khandha-vagga The Book of the Aggregates beginning at page 1133 Part IV 35 Salayatana-vagga The Book of the Six Sense Bases ---------------------------- Some Visuddhimagga references: P.547 of Visuddhimagga 'The Path of Purification' XVm, 1 'Description of the Bases and Elements' P.552 of Visuddhimagga 'The Path of Purification' XV,17 ff 'Description of the Bases and Elements' P.649 of Visuddhimagga 'The Path of Purifiction' XVII, 203 [(v) The Sixfold Base] metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Hi, Stephen, and welcome to the list from me. > > With a subject heading like that, I just had to come in! > > --- oreznoone@a... wrote: > Hello Ken, > > Let me note that "paramattha," or the concept of ultimate realities does > > not > > occur in the suttas, and, furthermore (lets see if I can get into > > trouble > > here) does not even occur one time in the abhidhamma. It's a > > commentarial > > innovation that I see as at odds with both (though I'm not able to > > address > > the latterâ€"and many would also say, also not the former ;-). > > According to Nyanatiloka, the term does occur in the Abhidhamma pitaka -- > see the extract pasted below. > > More importantly, though, is the point, also made in the extract, that > while the term paramatha dhamma itself does not appear in the suttas, the > suttas nevertheless contain numerous references to the importance of > developing direct knowledge of paramattha dhammas as referred to by other > names, such as 'khandhas'. > > So paramattha dhammas are there, and indeed I would say they run > throughout the suttas. > > Thanks for your many intereseting comments of late. > > Jon > > From Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' > > paramattha (-sacca, -vacana, -desaná): > 'truth (or term, exposition) that is true in the highest (or ultimate) > sense', as contrasted with the 'conventional truth' (vohára-sacca), which > is also called 'commonly accepted truth' (sammuti-sacca; in Skr: > samvrti-satya). > The Buddha, in explaining his doctrine, sometimes used conventional > language and sometimes the philosophical mode of expression which is in > accordance whith undeluded insight into reality. In that ultimate sense, > existence is a mere process of physical and mental phenomena within which, > or beyond which, no real ego-entity nor any abiding substance can ever be > found. Thus, whenever the suttas speak of man, woman or person, or of the > rebirth of a being, this must not be taken as being valid in the ultimate > sense, but as a mere conventional mode of speech (vohára-vacana). > > It is one of the main characteristics of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, in > distinction from most of the Sutta Pitaka, that it does not employ > conventional language, but deals only with ultimates, or realities in the > highest sense (paramattha-dhammá). But also in the Sutta Pitaka there are > many expositions in terms of ultimate language ( paramattha-desaná), > namely, wherever these texts deal with the groups (khandha), elements > (dhátu) or sense-bases (áyatana), and their components; and wherever the 3 > characteristics (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) are applied. The majority of Sutta > texts, however, use the conventional language, as appropriate in a > practical or ethical context, because it "would not be right to say that > 'the groups' (khandha) feel shame, etc." > > It should be noted, however, that also statements of the Buddha couched in > conventional language, are called 'truth' (vohára-sacca), being correct on > their own level, which does not contradict the fact that such statements > ultimately refer to impermanent and impersonal processes. > > The two truths - ultimate and conventional - appear in that form only in > the commentaries, but are implied in a sutta-distinction of 'explicit (or > direct) meaning' (nítattha, q.v.) and 'implicit meaning (to be inferred)' > (neyyattha). Further, the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations > when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, > expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, > which the Perfect Qne (Tathágata) uses without misapprehending them." See > also S. I. 25. > > The term paramattha, in the sense here used, occurs in the first para. of > the Kathávatthu, a work of the Abhidhamma Pitaka (s. Guide, p. 62). (App: > vohára). > > The commentarial discussions on these truths (Com. to D. 9 and M. 5) have > not yet been translated in full. On these see K N. Jayatilleke, Early > Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (London, 1963), pp. 361ff. 15139 From: egberdina Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 1:32am Subject: Re: Let go Hi Ken, I gather from recent posts that you have been away for a while. So have I. Now we are both back and I am happy to be writing to you. I use the term phenomenology to indicate the study of awareness. I think the Abhidhamma is pure phenomenology. There are no personal pronouns, reflexive or otherwise in the Abhidhamma. One cannot study things that are not there. I would not consider the cultural/religious practises that carry a Buddhist logo phenomenology. The rites and rituals that pervade the lives of hundreds of millions of people who claim to be ists of some variety attest to the complete opposite of phenomenology - no study of awareness. This is not intended as an attack on any religious or cultural group, merely as a description of what goes on in people's lives. All the best and very happy that we are both back :-) Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Hi Herman, > > Sorry if u dont mind I asked, which branch of Buddhism > is not phenomenology. Unless one reach the stage of > Stream winner, what we learn in Buddhism is indeed > limited by phenomenology. Even now, what we discuss > in DSG is also phenomenology. Only through the right > understanding of phenomenology, then we could lead the > road to Nibbana. Without phenomenology as the base, > Buddha could never explain Buddhism in the first place > to the human beings. > > > > > Kind regards > Ken O > > > > > > > > Abhidhamma only makes sense as Abhidhamma, studied > > within the > > parameters of its domain, so to speak. The subject > > matter of the > > Abhidhamma is the "mechanics of the mind". > > Comparisons between > > Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, the periodic > > table of > > elements and Abhidhamma will add at least 33.2 aeons > > to your samsaric > > experience :-) > > > > I am about to score some brownie points with Howard > > here, and I do so > > unashamedly. Abhidhamma is pure phenomenology. I > > stopped getting the > > shits with Abhidhamma once I realised the limits and > > extent of it's > > subject matter. > > And then, yes, the irreducibles, the parramatha > > dhammas, make an > > awful lot of sense. I do not doubt that from within > > other systems of > > thought colour, taste, sound, smell etc can be > > further broken down, > > but limited to the study of raw experience I think > > the parramattha > > dhammas are pretty spot on. > > > > My opinion only, of course :-) (My kids enjoyed > > their stay at LA. > > Thanks.) > > > > > > > > Herman 15140 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 3:53am Subject: RE: [dsg] Anguttara Nikaya Book of Two's 15. 'Repaying One'sParents' Sumane Good to see you again. --- "Seylan Bank - DBD (Sumane Rathnasuriya)" wrote: > Yes Purnomo, > > Your gratitude is your action - your Kamma. Your gratitude may be on > account of one good action they may have done for you, at least in > bringing you to this world & help you see the world right and do good. > All the other bad they may be doing or have done, need not be your > problem, if you cannot accommodate them in your good kamma. Thanks for this common-sense suggestion. As you say, it is not necessary to dwell on the akusala. > What one should be worried about first is the nobility of one's own > action. Thereafter one may try help another, even one's own parents. If > possible, well and good. If not possible, it should not perturb the one > who tried. That worry itself is bad -akusala. Yes, it is the development of one's own kusala that is one's 'business', not anything else. I think here the Buddha is indicating another possible avenue of, or opportunity for, kusala moments in one's life. > He/she could make it to make bad parents good, his/her life's ambition > and try in various ways, use strategy OR discard that effort & devote to > some other good in this world. It is how you think & act. It is for you. > > Metta! > > Sumane Rathnasuriya Looking forward to seeing you again when you next have time to drop by. Jon > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Purnomo . [mailto:purnomo9@h...] > > Sent: 19 August 2002 13:12 > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: Re: [dsg] Anguttara Nikaya Book of Two's 15. > > 'Repaying One's Parents' > > > > > > if the parents is thieves or have bad attitude, should we > > gratitude them? > > > > > > metta, > > > > purnomo 15141 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 4:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] rupas out there Howard I'm impressed by the honesty and directness of your response below, Howard :-)). I think something that Herman said in a post to Stephen is appropriate here also. Herman said: "Abhidhamma only makes sense as Abhidhamma, studied within the parameters of its domain, so to speak. The subject matter of the Abhidhamma is the "mechanics of the mind". Comparisons between Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, the periodic table of elements and Abhidhamma will add at least 33.2 aeons to your samsaric experience :-)" The same could be said for trying to reconcile any other teaching or theory with the dhamma. There is bound to be a mismatch, despite superficial similarities, and hence problems in coming to a proper understanding of the dhamma. For example, does phenomenalism countenance the momentary arising and falling away of dhammas? Unless it does, then any apparent similarities will only go so far. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 8/20/02 7:35:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > jonoabb@y... writes: > > > > I see you are still keen to find a way to reconcile phenomenalism with > the > > dhamma ;-)). May I ask what you would see as being the consequence of > > achieving, or not achieving, that reconciliation? > > > > > ========================= > The consequence would be a release of tension! ;-)) > They both seem true to me and mutually supportive. I would prefer > not > having to "give up" phenomenalism, as it helps me to understand the > Dhamma, > and, as a mathematician, I find it "lovely". So what's it all about? > Why, > clinging, of course, Jon! That's the bottom line. (But you knew that!! > ;-)) > > With metta, > Howard 15142 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 7:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] There are people Dear Jon, Replace the word people with beings to get the correct version of the wording. However even if you say people heres how to derieve on whether a person will be enlighten or not. Once Buddha was asked a question. "Are all buddists going to attain Nirvana? " Buddha said, "Yes, the people (beings?) who do what I have said to do, No, the people who do not do what I have said to do" That was point 1. Point2, well all are in Sansara, and to get out... there is no where else other than sansara to be in :) ~meththa ranil >in this universe who are going to be, > > Maithree Buddha, his diciples, his son, his wife, his mother, his > > father, > > and there are people in this universe who are going to be, > > future Buddhas, Paceka Buddhas, Arhaths... > > > > And all this people are among us. with us. (why not) even us. > > > > The world is not so bad after all... :) > > > > ~with meththa > > ranil > >You seem to know something that the rest of us don't! What makes you so >sure that these future enlightened ones are among us now (and do you have >a way of identifying them)? > >Jon >Jon 15143 From: Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 4:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pernicious view Hi, Victor - In a message dated 8/22/02 8:57:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, victoryu@s... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > You asked: What is the difference between human being and the true > and real human being? -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Huh? I do not recall ever having asked this! I don't even understand the question. I believe you are in error as to who may have asked this. I guess that perhaps what you are doing is taking your own questions, which I requested you answer, and starting to answer them. My point was for you to express your opinions instead of giving questions. But, in any case, I didn't initiate questions - you did. -------------------------------------------------------- > > My response: Well, it was you who made a distinction between human > being and the true and real human being. I was trying to figure out > what you meant. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Look, Victor - let me try to clarify my position: There are no human beings. (There! I said it straight out. I didn't use the word 'ultimate'.) What there do seem to be are coherent streams of ever-changing, interrelated psycho-physical elements that we conceptually treat as units and refer to as "human beings". The only such stream that I directly perceive the elements of is the one that I call "myself", but there is sufficient evidence for me to believe in others as well. BTW, when I say "me", do not think that there is any "me" that can be identified. There is a pattern of experience with which I associate the word 'me'. The thought/concept of 'me' arises as part of this psychophsical stream, conditioned by a multitude of experiences. If I take this 'me' seriously, think of it as a "thing", reify it, this is atta view. This is the way I see it. If you do not, okay - no problem. However, I don't really see how there is room for debate on this matter of your view vs my view. All that is possible, I think, is for us to clarify to the other how we see things. I am not yet clear on how *you* see things. What you understand a person to be - precisely, for example, is something that I don't understand. In any case, however you see matters, and however I see matters, presumably following the practice laid out by the Buddha will enable each of us to come to see matters as they actually are. ------------------------------------------------------------ > > You asked: How would you speak ultimately about a sentient being > killing sentient being? Would you say that ultimately, there is no > sentient being, no killing? Would you say that conventionally, there > was Holocaust, but ultimately, there was none? Would you say > conventionally there is moral agent but ultimately there is none? > Would you say that conventionally one reaps the consequence of his or > her action but ultimately there is no one that reaps the result his > or her own action? What would you say about killing ultimately? Is > it ultimately "good", "bad", neither "good" nor "bad"? > > My response: I don't know how to speak ultimately. I am not sure > how speaking ultimately would be. > > You said that speaking of moral agent is not completely nonsense, and > now you ask: is it partly nonsense? > > My response: I am not sure. > > You asked whether I believe that 'truth' has only one sense? > > My response: I am not sure what you mean by "one sense". ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Really! Okay. ----------------------------------------------- > > > You ask whether I think there is any difference between the way > things actually are and the way we speak about them. > > My response: Please tell me about the way things actually are. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I have. You have not. -------------------------------------------------- > > In particular, you ask whether I think there are any distinctions > among the usages of 'self', and whether the Buddha condemned any of > them. > > My response: I think you can check a dictionary on the word "self" > and see for your self if there is any distinctions among the usages. > Any assumption on what self is is not beneficial, not leading to the > cessation of dukkha. As I see it, the Buddha disapproved self-view. > > You ask whether or not I think there might be *degrees* of reality, > or whether all things are equally real. > > My response:........... > > Howard, please do what you see appropriate. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. What I have written in this post is what I see as appropriate. ------------------------------------------------------- > > Metta, > Victor > > ============================ 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) 15144 From: yuzhonghao Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 9:16am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pernicious view Hi Howard, Are you a human being? Metta, Victor 15145 From: Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 5:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] rupas out there Hi, Jon - In part of the following you write: "For example, does phenomenalism countenance the momentary arising and falling away of dhammas? Unless it does, then any apparent similarities will only go so far." As far as I know, phenomenalism, at least in general, simply doesn't address this issue. So it does not rule out arising and falling away of dhammas, and it is, thus, not incompatible with that. I make a couple more comments below, in context. In a message dated 8/23/02 7:30:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > I'm impressed by the honesty and directness of your response below, Howard > :-)). > > I think something that Herman said in a post to Stephen is appropriate > here also. Herman said: > > "Abhidhamma only makes sense as Abhidhamma, studied within the > parameters of its domain, so to speak. The subject matter of the > Abhidhamma is the "mechanics of the mind". Comparisons between > Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, the periodic table of > elements and Abhidhamma will add at least 33.2 aeons to your samsaric > experience :-)" > > The same could be said for trying to reconcile any other teaching or > theory with the dhamma. There is bound to be a mismatch, despite > superficial similarities, and hence problems in coming to a proper > understanding of the dhamma. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I think this is true. It becomes more and more true to the extent that the other teaching is filled in with great detail. My "phenomenalism", however, is not very detailed - it is just a general thrust, a perspective. If I were to adopt some existing fully detailed phenomenalist theory, it would surely be incompatible with the Dhamma at some points. ------------------------------------------------ > > For example, does phenomenalism countenance the momentary arising and > falling away of dhammas? Unless it does, then any apparent similarities > will only go so far. > > Jon > ==================================== With metta, Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > In a message dated 8/20/02 7:35:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > jonoabb@y... writes: > > > > > > > I see you are still keen to find a way to reconcile phenomenalism with > > the > > > dhamma ;-)). May I ask what you would see as being the consequence of > > > achieving, or not achieving, that reconciliation? > > > > > > > > ========================= > > The consequence would be a release of tension! ;-)) > > They both seem true to me and mutually supportive. I would prefer > > not > > having to "give up" phenomenalism, as it helps me to understand the > > Dhamma, > > and, as a mathematician, I find it "lovely". So what's it all about? > > Why, > > clinging, of course, Jon! That's the bottom line. (But you knew that!! > > ;-)) > > > > 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) 15146 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 10:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: miccha sati Dear Kom and all, We should consider what wrong or false sati is. It must be something we take for sati, but it is akusala, false, wrong. What would it be? Now I refer to what Num formulated so well in the Path of Discrimination series: We have to be very sincere, the perfection of truthfulness is indispensable. It is very necessary to know what wrong mindfulness is, when we are on the wrong Path. It is not a specific cetasika, but the Buddha mentioned wrong mindfulness to show what the wrong Path is, as opposite to right mindfulness. When there is clinging to result or when we make ourselves believe that there is right mindfulness, there is in fact lobha. When there is wrong mindfulness there is akusala citta, but we have to think first of lobha-mula-citta. Rob M brought up the Q when sati is samma sati of the eightfold Path. Sati of satipatthana begins to be aware of nama and rupa, and then satipatthana becomes more developed. When we are still on the level of considering different characteristics of nama and rupa, when we are only beginning to learn more, we cannot say that this is already samma sati of the eightfold Path. When there can be direct awareness of one reality at a time and the characteristics of nama and rupa are distinguished from each other, samma sati begins to develop, and it develops on and on until it is samma sati of the Path which is lokuttara, supramundane. Recently I heard on a tape about the difference between seeing and visible object. Visible object appears all the time, and on account of it we think of shape and form. A. Sujin asked a monk whether seeing has an outward appearance, and he said, no. A. Sujin answered: then it is nama, which has no shape or form. These remarks can help us to have more understanding of the difference between nama and rupa, but it is a difficult subject. What do you think, Kom? Any helpful reminders for me :-) Something you heard on tapes? Best wishes from Nina. op 22-08-2002 10:04 schreef Kom Tukovinit op kom@a...: > > I think Larry understood what I said right, where I equated > micha-sati to lobha. The Buddha meant the > arising of the fake (artificial, untrue, etc.) sati. 15147 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 10:02am Subject: Re: Upekkha vs. Tatramajjhattata Dear Rob M Larry gave the definitions of tatramajjhattata, pointing out that indifferent feeling is not the same. As to the Brahma vihara of upekkha, here the word upekkha is used for tatramajjhattata, and in this case beings is the object: when we cannot help someone, if he is beyond help, we have no aversion, but we remember that beings are heirs to kamma. There are so many situations where we cannot help others, but instead of having dispair we better develop the brahma vihara of tatramajjhattata. Best wishes from Nina. op 22-08-2002 02:19 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > > What is the difference difference between upekkha and > tatramajjhattata? 15148 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 10:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] three characteristics Dear Larry, see below for answers. op 22-08-2002 01:22 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > Could we at least say that insight could arise at any time, even while > attempting to practice jhana? N: Insight has as object only nama or rupa, a paramattha dhamma. The object of samatha is sometimes a paramattha dhamma, such as the four elements, but there is no development of understanding of these elements as they appear at the present moment, one at a time, through one of the six doors, with the aim to know them as non-self. Many subjects of samatha are concepts, such as the kasinas. L: Incidentally, it occured to me that panna that cognizes an object as not > self does not count as insight into the tilakkhana unless the object > could be seen as me or mine. N: You mean: when there is ignorance and worng view, we see a nama or rupa as self, but when insight arises it realizes a nama or rupa as non-self? You think of contrasts? L:For example, to observe that the breath is > impermanent and not self is not insight unless it is also seen that > there is, or could be, a belief that the breath is me or mine. The "me > or mine" adds the element of dukkha that makes it insight. Correct? N: I do not get it, why the element of dukkha? We read about the three characteristics, but we should not forget that the development of insight is a long way. First nama should be known as nama, different from rupa. There is awareness of seeing now, or visible object now, hearing, sound, feeling. Only in the course of the development of insight (even during many lives) there will be more understanding of realities as impermanent, dukkha and anatta. As Num reminded us in his series of the Path of Discrimination, there are several stages of insight, and at the stage of arising and falling away of realities their impermanence is understood. In the later stages of insight, there is more and more understanding of the three characteristics. It depends on the individual whether the characteristic of impermanence or dukkha or anatta is more prominent. Just before enlightenment is attained, the reality that appears is realized as impermanent, or dukkha, or anatta. Best wishes from Nina. 15149 From: Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 6:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pernicious view Hi, Victor - In a message dated 8/23/02 12:18:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, victoryu@s... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Are you a human being? > > Metta, > Victor > ======================== I vaguely recall my wife asking me that once. ;-)) 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) 15150 From: robmoult Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 0:46pm Subject: Inside the Thought Process Hi All, Does anybody know where I can find out more about the operation of the various cittas in the thought process? Let me take the "Determining" citta as an example. As I look through Bhikkhu Bodhi's "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma", there are ten entries in the index where this citta is referenced. I have looked at them all, but at the end almost nothing is said about the operation of this citta. It says in the text that this citta, "determines / defines / discriminates". What does this really mean? What influences the function? What cetasikas are prominent during this stage? How to describe the state of mind before and after this citta? Does this citta behave differently in the thought process of an arahant? How about in jhanic states? I have similar questions about each of the cittas in the thought process. I think of each of the cittas in the thought process as a "black box", each with an incoming "state of mind", various influencing parameters, modes of operation, a transformation process, and an outgoing "state of mind". I am looking for a resource that provides details on each citta in the thought process. Does such a resource exist? Or am I asking one of those questions that should not be asked? Thanks, Rob M :-) 15151 From: Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 0:48pm Subject: wrong view Hi all, here are a few lines fom Bhikkhu Bodhi and the Majjhima Nikaya on wrong view, apropos Victor's 'signature' thread: note 170: The view of being (bhavaditthi) is eternalism, the belief in an eternal self; the view of non-being (vibhavaditthi) is annihilationism, the denial of any principle of continuity as a basis for rebirth and kammic retribution... MN 117.4-.9 Mahacattarisaka Sutta: Bhikkhus, what is right view? I say right view is twofold. There is right view with desires to share merit, which mature as substratum*1).and right view, that is noble, without desires, transcends this world and is a feature of the path. What is right view with desires to share merit, which mature as substratum? There are results for gifts, sacrifices and offerings.There are results for good and bad actions. There is this world, another world, mother, father, spontaneously arisen beings, There are recluses and brahmins who realizing this world and the other world declare it. This is right view with desires, to share merit, which mature as substratum. Bhikkhus, what is right view, that is noble, without desires, transcending this world is a feature of the path? The noble mind's development of the enlightenment factor investigation of the Teaching without desires, together with the path factors of wisdom, the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, is right view that is noble, transcending this world and is a feature of the path. He endeavours to dispel wrong view and gets established in right view, that becomes his right endeavour. He mindfully dispels wrong view and abides established in right view, that becomes his right mindfulness. Thus these three things follow each other, turning in a circle. Such as right view, right endeavour and right mindfulness. trans. Sister Upalavanna, http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/ note 1103: This definition [above] defines supramundane right view as the wisdom (panna) found among the requisites of enlightenment as a faculty, power, enlightenment factor, and path factor. The definition is formulated by way of the cognitive function rather than the objective content of the view. Elsewhere (MN 141.24) the right view of the path is defined as knowledge of the Four Noble Truths. We may understand that the conceptual comprehension of the four truths falls under mundane right view, while the direct penetration of the truths by realising Nibbana with the path constitutes supramundane right view. [notes from the 'Wisdom' edition of MN] 15152 From: robmoult Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 0:51pm Subject: Re: Upekkha vs. Tatramajjhattata Hi Nina (and others); Sorry, I am still confused. I must have taken a "stupid pill" this morning. Nina, normally your explanations are extremely clear to me. However, at this point, I am still scratching my head saying, "Huh?" Could you run the explanation past me again in slow motion? Thanks, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob M > Larry gave the definitions of tatramajjhattata, pointing out that > indifferent feeling is not the same. As to the Brahma vihara of upekkha, > here the word upekkha is used for tatramajjhattata, and in this case beings > is the object: when we cannot help someone, if he is beyond help, we have no > aversion, but we remember that beings are heirs to kamma. There are so many > situations where we cannot help others, but instead of having dispair we > better develop the brahma vihara of tatramajjhattata. > Best wishes > from Nina. > > op 22-08-2002 02:19 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > > > > What is the difference difference between upekkha and > > tatramajjhattata? 15153 From: Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 0:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Inside the Thought Process Hi Rob, look within. Larry ----------------- Rob: "I am looking for a resource that provides details on each citta in the thought process. Does such a resource exist?" 15154 From: robmoult Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 1:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Inside the Thought Process Hi Larry, I was hoping to piggy-back on the efforts of somebody much smarter (and with clearer internal vision) than I. Thanks, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Rob, look within. > > Larry > ----------------- > Rob: "I am looking for a resource that provides details on each citta in > the thought process. Does such a resource exist?" 15155 From: yuzhonghao Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 1:14pm Subject: Re: wrong view "Bhikkhus, what is wrong view? There are no results for gifts, sacrifices and offerings.There are no results for good and bad actions. There is no this world, no other world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously arisen beings, There are no recluses and brahmins who realizing this world and the other world declare it. Bhikkhus, this is wrong view." http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima3/117- mahacattarisaka-e.htm --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi all, here are a few lines fom Bhikkhu Bodhi and the Majjhima Nikaya > on wrong view, apropos Victor's 'signature' thread: > > note 170: The view of being (bhavaditthi) is eternalism, the belief in > an eternal self; the view of non-being (vibhavaditthi) is > annihilationism, the denial of any principle of continuity as a basis > for rebirth and kammic retribution... > > MN 117.4-.9 Mahacattarisaka Sutta: > Bhikkhus, what is right view? I say right view is twofold. There is > right view with desires to share merit, which mature as > substratum*1).and right view, that is noble, without desires, transcends > this world and is a feature of the path. > What is right view with desires to share merit, which mature as > substratum? There are results for gifts, sacrifices and offerings.There > are results for good and bad actions. There is this world, another > world, mother, father, spontaneously arisen beings, There are recluses > and brahmins who realizing this world and the other world declare it. > This is right view with desires, to share merit, which mature as > substratum. > Bhikkhus, what is right view, that is noble, without desires, > transcending this world is a feature of the path? The noble mind's > development of the enlightenment factor investigation of the Teaching > without desires, together with the path factors of wisdom, the faculty > of wisdom, the power of wisdom, is right view that is noble, > transcending this world and is a feature of the path. He endeavours to > dispel wrong view and gets established in right view, that becomes his > right endeavour. He mindfully dispels wrong view and abides established > in right view, that becomes his right mindfulness. Thus these three > things follow each other, turning in a circle. Such as right view, right > endeavour and right mindfulness. > trans. Sister Upalavanna, > http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/ > > note 1103: This definition [above] defines supramundane right view as > the wisdom (panna) found among the requisites of enlightenment as a > faculty, power, enlightenment factor, and path factor. The definition is > formulated by way of the cognitive function rather than the objective > content of the view. Elsewhere (MN 141.24) the right view of the path is > defined as knowledge of the Four Noble Truths. We may understand that > the conceptual comprehension of the four truths falls under mundane > right view, while the direct penetration of the truths by realising > Nibbana with the path constitutes supramundane right view. > > [notes from the 'Wisdom' edition of MN] 15156 From: Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 1:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: wrong view Thanks Victor, I just realized I forgot that bit. Here's a bigger chunk: MN 60.5 Apannaka Sutta: Householders, there are certain recluses and brahmins who have this view and declare it. There are no results for gifts, offerings, or sacrifices. There are no results for good and bad actions. There is no this world, no other world, no mother, no father. There are no spontaneously arisen beings and there are no recluses and brahmins in this world, who come to the right path, have realized this world and the other world and declare it. Householders, there are some other recluses and brahmins who have opposite views and declare. There are results for gifts, offerings, and sacrifices. There are results for good and bad actions. There is this and other world. There is mother, father. There are spontaneously arisen beings and recluses and brahmins in this world, come to the right path, have realized this world and the other world and declare it. Householders, do these two groups of recluses and brahmins bear completely opposite views and declare them?''They do venerable sir'. 'Householders, those recluses and brahmins who have this view and declare there are no results for gifts, offerings, or sacrifices. There are no results for good and bad actions, there is no this world, no other world, no mother, no father. There are no spontaneously arisen beings recluses and brahmins in this world, who come to the right path, have realized this world and the other world and declare it*2). We could expect this, they would abstain from these three things of merit such as good conduct by body, speech and mind, would observe these three things of demerit such as misconduct by body, speech and mind. What is the reason? These good recluses and brahmins do not see the dangers of demerit, the vile nature of defilements, the purity and the results of merit in giving up. There's another world*3. So their view there is no other world, becomes wrong view. Words that say, there is no other world, becomes wrong speech. The view, there is no other world, is completely opposite to what the noble ones say. The noble ones talk of another world. Their instructions, there is no other world, becomes wrong instructions, and the wrong teaching. Giving the wrong instructions, they praise themselves and disparage others. .By that they decrease in their virtues and accumulate various things of demerit, on account of wrong view. Such as wrong thoughts, wrong speech, giving instructions in the wrong teaching quite opposite to the noble one's teaching, and praising themselves and disparaging others. http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/ trans. Sister Upalavanna 15157 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 1:27pm Subject: Re: Inside the Thought Process Dear Rob M, Hope this is of some use. metta, Christine ----------------------- "Abhidhamma Papers Essay: The sense door thought process. Each time we perceive an object through the senses, a series of thought-moments occurs which constitute a process. These thought moments, or cittas, are according to abhidhamma, different 'minds' or states of mind. One follows another in rapid succession (usually too quickly to be perceived individually) and in a certain order. Normally for the perception of an object through one of the senses, seventeen thought-moments occur. These are: Past bhavanga (Resultant) Vibrating bhavanga (Resultant) Cutting off stream of bhavanga (Resultant) Turning to sense-door (Kiriya) Sense consciousness (Resultant) Receiving (Resultant) Investigating (Resultant) Determining (Kiriya) 9-15. Javana (Kamma) 16-17. Retention (Resultant) Each thought-moment serves a different function. 1. Bhavanga: Bhavanga or stream of being or subconscious state of mind is that which is below the threshold of consciousness. It may be compared to a state of deep, dreamless sleep. The nature of this 'mind' or 'citta' will depend on the individual and his past kamma, but in the case of human beings this will be skilful, since without a skilful state existing at the moment of re-linking of a past life with a present life, there would be no conditions for a human birth. 2. Vibrating bhavanga: Before an object can impinge on any of the senses, it first enters the stream of bhavanga causing it to vibrate slightly, in the same way as a sound might cause one to turn in one's sleep without waking up. 3. Cutting off the stream of bhavanga: The third thought-moment is the point at which the stream of bhavanga is interrupted or cut off, and may be compared to being woken up from sleep. The object (here, sound) is in no way known at this stage. 4. Turning to sense door: There is now a turning to the sense door concerned. That is to say, concerning an audible object there will be a turning to the ear door without there yet being any hearing. 5. Five-fold sense consciousness: Now there is, in the case of audible object, hearing; in the case of visible object, sight; odorous object, smell; sapid object, taste; and tangible object, touch. 6. Receiving: Here the object is passively received and may be distinguished as being agreeable or disagreeable, although as yet there is no reaction to this discernment. The feeling is neutral in either case. For example, if the sound is a harsh voice, it is not yet known as such so no judgement or dislike may yet arise. It is simply received passively. 7. Investigating: The object or sound is now examined and investigated, but decision as to the nature of the object has still not been made. 8. Determining: It is at the determining stage that discrimination is applied and the object is recognized. Thus the sound will be known as a harsh voice and consequent upon this determining will be the nature of the next and crucial stage of 9-15. Javana: This, in contrast to all the preceding states, is an active state, capable of creating further results or kamma. It is the dynamic reaction to what has been perceived. It is at this stage that a skilful or unskilful citta will occur. Thus after hearing harsh speech, a state of anger, dislike or rejection may arise. The citta that occurs here normally lasts for seven thought-moments. 16-17. Retention: These two final thought-moments do not always occur at the end of a thought process, but depend for their arising on the strength of the preceding javanas. Retention is performed by the investigating cittas, and its function is essentially to register what has been perceived in the 'memory'. Having described a thought process in its complete form, it is now necessary to explain that not all processes reach the retention stage. " <<>> (You may have to manually type this address into Google as it goes to a second line): http://www.samatha.demon.co.uk/publications/abhidhammapapers/ch3_2.htm l --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi All, > > Does anybody know where I can find out more about the operation of > the various cittas in the thought process? > > Let me take the "Determining" citta as an example. As I look through > Bhikkhu Bodhi's "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma", there are ten > entries in the index where this citta is referenced. I have looked > at them all, but at the end almost nothing is said about the > operation of this citta. It says in the text that this > citta, "determines / defines / discriminates". What does this really > mean? What influences the function? What cetasikas are prominent > during this stage? How to describe the state of mind before and > after this citta? Does this citta behave differently in the thought > process of an arahant? How about in jhanic states? I have similar > questions about each of the cittas in the thought process. > > I think of each of the cittas in the thought process as a "black > box", each with an incoming "state of mind", various influencing > parameters, modes of operation, a transformation process, and an > outgoing "state of mind". I am looking for a resource that provides > details on each citta in the thought process. Does such a resource > exist? > > Or am I asking one of those questions that should not be asked? > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) 15158 From: robmoult Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 1:58pm Subject: Re: Inside the Thought Process Hi Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > 8. Determining: It is at the determining stage that discrimination > is applied and the object is recognized. Thus the sound will be known > as a harsh voice and consequent upon this determining will be the > nature of the next and crucial stage of This is exactly the level of detail that I find in Bhikhu Bodhi's "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" - one sentence on each of the cittas. Even the Visuddhi Magga has only seven very brief references to the determining citta in the index. These references provide absolutely minimal information (except that I learn in VM IV n13, that the determining citta only appears in the commentaries). In VM I n16, it says "To expect to find in the Paramatthamanjusa an exposition of the 'cognitive series (citta-vithi)' , and some explanation of the individual members in addition to what is to be found in the Visuddhi-magga itself is to be disappointed. There are only fragmentary treatments." They are right - I am disappointed. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15159 From: Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 10:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Inside the Thought Process Hi, Christine - In a message dated 8/23/02 4:28:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > > Dear Rob M, > > Hope this is of some use. > > metta, > Christine > ----------------------- > > "Abhidhamma Papers > ============================= Wow! At least at first glance this looks like quite a site! (http://www.samatha.demon.co.uk/publications/abhidhammapapers/) Thanks for passing it on. 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) 15160 From: robmoult Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 2:35pm Subject: Registration Citta Hi All, As I was searching though other texts for references on "determining consciousness", I came across the following from PTS Abhidhammattha- Sangaha (1995 edition), III 6 n2 "Tad-arammana, or Tad-alambana (both forms appear in the manual), meaning literally, 'that object' is the curious scholastic term - apparently not found prior to Buddhaghosa - for the final phase in the registration of impression by way of sense." So how do we treat this? Do we differentiate between what was definitely referenced in the Suttas and what was apparently added on later? This is relevant to my quest to better understand the "determining" consciousness", as it appears as though "determining consciousness" may also have been a later addition. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15161 From: robmoult Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 2:46pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Inside the Thought Process Hi Howard, I summarized the contents of this site in my class notes (pages 26 - 36). As I am still an apprentice teacher, before I distribute anything to by class, I show it to Bro. Teo. He went though my summary with a red marker highlighting many incorrect statements. I never distributed it to the class and I plan to incorporate Bro. Teo's comments into the text before "publishing" my class notes at the end of the year. (It is on my to-do list) Thanks, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > ============================= > Wow! At least at first glance this looks like quite a site! > (http://www.samatha.demon.co.uk/publications/abhidhammapapers/) > Thanks for passing it on. > > With metta, > Howard 15162 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 2:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Inside the Thought Process/ Howard Dear Howard, Guess who? metta, Chris "Born 1951 in county of Yorkshire, UK. Married, one child. Theravada Buddhist since time at Manchester University. Meditation teacher in the Samatha Trust tradition since 1976. The Samatha Trust has its roots in Thai Theravada Buddhism. It is a lay organization with around 80 teachers, mostly in the UK. It teaches a carefully structured form of mindfulness of breathing, along with a range of other meditations and Pali chanting. It explores a range of texts, Sutta, Abhidhamma and a few Mahayana texts to bring alive their relevance to contemporary practice. " --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Christine - > > In a message dated 8/23/02 4:28:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > cforsyth@v... writes: > > > > > > Dear Rob M, > > > > Hope this is of some use. > > > > metta, > > Christine > > ----------------------- > > > > "Abhidhamma Papers > > > ============================= > Wow! At least at first glance this looks like quite a site! > (http://www.samatha.demon.co.uk/publications/abhidhammapapers/) > Thanks for passing it on. > > With metta, > Howard 15163 From: Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 1:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Inside the Thought Process Hi, Rob - Good luck with it! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 8/23/02 5:47:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > I summarized the contents of this site in my class notes (pages 26 - > 36). As I am still an apprentice teacher, before I distribute > anything to by class, I show it to Bro. Teo. He went though my > summary with a red marker highlighting many incorrect statements. I > never distributed it to the class and I plan to incorporate Bro. > Teo's comments into the text before "publishing" my class notes at > the end of the year. (It is on my to-do list) > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > ============================= > > Wow! At least at first glance this looks like quite a site! > > (http://www.samatha.demon.co.uk/publications/abhidhammapapers/) > > Thanks for passing it on. > > > > 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) 15164 From: Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 1:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Inside the Thought Process/ Howard Hi, Chris - In a message dated 8/23/02 5:50:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > > Dear Howard, > > Guess who? > > metta, > > Chris > > "Born 1951 in county of Yorkshire, UK. > Married, one child. > Theravada Buddhist since time at Manchester University. Meditation > teacher in the Samatha Trust tradition since 1976. The Samatha Trust > has its roots in Thai Theravada Buddhism. It is a lay organization > with around 80 teachers, mostly in the UK. It teaches a carefully > structured form of mindfulness of breathing, along with a range of > other meditations and Pali chanting. It explores a range of texts, > Sutta, Abhidhamma and a few Mahayana texts to bring alive their > relevance to contemporary practice. " > =========================== Geez, I guess I oughta know. :-( Okay ... I give up! Who? 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) 15165 From: Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 5:38pm Subject: Re: Dhamma without abhidhamma? Hello Christine, Jon I don't find talk of 'reality' useful; in fact I find it goofy and mysterious. It's a confusing way of speaking. For instance, the Buddha rejected both being and non-being. ("...'everything exists' is one extreme, and 'nothing exists' is another extreme. The Tathagata expresses the MIddle Way that does not adhere to these two extremes..." S.III.134-35 [The passage then goes on to reference paticcasamuppada.]) In itself, this is nonsense: something either exists or it does not (there are no shades or graduations of reality). What it means, in context, is that he saw that the world consists of becoming, or processes (things exist in an interrelated way, depend on conditions, are impermanent, don't exist as independent substances or selves), not static/unchanging ('being' rejected) or somehow not real ('non-being' rejected). So it makes sense in the context of debate with contemporary opposing views of static realism or eternalism and nihilism; but 'being' is used here in a special sense. The processes of the world exist, are quite real, just not real in some odd, eternalist sense. (So the Buddha says: "When dukkha arises, it really arises; and when dukkha is extinguished, it is really extinguished." ibid.) The relevance of this is that perhaps we may agree, we're simply using "paramattha" and "reality" and such terms in different senses. I'll begin by noting that not one* of your many references refers to the word "paramattha." You do make many references to khandha, ayatana, the 18 dhathus, the 4 elements and such. If this is what paramattha means we agree, and it's merely a peccadillo that I don't use the word. >...the suttas nevertheless contain numerous references to the importance of >developing direct knowledge of paramattha dhammas as referred to by other names, >such as 'khandhas'. (& a second quote from Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary so using the term.) No problem for me here, but Paramattha dhammas are supposed to be elementary, "ultimate constituents of a whole"; but none of these are, each is further reducible. So I believe he's misusing the word, in order to find it in the suttas. In this sense we don't agree. [This further potential for reduction may not be true of the 4 elements. Here I suggest that if the Buddha meant by element certain experiential properties —e.g., earth = hardness— then good; but if it was meant as a theory of matter it's wrong, as persons are made of carbon, nitrogen, and such. This, of course, would pose no problem; the Buddha's meaning is unchanged, just that the body breaks down into in fact different items, still impersonal, than he supposed. So Dhamma can't be entirely separated from physics.] Consider vedana. It can be analyzed into endless types or classifications: 2 (bodily or mental), 3 (pleasant, painful, neutral), 5, 6, 18 in 3 subgroups, 36 in 6 subgroups, even 108! (Bahuvedaniya Sutta). Isn't it clear that the Buddha wasn't interested in ultimate categories or realties? That it was provisional, dependent on context? That it's a strategy to disengage from seeing things in personal ways by breaking them down into impersonal categories, not a search for ultimates? Vohara sacca, a sutta phrase, means, e.g., self refers not to some substantial entity but the functional unity of the khandhas; it's a convenient and conventional way of speaking. It doesn't mean that beings are unreal, it means they're not substantial, eternal. But this isn't what paramattha dhamma means. The latter contrasts conventional/conceptual meaning with ultimate truth. But conventional usage is simply the proper way of seeing beings, a simple sum over properties word from common usage. As such it is in no way invalid, false, or somehow less real. (The entire issue of concepts is a red herring.) When the Buddha said he used conventional speech without misapprehending them that's what he meant. This can be clearly seen in the Mulapariyaya sutta (which Christine recently discussed). Here is a large and hugely varied list of things or concepts: earth, air (paramattha dhammas?), beings, gods (Sammuti?), etc. They are not distinguished. None are said to be less real. The object, as seen in the four types of persons relative successes, is not to identify with them, to make them one's own, to allow 'self' to appear. There is no denial of conception. This approach misses the point. >...whenever the suttas speak of man, woman, or person...this must not be taken as >being valid in the ultimate sense, but as a mere conventional mode of speech. This is wrong, as noted above, and contradicts MN sutta 58. "Not valid" can only mean incorrect, untrue. In the sutta the Buddha discusses un/true or in/correct (T of F), un/benefical (B or U), and un/welcome or dis/agreeable statements(A or D). This gives 8 permutations: 1. T B D 2. T B A 3. T U D 4. T U A 5. F B D 6. F B A 7. F U D 8. F U A He then sequentially eliminates 7, then 3, accepts 1 at it's proper time, eliminates 8, then 4, concluding 'yes' on 2. 5 and 6, statements false and beneficial, aren't even considered; I take this to mean that there are none such. Sammuti would fall into one of these types (in fact, a species of upaya, in the Mahayana sense of skillful use of falsehood). The Buddha rejected the entire notion. Jeeze, what a long post! and I could yet babble on. Sorry, and thanks for the welcome Jon. (I suspect that a little doubting of the basic premises of the list will go a long way. Still, there's no better way to find out what one thinks than to write it out. Then see what's left standing ;-) *Wasn't the kathavatthu written long after the Buddha died? In any case, I stand corrected on that point. metta, stephen 15166 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 11:24pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Inside the Thought Process/ Howard Dear Howard, Arrghh! Howard - You give in too easily!..... And the answer is >>>>>> Peter Harvey - who is Professor of Buddhist Studies at the University of Sunderland, co-founder of the UK Association for Buddhist Studies, a meditation teacher in the Samatha Trust tradition, and author of An Introduction to Buddhism , The Selfless Mind: Personality, Consciousness and Nirvana in Early Buddhism and An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics. Member of the Editorial Board of The Journal of Buddhist Ethics (and member of Buddha-L). As I recall, Samatha Trust was co-founded by Lance Cousins (Manchester University) who is also on the Editorial Board of The Journal of Buddhist Ethics, and fellow member of Buddha-L. http://jbe.gold.ac.uk/aboutjournal.html Howard, didn't you tell me once-upon-a-time that you had 'The Selfless Mind.....' ? Just that a review I read of it said that there was an Appendix on The Theory of the Process of Cittas, pp.252- 58 which may be of help to Rob M. If you have it, could you have a look and give a comment please? metta, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Chris - > > In a message dated 8/23/02 5:50:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > cforsyth@v... writes: > > > > > > Dear Howard, > > > > Guess who? > > > > metta, > > > > Chris > > > > "Born 1951 in county of Yorkshire, UK. > > Married, one child. > > Theravada Buddhist since time at Manchester University. Meditation > > teacher in the Samatha Trust tradition since 1976. The Samatha Trust > > has its roots in Thai Theravada Buddhism. It is a lay organization > > with around 80 teachers, mostly in the UK. It teaches a carefully > > structured form of mindfulness of breathing, along with a range of > > other meditations and Pali chanting. It explores a range of texts, > > Sutta, Abhidhamma and a few Mahayana texts to bring alive their > > relevance to contemporary practice. " > > > =========================== > Geez, I guess I oughta know. :-( Okay ... I give up! Who? > > With metta, > Howard 15167 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 11:31pm Subject: Re: Inside the Thought Process Hi Rob M, "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value." (Thomas Payne) - nothing worth knowing comes easily. (Though it would be good if the info. was more accessible :). I know you will have searched widely on this topic. It may be that there won't be one text with it neatly laid out - you may have to get a bit from here, a para from there, and gain a little understanding from Admirable Friends as well, over a fair period of time. Have you read 'A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas' by K. Sujin? On one of RobK's sites - http://www.abhidhamma.org/contents.htm Nina says in the Preface "A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas" is a masterwork , written by Acharn Sujin Boriharnwanaket with great patience and a sense of urgency to help others to understand reality. The whole book, in which she explains in all details about citta, consciousness, cetasika, mental factors, and rúpa, physical phenomena, eradiates abundant mettå, loving kindness. Acharn Sujin stresses time and again that theoretical understanding, only knowing realities by name, is not sufficient, although it can be a foundation for direct knowledge. The real purpose of the study of the Dhamma is: seeing that this very moment is dhamma, non-self. All realities, dhammas, have to be known now, when they occur, so that the wrong view of self can be eradicated. Acharn Sujin is the wise friend in Dhamma who untiringly explains the practice leading to the direct experience of realities. She has been explaining the Dhamma for over forty years and her lectures are broadcast daily all over Thailand; they can also be heard in Cambodia, Laos and Malaysia. This book is based on her lectures. " Something in Part 4 Ch. 9 'A process of cittas' Part 4 Ch. 10 'Functions of cittas' Part 5 Ch. 11 'The Duration of different Processes' may be helpful. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > 8. Determining: It is at the determining stage that > discrimination > > is applied and the object is recognized. Thus the sound will be > known > > as a harsh voice and consequent upon this determining will be the > > nature of the next and crucial stage of > > This is exactly the level of detail that I find in Bhikhu Bodhi's "A > Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" - one sentence on each of the > cittas. > > Even the Visuddhi Magga has only seven very brief references to the > determining citta in the index. These references provide absolutely > minimal information (except that I learn in VM IV n13, that the > determining citta only appears in the commentaries). In VM I n16, it > says "To expect to find in the Paramatthamanjusa an exposition of > the 'cognitive series (citta-vithi)' , and some explanation of the > individual members in addition to what is to be found in the > Visuddhi-magga itself is to be disappointed. There are only > fragmentary treatments." They are right - I am disappointed. > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) 15168 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 0:20am Subject: Re: Nutriment (was, Kalapas According to Nyanatiloka) Howard Responding first on your questin about the rupa of nutriment. --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > > Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' > > > > rúpa-kalápa: > > 'corporeal group', material unit, designates a combination of several > > physical phenomena constituting a temporary unity. > > > > Thus, for instance, the so-called 'dead matter' forms the most > primitive > > group, consisting only of 8 physical phenomena, called the 'pure > eightfold > > unit' or 'octad' (suddhatthakakalápa), to wit: the 4 elements (the > solid, > > fluid, heat, motion); colour, smell, taste, nutriment (pathaví, ápo, > tejo, > > váyo; vanna, gandha, rasa, ojá). > > [In Vis.M., and elsewhere, it is also called ojatthamaka-kalápa, 'the > > octad with nutriment as the 8th factor'.] > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > What, exactly, is the kalapa of "nutriment"? > -------------------------------------------------------------- (Just on a point of terminology, 'kalapa' refers to the groups of rupas; the individual constituent dhammas are each rupas.) Every rupa has its characteristic. In the case of nutriment, that characteristic is that which can sustain life by being food. You will find a detailed description in Nina's book 'Rupas' available online at the link below. I have extracted part of the text. Jon http://www.zolag.co.uk/rupas.txt Nutrition is another kind of rúpa which has to arise with every kind of materiality. It can be exerienced only through the mind-door. The "Dhammasangaùi" (§ 646) mentions food such as boiled rice, sour gruel, flour, etc., which can be eaten and digested into the "juice" by which living beings are kept alive. The "Atthasåliní" (II, Book II, Ch III, 330) explains that there is foodstuff, the substance which is swallowed (kabaîinkåro åhåro, literally, morsel-made food), and the "nutritive essence"(ojå). The foodstuff which is swallowed fills the stomach so that one does not grow hungry. The nutritive essence present in food preserves beings, keeps them alive. The nutritive essence in gross foodstuff is weak, and in subtle foodstuff it is strong. After eating coarse grain one becomes hungry after a brief interval. But when one has taken ghee (butter) one does not want to eat for a long time (Atthasåliní, 331). 15169 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 0:27am Subject: Re: Kalapas According to Nyanatiloka Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > With regard to the following, which you provided, I have a few > questions, the primary one of which is how you, personally, as a 21st > century > person who accepts experience-independent matter, evaluate this. I will > insert more particular questions in context. I am intrigued by your reference to 'a 21st century person who accepts experience-independent matter'. Are you perhaps suggesting that the notion of 'experience-independent matter' is contrary to current scientific thinking? (BTW, I don't think I've expressed any thoughts of my own on the matter -- just my reading of the Buddha's position as found in the texts.) > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Also, when there are no "sentient beings" around in this material > realm, no one to smell or taste or see, what do you suppose will > constitute > the kalapas of smell, taste, and colour? What does "taste" mean when > there is > no possibility of tasting? Is it a subjunctive potentiality? That is, if > there were in effect the conditions described as 'a sentient being with > tasting capacity being present', then taste would be experienced? That > would > make some sense to me. But, otherwise, I wonder at what the kalapa of > taste, > in itself, is supposed to be. Disembodied taste, co-occurring with other > similar disembodied characteristics such as solidity, smell, and > nutriment > strike me as a rather poor substitute for both the realist view of > actual > external things with characteristics of hardness etc and also for the > phenomenalist view. Perhaps it is much better than it seems, but for me > to see that, I would need to have much more of an explanation. > -------------------------------------------------------------- I personally don't share your difficulty in conceptualising a rupa without the consciousness that experiences it. Think for example of the rupas that make up the hair on the back of your head, or the inside of your body. Although they are normally not the object of any citta, and many of them would never be the object of a citta during the whole of one's life, that doesn’t to me make their arising any less viable. I've noticed in earlier posts of yours a tendency to talk about the experiencing of rupa as a single event, and I am wondering if there is a connection here. I do not find the 'single event' perspective a particularly helpful one, since the reality of that moment is 2 separate and distinct dhammas, only 1 of which can be the object of awareness or understanding at any given time. Although those 2 dhammas are momentarily interdependent in certain respects, they in fact arise from different causes and conditions and have different natures. The 'single event' treatment is not one I recall seeing in the texts. Jon 15170 From: Deanna Shakti Johnson Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 2:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] help - lots of mail Dear Christine, Thank you so much for the help and information. My inbox isnt so jammed all the time. I did as you said and I am happy to read emails from the group when I have time. I am getting ready for a trip where I won't have access to a computer for 3 weeks so I will have alot ot catching up to do. Thanks again, Shakti christine_forsyth wrote:Hi Deanna (and Azita), I solved the problem of the procession of non-stop emails from choking up my inbox by going to: http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups Click on "Edit my Groups" - change any lists (especially those with heavy email traffic) to "no mail" by selecting under "message delivery", click on "save changes" and then read at the website at your leisure by returning anytime to the link above and clicking on the Group Name in the left hand column. Like Frank, I don't always read all posts or all threads immediately. Azita - I just remembered we were also discussing this subject at Noosa.:) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., frank kuan wrote: > Deanna, you can set up your yahoo email account filter > (search for "dsg") and put it into a separate folder > for starters so it doesn't get mixed up with other > email. > > The desire to maintain orderliness and read every > single message in dsg is a nonobvious type of dukkha. > Dukkha should be understood. When dukkha is seen, it's > easier to let it go. > > I realized a while back that there is no law that > demands that once I start reading a book or email that > I have to finish it. Quite liberating insight and > frees up loads of time. > > -fk 15171 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 3:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] help - lots of mail Dear Shakti, Glad it was helpful ... :) I hope everything is going smoothly with the plans for your trip. I'm not sure exactly where you are going...Nepal? And you have been before, I think? I wonder if the extremely heavy rains in parts of the area recently will have an effect on where you can go? I was looking at photos of a friend's trek on the Annapurna Circuit yesterday. Very beautiful and exotic ... A couple of the women at work are planning to go again later this year, despite memories of sore knees. They laughed at the pictures of signs outside remote tourist accommodation - and explained that these seemed to have been copied from brochures on western hotels with no relation to actual conditions there, especially the parts about hot showers, modern toilets, and wide choice of western meals .... :) Have an enjoyable and safe trip Shakti, and maybe put a photo or two on the List when you get back.... (sorry, couldn't help myself! :)) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Deanna Shakti Johnson wrote: > > Dear Christine, > Thank you so much for the help and information. My inbox isnt so jammed all the time. I did as you said and I am happy to read emails from the group when I have time. I am getting ready for a trip where I won't have access to a computer for 3 weeks so I will have alot ot catching up to do. Thanks again, Shakti > christine_forsyth wrote:Hi Deanna (and Azita), > > I solved the problem of the procession of non-stop emails from > choking up my inbox by going to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups > Click on "Edit my Groups" - change any lists (especially those with > heavy email traffic) to "no mail" by selecting under "message > delivery", click on "save changes" and then read at the website at > your leisure by returning anytime to the link above and clicking on > the Group Name in the left hand column. Like Frank, I don't always > read all posts or all threads immediately. > > Azita - I just remembered we were also discussing this subject at > Noosa.:) > > metta, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., frank kuan wrote: > > Deanna, you can set up your yahoo email account filter > > (search for "dsg") and put it into a separate folder > > for starters so it doesn't get mixed up with other > > email. > > > > The desire to maintain orderliness and read every > > single message in dsg is a nonobvious type of dukkha. > > Dukkha should be understood. When dukkha is seen, it's > > easier to let it go. > > > > I realized a while back that there is no law that > > demands that once I start reading a book or email that > > I have to finish it. Quite liberating insight and > > frees up loads of time. > > > > -fk 15172 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 7:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go Hi Herman >One cannot study things that are not there. It is there just that we cannot see it. What we see are only the manifestation of what we cannot see. To me, it is indeed very difficult to grasp something that is not there and it is very hard to believe in a system that is not being able to be seen. Similarly, the scientific knowledge of gravity, it is there and we cannot see it but we can see the manifestation of gravity and prove it is there. Just like Abhidhamma, it has prove itself to be very useful even though it cannot be actually seen/aware presently by our minds. In my personal opinion, Abidhamma is an eye opener for me and has been very helpful in the understanding of the workings of the consciouness and anatta. Lots to be gain and nothing to lose in studying this *cannot be see* doctrine. I encourage you to investigate and challenge it :). Thanks and indeed it is wonderful to see you here too. kind regards Ken O 15173 From: Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 8:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] wrong view All, I'd like to point out that the passages that outline the Buddha's position on nihilism (vibhava) are implicitly anti phenomenalism and pro free will. There is no point in preserving the integrity of ethics if there is no free will, and if we say because of impermanence there are no khandhas, then there is nothing to be ethical with. Or if we say the khandas exist relatively because of impermanence, then we have to say the 'self' exists relatively because of impermanence. The consequence of that is there is no end of suffering and we have again lost ethics. I fully agree there are other passages that support phenomenalism and no free will. So how to resolve this dilemma? We could go down the road of relative and absolute truth, but absolute truth is relativity. And "relativity" sounds a lot like "relative truth". This brings us back to phenomenalism and no ethics. So the question is, how to establish an ontological basis for ethics. Any ideas? Did the Buddha offer a solution? Larry 15174 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 8:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: miccha sati Hi Nina there is no such thing as wrong sati or wrong compassion. If we start distinguishing kusala as right or wrong, to me is not the correct notion and could lead to confusion. Any kusala cetasika that associated with lobha is moha bc sati and panna is not at work to know it. We should be cautioned not to associated sati or any kusala by an akusala and not abt right or wrong. to Kom (I hope I am right) > about the quest for a shortcut of practice for both > samadhi and vipassana.> k: There is one, look at the Maha-Satipatthana sutta. Its been there for 2500 years, why quest for another one. Why beat abt the bush, when the bush is already there and developed by Buddha himself 2,500 years ago. Anyway, the quest for a shortcut is already has lobha as paccaya. Hence we will always be back to where we started, we will never reach the goal for a shortcut for both samadhi and vipassana :). Furthermore even if we do find a shortcut, are we sure it is correct. Unless one is an Arahat, what we quest for could be detrimental. kind rgds Ken O --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Kom and all, > We should consider what wrong or false sati is. It > must be something we take > for sati, but it is akusala, false, wrong. What > would it be? Now I refer to > what Num formulated so well in the Path of > Discrimination series: > about the quest for a shortcut of practice for both > samadhi and vipassana. > It > usually is a well-disguised form of our own subtle > lobha, clinging to an > idea of > getting quickest possible result.> > > We have to be very sincere, the perfection of > truthfulness is indispensable. > It is very necessary to know what wrong mindfulness > is, when we are on the > wrong Path. It is not a specific cetasika, but the > Buddha mentioned wrong > mindfulness to show what the wrong Path is, as > opposite to right > mindfulness. When there is clinging to result or > when we make ourselves > believe that there is right mindfulness, there is in > fact lobha. > When there is wrong mindfulness there is akusala > citta, but we have to think > first of lobha-mula-citta. > Rob M brought up the Q when sati is samma sati of > the eightfold Path. Sati > of satipatthana begins to be aware of nama and rupa, > and then satipatthana > becomes more developed. When we are still on the > level of considering > different characteristics of nama and rupa, when we > are only beginning to > learn more, we cannot say that this is already samma > sati of the eightfold > Path. When there can be direct awareness of one > reality at a time and the > characteristics of nama and rupa are distinguished > from each other, samma > sati begins to develop, and it develops on and on > until it is samma sati of > the Path which is lokuttara, supramundane. > Recently I heard on a tape about the difference > between seeing and visible > object. Visible object appears all the time, and on > account of it we think > of shape and form. A. Sujin asked a monk whether > seeing has an outward > appearance, and he said, no. A. Sujin answered: then > it is nama, which has > no shape or form. These remarks can help us to have > more understanding of > the difference between nama and rupa, but it is a > difficult subject. What do > you think, Kom? Any helpful reminders for me :-) > Something you heard on > tapes? > Best wishes > from Nina. 15175 From: Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 4:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma without abhidhamma? Hi, Stephen (and Christine, and Jon) - I find myself partly agreeing with what you write below, Stephen, and partly disagreeing. I'll insert a few comments below in context. In a message dated 8/24/02 12:38:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, oreznoone@a... writes: > > Hello Christine, Jon > I don't find talk of 'reality' useful; in fact I find it goofy and > mysterious. It's a confusing way of speaking. For instance, the Buddha > rejected both being and non-being. ("...'everything exists' is one extreme, > > and 'nothing exists' is another extreme. The Tathagata expresses the MIddle > > Way that does not adhere to these two extremes..." S.III.134-35 [The > passage > then goes on to reference paticcasamuppada.]) > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Everything that exists only exists in a "middle way" mode of existing. But, in addition to that, some alleged things don't exist at all but are only imagined, and, among those things that *do* exist, I believe there are variations in their manner of existence. To use an example from meteorology: a rainbow exists, but it does not exist in the same way as the water droplets and sunlight which are conditions for it - it seems to have a more derivative, indirect, and tenuous mode of existence. (Actually, I seem to recall that the Tibetans sometimes use a rainbow as metaphor for all our experience in that without the observer, there is no rainbow. Often, Tibetan Buddhists characterize *all* conditioned dharmas as concept-only. Their position is, I think, that there are no observed objects that have not been created, at least in part, by mental-conceptual constructive activity.) ------------------------------------------------------------- > In itself, this is nonsense: something either exists or it does not (there > are no shades or graduations of reality). > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: While there may or may not be degrees of existence, and that, I think depends on how we divide and subdivide (generally how we "parse") the *notion* of existence, I don't think that we should rule out alternative *modes* of existing. To exist as a mental construct would be a different mode than to exist as a particular visual image. We look outside and see a particular image - the mind then does some rapid construction work and we say "I see a tree". The image exists in one way (as directly apprehended via the sense of sight and our discernment), but the tree exists in a different manner. Now, of course, you want to infer an externally existing, independently existing "tree-in-itself". But if there is such a thing, we do not know what it might be "in itself" - we only know it *as apprehended*, and that involves a great deal of conceptual construction. So, if we put our assumptions about external, independent existence aside, there is a difference in the mode of existence of what we directly see (the image) and what we mentally construct (the tree), and this, I think, is a difference between an actuality (something directly observed - paramattha dhamma) and a c onstruct (pa~n~natti). This distinction, however, I believe, only makes sense from the phenomenological (if not the phenomenalist) perspective. From an objectivist perspective, I don't think it makes sense at all. This is, in part, why I say that Abhidhamma, if not the Dhamma in general, is phenomenological, and possibly even a form of phenomenalism. ------------------------------------------------------ What it means, in context, is that > > he saw that the world consists of becoming, or processes (things exist in > an > interrelated way, depend on conditions, are impermanent, don't exist as > independent substances or selves), not static/unchanging ('being' rejected) > > or somehow not real ('non-being' rejected). So it makes sense in the > context > of debate with contemporary opposing views of static realism or eternalism > and nihilism; but 'being' is used here in a special sense. The processes of > > the world exist, are quite real, just not real in some odd, eternalist > sense. > (So the Buddha says: "When dukkha arises, it really arises; and when dukkha > > is extinguished, it is really extinguished." ibid.) The relevance of this > is > that perhaps we may agree, we're simply using "paramattha" and "reality" > and > such terms in different senses. > > I'll begin by noting that not one* of your many references refers to the > word > "paramattha." You do make many references to khandha, ayatana, the 18 > dhathus, the 4 elements and such. If this is what paramattha means we > agree, > and it's merely a peccadillo that I don't use the word. > >...the suttas nevertheless contain numerous references to the importance > of > >developing direct knowledge of paramattha dhammas as referred to by other > names, >such as 'khandhas'. > (& a second quote from Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary so using the > term.) > No problem for me here, but > > Paramattha dhammas are supposed to be elementary, "ultimate constituents of > a > whole"; but none of these are, each is further reducible. So I believe he's > > misusing the word, in order to find it in the suttas. In this sense we > don't > agree. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, of course the khandhas are further divisible, because they are, exactly, aggregates. But what they are aggregates *of* are, or are intended to be, irreducible (though fleeting and conditioned) direct elements of experience, as opposed to being mental constructs (which have, as I see it, derivative modes of existence). ------------------------------------------------------ > [This further potential for reduction may not be true of the 4 elements. > Here > I suggest that if the Buddha meant by element certain experiential > properties > —e.g., earth = hardness— then good; but if it was meant as a theory of > matter it's wrong, as persons are made of carbon, nitrogen, and such. This, > > of course, would pose no problem; the Buddha's meaning is unchanged, just > that the body breaks down into in fact different items, still impersonal, > than he supposed. So Dhamma can't be entirely separated from physics.] > Consider vedana. It can be analyzed into endless types or classifications: > 2 > (bodily or mental), 3 (pleasant, painful, neutral), 5, 6, 18 in 3 > subgroups, > 36 in 6 subgroups, even 108! (Bahuvedaniya Sutta). Isn't it clear that the > Buddha wasn't interested in ultimate categories or realties? That it was > provisional, dependent on context? That it's a strategy to disengage from > seeing things in personal ways by breaking them down into impersonal > categories, not a search for ultimates? ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think he was interested in ultimate, irreducble *experiences*, but was not interested in chemistry. His approach was phenomenological because his goal was soteriological. [I am not claiming here that he was a phenomenalist - that's a different issue. But distinguishing concept from reality (in the sense of what is actually and directly observed) was an essential part of the Buddha's project to liberate people from ignorance and suffering.] --------------------------------------------------------- > > Vohara sacca, a sutta phrase, means, e.g., self refers not to some > substantial entity but the functional unity of the khandhas; it's a > convenient and conventional way of speaking. It doesn't mean that beings > are > unreal, it means they're not substantial, eternal. But this isn't what > paramattha dhamma means. The latter contrasts conventional/conceptual > meaning > with ultimate truth. But conventional usage is simply the proper way of > seeing beings, a simple sum over properties word from common usage. As such > > it is in no way invalid, false, or somehow less real. (The entire issue of > concepts is a red herring.) When the Buddha said he used conventional > speech > without misapprehending them that's what he meant. This can be clearly seen > > in the Mulapariyaya sutta (which Christine recently discussed). Here is a > large and hugely varied list of things or concepts: earth, air (paramattha > dhammas?), beings, gods (Sammuti?), etc. They are not distinguished. None > are > said to be less real. The object, as seen in the four types of persons > relative successes, is not to identify with them, to make them one's own, > to > allow 'self' to appear. There is no denial of conception. This approach > misses the point. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Of course there was no denial of conception nor of its necessity for thought and communication. But what *did* the Buddha mean when he said that he was not fooled by conventional speech? It seems to me that both Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana are all pretty much in agreement that our speech conventions, all of them, are a major source of error in understanding how things really are. (Read the Diamond Sutra for example, where all sorts of "things" are considered to lack the existence we normally ascribe to them.) -------------------------------------------------------- > > >...whenever the suttas speak of man, woman, or person...this must not be > taken as >being valid in the ultimate sense, but as a mere conventional > mode > of speech. > This is wrong, as noted above, and contradicts MN sutta 58. "Not valid" can > > only mean incorrect, untrue. In the sutta the Buddha discusses un/true or > in/correct (T of F), un/benefical (B or U), and un/welcome or dis/agreeable > > statements(A or D). > This gives 8 permutations: > 1. T B D > 2. T B A > 3. T U D > 4. T U A > 5. F B D > 6. F B A > 7. F U D > 8. F U A > He then sequentially eliminates 7, then 3, accepts 1 at it's proper time, > eliminates 8, then 4, concluding 'yes' on 2. 5 and 6, statements false and > beneficial, aren't even considered; I take this to mean that there are none > > such. Sammuti would fall into one of these types (in fact, a species of > upaya, in the Mahayana sense of skillful use of falsehood). The Buddha > rejected the entire notion. > > Jeeze, what a long post! and I could yet babble on. Sorry, > and thanks for the welcome Jon. (I suspect that a little doubting of the > basic premises of the list will go a long way. Still, there's no better way > > to find out what one thinks than to write it out. Then see what's left > standing ;-) > > *Wasn't the kathavatthu written long after the Buddha died? In any case, I > stand corrected on that point. > > metta, stephen > > ================================ 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) 15176 From: Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 4:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Inside the Thought Process/ Howard Hi, Chris - In a message dated 8/24/02 2:25:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > Dear Howard, > > Arrghh! Howard - You give in too easily!..... > And the answer is >>>>>> Peter Harvey - who is Professor of Buddhist > Studies at the University of Sunderland, co-founder of the UK > Association for Buddhist Studies, a meditation teacher in the Samatha > Trust tradition, and author of An Introduction to Buddhism , The > Selfless Mind: Personality, Consciousness and Nirvana in Early > Buddhism and An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics. Member of the > Editorial Board of The Journal of Buddhist Ethics (and member of > Buddha-L). > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Gosh, I didn't even think of him! :-( ------------------------------------------------------- As I recall, Samatha Trust was co-founded by Lance > > Cousins (Manchester University) who is also on the Editorial Board of > The Journal of Buddhist Ethics, and fellow member of Buddha-L. > http://jbe.gold.ac.uk/aboutjournal.html > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh. I much admire him. (A while back I had had some brief e-mail correspondence with him. He's a very nice guy for an academic! ;-)) ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard, didn't you tell me once-upon-a-time that you had 'The > Selfless Mind.....' ? Just that a review I read of it said that > there was an Appendix on The Theory of the Process of Cittas, pp.252- > 58 which may be of help to Rob M. If you have it, could you have a > look and give a comment please? > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, I do have that book, and it is one of my top favorites. (I own his book on ethics also.) And yes, there is a discussion on the process of cittas included that is *very* easy to understand, very clear. That section and the book as a whole are unusually well written, and I strongly recommend this book to everyone! -------------------------------------------------------- > > metta, > Chris > ============================= 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) 15177 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 8:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go Hi Christine, To me anatta is the *most* difficult concept of Buddhism. It always leads to difficult questions, like "is there a free will and if there is no free will how do we practise in the first place." Pple who believe in no free will is I said b4 a few months ago is extremist. Remember there is always a choice. If there is no choice, the power to choose then Budhha will be wasting his time teaching us. We might as well sit below the bodhi tree and do nothing :). I don't understand why free will must be associated with a self. I think this is a concept developed by the West (no offence please). We always forget that there is a cetana that acts who itself is anatta. Isn't this a wonderful paradox :). Cheers and kind regards Ken O 15178 From: Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 5:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nutriment (was, Kalapas According to Nyanatiloka) Hi, Jon - Thank you for the following information. I must say, though - this business strikes me as 1) a mixing of actuality and concept, and 2) pseudo-scientific from the modern perspective. With metta, Howard In a message dated 8/24/02 3:21:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > Responding first on your questin about the rupa of nutriment. > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > ... > > > Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' > > > > > > rúpa-kalápa: > > > 'corporeal group', material unit, designates a combination of several > > > physical phenomena constituting a temporary unity. > > > > > > Thus, for instance, the so-called 'dead matter' forms the most > > primitive > > > group, consisting only of 8 physical phenomena, called the 'pure > > eightfold > > > unit' or 'octad' (suddhatthakakalápa), to wit: the 4 elements (the > > solid, > > > fluid, heat, motion); colour, smell, taste, nutriment (pathaví, ápo, > > tejo, > > > váyo; vanna, gandha, rasa, ojá). > > > [In Vis.M., and elsewhere, it is also called ojatthamaka-kalápa, 'the > > > octad with nutriment as the 8th factor'.] > > ------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > What, exactly, is the kalapa of "nutriment"? > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > (Just on a point of terminology, 'kalapa' refers to the groups of rupas; > the individual constituent dhammas are each rupas.) > > Every rupa has its characteristic. In the case of nutriment, that > characteristic is that which can sustain life by being food. You will > find a detailed description in Nina's book 'Rupas' available online at the > link below. I have extracted part of the text. > > Jon > > http://www.zolag.co.uk/rupas.txt > Nutrition is another kind of rúpa which has to arise with every kind > of materiality. It can be exerienced only through the mind-door. The > "Dhammasangaùi" (§ 646) mentions food such as boiled rice, sour gruel, > flour, etc., which can be eaten and digested into the "juice" by which > living beings are kept alive. The "Atthasåliní" (II, Book II, Ch III, > 330) explains that there is foodstuff, the substance which is > swallowed (kabaîinkåro åhåro, literally, morsel-made food), and the > "nutritive essence"(ojå). The foodstuff which is swallowed fills the > stomach so that one does not grow hungry. The nutritive essence > present in food preserves beings, keeps them alive. The nutritive > essence in gross foodstuff is weak, and in subtle foodstuff it is > strong. After eating coarse grain one becomes hungry after a brief > interval. But when one has taken ghee (butter) one does not want to > eat for a long time (Atthasåliní, 331). /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) 15179 From: Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 5:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kalapas According to Nyanatiloka Hi, Jon - In a message dated 8/24/02 3:28:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > With regard to the following, which you provided, I have a few > > questions, the primary one of which is how you, personally, as a 21st > > century > > person who accepts experience-independent matter, evaluate this. I will > > insert more particular questions in context. > > I am intrigued by your reference to 'a 21st century person who accepts > experience-independent matter'. Are you perhaps suggesting that the > notion of 'experience-independent matter' is contrary to current > scientific thinking? > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, not at all. Quite the contrary in fact. (Although certain interpretations of quantum mechanics may point away from such objectivism.) --------------------------------------------------- (BTW, I don't think I've expressed any thoughts of> > my own on the matter -- just my reading of the Buddha's position as found > in the texts.) > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > Also, when there are no "sentient beings" around in this material > > realm, no one to smell or taste or see, what do you suppose will > > constitute > > the kalapas of smell, taste, and colour? What does "taste" mean when > > there is > > no possibility of tasting? Is it a subjunctive potentiality? That is, if > > there were in effect the conditions described as 'a sentient being with > > tasting capacity being present', then taste would be experienced? That > > would > > make some sense to me. But, otherwise, I wonder at what the kalapa of > > taste, > > in itself, is supposed to be. Disembodied taste, co-occurring with other > > similar disembodied characteristics such as solidity, smell, and > > nutriment > > strike me as a rather poor substitute for both the realist view of > > actual > > external things with characteristics of hardness etc and also for the > > phenomenalist view. Perhaps it is much better than it seems, but for me > > to see that, I would need to have much more of an explanation. > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > I personally don't share your difficulty in conceptualising a rupa without > the consciousness that experiences it. Think for example of the rupas > that make up the hair on the back of your head, or the inside of your > body. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: As external, mind-independent entities, rupas are mere concept, Jon! They are only hypothesized, not observed. The hair, from the Abhidhammic perspective, is mere pa~n~natti. So, WHERE are these "external", mind-independent rupas? (They don't exist in the hair or as part of the hair, since the hair is mere pa~n~natti.) If one adopts neither a realist (objectivist) standpoint nor a phenomenalist one, I don't see how to answer such a question. [For a realist, the hair is real and out there, with the so-called rupas being mere characteristics of that hair or physical parts of it. For the Buddhist phenomenalist, the rupas are internal - the objective aspects/poles of moments of experience, and the hair is conceptually constructed from these rupas.] ------------------------------------------------------------- Although they are normally not the object of any citta, and many of> > them would never be the object of a citta during the whole of one's life, > that doesn’t to me make their arising any less viable. > > I've noticed in earlier posts of yours a tendency to talk about the > experiencing of rupa as a single event, and I am wondering if there is a > connection here. I do not find the 'single event' perspective a > particularly helpful one, since the reality of that moment is 2 separate > and distinct dhammas, only 1 of which can be the object of awareness or > understanding at any given time. Although those 2 dhammas are momentarily > interdependent in certain respects, they in fact arise from different > causes and conditions and have different natures. The 'single event' > treatment is not one I recall seeing in the texts. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I do see experience as consisting of single events - discernings of objects. The discernment operation (vi~n~nana) and its object co-occur, arise together, and are mutually dependent. This is the mutual dependence of vi~n~nana and namarupa, likened to two mutually supporting sheaves. Whether or not there exist rupas that are more than mere potentialities for being objects of discernent, that are self-existing, independent things is unknowable - for only what is observable is truly knowable. ----------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > > ============================ 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) 15180 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 10:01am Subject: Mindfulness of Breathing We should go back to the first tetrad of the Anapana Sati Sutta: (I) Breathing in long, he knows ³I breathe in long²; or breathing out long, he knows ³I breathe out long². (II) Breathing in short, he knows ³I breathe in short²; or breathing out short, he knows ³I breathe out short². (III) He trains thus ³I shall breathe in experiencing the whole body²; he trains thus ³I shall breathe out experiencing the whole body². (IV) He trains thus ³I shall breathe in tranquillizing the bodily activity²; he trains thus ³I shall breathe out tranquillizing the bodily activity², at that time, monks, the monk is faring along contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly conscious (of it), mindful (of it) having put away the covetousness and dejection in the world. I say, monks, that of bodies, this is (a certain) one, that is to say breathing-in and breathing-out. That is why, on that occasion, monks, the monk is faring along contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly conscious (of it), mindful (of it) having put away the covetousness and dejection in the world. In the word commentary to the above quoted sutta the Visuddhimagga (VIII, 223-226) mentions with regard to the first tetrad (group of four clauses, marked I-IV) of the sutta the different stages of insight-knowledge which are developed after emerging from jhåna. We read Vis. 223 < On emerging from the attainment he sees that the in-breaths and out-breaths have the physical body and the mind as their origin; and that just as, when a blacksmith¹s bellows are being blown, the wind moves owing to the bag and to the man¹s appropriate effort, so too, in-breaths and out-breaths are due to the body and the mind. Next he defines the in-breaths and out-breaths and the body as materiality, and the consciousness and the states associated with the consciousness as the immaterial... Having defined nama-rupa in this way, he seeks its condition...> The Visuddhimagga then mentions all the different stages of insight (Visuddhimagga VIII, 223 -225). We then read: In the Papancasudani, the Co to the Anapanasati sutta, there is more explanation on rupas which should be objects of awareness after the meditator has emerged from jhana. As we read at the end of the first tetrad, The Commentary explains, this is a certain body, kåya~n~natara: N: Breath is rupa, and it can be understood as such when it appears through the bodysense, at the nosetip or upperlip. It can appear as solidity or motion or temperature. It can be known as only rupa, not my breath, as non-self. Contemplating the Body in the Body: now we go to the Co to Satipatthana Sutta (Middle length Sayings, I, 10, translated by Ven. Soma): As to the words: , this Co explains that the world is the five khandhas. Covetousness stands for sense desire and grief stands for ill will, which are, as the Co states, the principal hindrances. We read: Nina: I heard in a tape that A. Sujin explained that all the different sections in the contemplation of the body, in the Satipatthana Sutta, be it mindfulness of breathing, the cemetery contemplations, the parts of the body, the elements, the postures, are a means to remind us to be aware of rupa we take for my body. When we are breathing, walking, sitting, we think of ourselves doing these things, but in reality there are only dhammas. ***** Nina 15181 From: Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Inside the Thought Process Rob, here's a thought. You might poke around in Ledi Sayadaw's writings. If you do, please pass along anything you find in the way of a bibliography for him. There are several brief comments by him in "A Comprehensive Manual..." which go into unusual depth of the citta process. Larry 15182 From: Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] wrong view Hi, Larry - In a message dated 8/24/02 11:38:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > All, > > I'd like to point out that the passages that outline the Buddha's > position on nihilism (vibhava) are implicitly anti phenomenalism and pro > free will. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Why are phenomenalism and free will related or unrelated? Also, what is free will supposed to be? Something unconditioned? Isn't nibbana the only unconditioned thing? ----------------------------------------------- There is no point in preserving the integrity of ethics if> > there is no free will, and if we say because of impermanence there are > no khandhas, then there is nothing to be ethical with. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Something is impermanent in case it doesn't last. That doesn't mean that it is nothing whatsoever. There *is* a middle way. -------------------------------------------------- Or if we say the> > khandas exist relatively because of impermanence, then we have to say > the 'self' exists relatively because of impermanence. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's not what the Indians meant by self, and it isn't what the Buddha criticized. What was taken to be self, and what the Buddha denied, was a permanent, personal, core/essence in or associated with the khandhas. ---------------------------------------------------- The consequence of > > that is there is no end of suffering and we have again lost ethics. > > I fully agree there are other passages that support phenomenalism and no > free will. So how to resolve this dilemma? We could go down the road of > relative and absolute truth, but absolute truth is relativity. And > "relativity" sounds a lot like "relative truth". This brings us back to > phenomenalism and no ethics. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Larry, you've gotta be like me and join the Ethical Phenomenalist Society! ;-)) -------------------------------------------------- > > So the question is, how to establish an ontological basis for ethics. > Any ideas? Did the Buddha offer a solution? ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think the buddha was a philosopher. (He was a Buddha! ;-) ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Larry > ============================= 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) 15183 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 4:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: miccha sati > > there is no such thing as wrong sati or wrong > compassion. If we start distinguishing kusala as > right or wrong, to me is not the correct notion and > could lead to confusion. Any kusala cetasika that > associated with lobha is moha bc sati and panna is not > at work to know it. We should be cautioned not to > associated sati or any kusala by an akusala and not > abt right or wrong. > >============= Dear Ken, Anguttara Nikaya Book of the tens XI (iii) 103 Wrongness From wrong view proceeds wrong thinking; from that wrong speech. From wrong speech, wrong action. From wrong action, wrong living; from that wrong effort. From wrong effort proceeds WRONG MINDFULNESS; from that wrong concentration. From wrong concentration proceeds wrong knowledge. From wrong knowledge proceeds wrong release...... 103. "Micchatta.m, bhikkhave, aagamma viraadhanaa hoti, no aaraadhanaa. Katha~nca, bhikkhave, micchatta.m aagamma viraadhanaa hoti, no aaraadhanaa? Micchaadi.t.thikassa, bhikkhave, micchaasa"nkappo pahoti, micchaasa"nkappassa micchaavaacaa pahoti, micchaavaa cassa micchaakammanto pahoti, micchaakammantassa micchaa- aajiivo pahoti, micchaa-aajiivassa micchaavaayaamo pahoti, micchaavaayaa massa micchaasati pahoti, MICCHASATIssa micchaasamaadhi pahoti, micchaasamaadhissa micchaa~naa.na.m pahoti, micchaa~naa.nissa ‚ micchaavimutti pahoti. Dear Ken, In the Abhidhamma, as you say, there is no wrong sati. Miccha-sati is actually lobha (not sati, not kusala at all) but it is given the name miccha-sati in some suttas to show that it is part of the wrong path. As Kom said it is easy to take the wrong path for the right one and then one may carry on to take unusual experiences(that arise because of wrong concentration) for insight and even come to the stage where there is miccha-vimutti (wrong release), imitation nibbana. And it all begins because of wrong view . We may be trying to get something, to add something to experience, alter it rather than understand it. But perhaps it can be helpful to think of sati as more like a subtraction - a taking away of the subtle lobha that wants things to be other than they are at this moment. Robert 15184 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 5:07pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Let go Hi Ken O, and All, I think that so much revolves around the meaning of particular words to particular individuals, whether in ancient times or nowadays, whether words are used technically or in a general everyday sense and whether the Buddha meant them in the everyday usage applicable right now in the 21st century C.E. of America, Asia, Australia or any other areas. A quick look in the dictionary gives its definition of 'free will' as: Free will: the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies. <<<>>>> I am one of those who are very slow to understand these points .... I agree that anatta is a difficult, deep doctrine. I only understand a little of it - on rare occasions, and when the wind is blowing from the north :) I like to imagine that if I had been a 'born buddhist' living in a buddhist country, and didn't have the western mental baggage of living in a society that is outcomes oriented, being taught to believe in a soul, and God as first cause etc., that understanding anatta would be much easier. I gather from list members with those very 'qualifications' that this may not necessarily be the case .... So much about 'freewill' depends on our understanding of anatta, and conditionality - paticcasamuppada. The Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines states that "paticcasamuppáda: 'dependent origination', is the doctrine of the conditionality of all physical and psychical phenomena, a doctrine which, together with that of impersonality (anattá q.v.), forms the indispensable condition for the real understanding and realization of the teaching of the Buddha. It shows the conditionality and dependent nature of that uninterrupted flux of manifold physical and psychical phenomena of existence conventionally called the ego, or man, or animal, etc. Whereas the doctrine of impersonality, or anattá, proceeds analytically, by splitting existence up into the ultimate constituent parts, into mere empty, unsubstantial phenomena or elements, the doctrine of dependent origination, on the other hand, proceeds synthetically, by showing that all these phenomena are, in some way or other, conditionally related with each other. In fact, the entire Abhidhamma Pitaka, as a whole, treats really of nothing but just these two doctrines: phenomenality - implying impersonality and conditionality of all existence. The former or analytical method is applied in Dhammasangani, the first book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka; the latter or synthetical method, in Patthána, the last book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka." In this excerpt from 'Fundamentals of Buddhism' below, Ven. Nyanatiloka Mahathera suggests that questions on Freewill are in the category of those which are 'wrongly put' and therefore 'unanswerable'. He says that the only admissible question would be: "Is the arising of will independent of conditions, or is it conditioned?" metta, Christine "According to Buddhism, the present rebirth is the result of the craving, clinging and kamma volitions in the past birth. And the craving, clinging and kamma volitions in this present birth are the cause of future rebirth. But just as in this ever-changing mental and physical process of existence nothing can be found that passes even from one moment to the next, just so no abiding element can be found, no entity, no ego, that would pass from one birth to the next. In this ever repeated process of rebirth, in the absolute sense, no ego-entity is to be found besides these conditionally arising and passing phenomena. Thus, correctly speaking, it is not myself and not my person that is reborn; nor is it another person that is reborn. All such terms as "person" or "individual" or "man" or "I" or "you" or "mine," etc., do not refer to any real entity; they are merely terms used for convenience sake, in Pali //vohara- vacana//, "conventional terms"; and there is really nothing to be found beside these conditionally arising and passing mental and physical phenomena. Therefore the Buddha has said: To believe that the doer of the deed will be the same, as the one who experiences its result (in the next life): this is the one extreme. To believe that the doer of the deed, and the one who experiences its result, are two different persons: this is the other extreme. Both these extremes the Perfect One has avoided and taught the truth that lies in the middle of both, that is: Through ignorance the kamma-formations are conditioned; through the kamma-formations, consciousness (in the subsequent birth); through consciousness, the mental and physical phenomena; through the mental and physical phenomena, the six bases; through the six bases, impression; through impression, feeling; through feeling, craving; through craving, clinging; through clinging, the life-process; through the (kammic) life-process, rebirth; through rebirth, decay and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. Thus arises this whole mass of suffering. This phenomenality and egolessness of existence has been beautifully expressed in two verses of the Visuddhmagga: No doer of the deeds is found, No one who ever reaps their fruits. Empty phenomena roll on. This only is the correct view. No god nor Brahma can be called The maker of this wheel of life: Empty phenomena roll on, Dependent on conditions all. In hearing that Buddhism teaches that everything is determined by conditions, someone might come to the conclusion that Buddhism teaches some sort of fatalism, or that man has no free will, or that will is not free. Now, with regard to the two questions: (1) "Has man a free will?" and (2) "Is will free?" the Buddhist will say that both these questions are to be rejected for being wrongly put, and therefore unanswerable. The first question "Has man a free will?" is to be rejected for the reason that, beside these ever-changing mental and physical phenomena, in the absolute sense no such thing or entity can be found that we could call "man," so that "man" as such is merely a name without any reality. The second question "Is will free?" is to be rejected for the reason that "will" is only a momentary mental phenomenon, just like feeling, consciousness, etc., and thus does not yet exist before it arises, and that therefore of a non-existent thing -- of a thing which is not -- one could, properly speaking, not ask whether it is free or unfree. The only admissible question would be: "Is the arising of will independent of conditions, or is it conditioned?" But the same question would equally apply also to all the other mental phenomena, as well as to all the physical phenomena, in other words, to everything and every occurrence whatever. And the answer would be: Be it "will," or "feeling," or any other mental or physical phenomenon, the arising of anything whatsoever depends on conditions; and without these conditions, nothing can ever arise or enter into existence.According to Buddhism, everything mental and physical happens in accordance with laws and conditions. wheel394.zip, 60 KB, 'Fundamentals of Buddhism' by Nyanatiloka Mahathera. http://www.buddhanet.net/ftp03.htm --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Christine, > > To me anatta is the *most* difficult concept of > Buddhism. It always leads to difficult questions, > like "is there a free will and if there is no free > will how do we practise in the first place." > > Pple who believe in no free will is I said b4 a few > months ago is extremist. Remember there is always a > choice. If there is no choice, the power to choose > then Budhha will be wasting his time teaching us. We > might as well sit below the bodhi tree and do nothing > :). > > I don't understand why free will must be associated > with a self. I think this is a concept developed by > the West (no offence please). We always forget that > there is a cetana that acts who itself is anatta. > Isn't this a wonderful paradox :). > > > Cheers and kind regards > Ken O 15185 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 9:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Putting the Anapanasati Sutta into practice Howard (and Victor) My apologies for not getting back sooner on this interesting post. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: <<... Mindfulness of breathing *as taught* in the Anapanasati Sutta and as elucidated upon by many, including, for example, Bhikkus U Silananda and Buddhadasa, is a complete system of meditative practice, but it could also be used in lesser, partial ways, most particularly only for samatha bhavana. Developing awareness of the breath strictly as a concentration on the breath, as a focussing technique, might bring the jhanas, but, by itself, would not fully implement vipassana. The instructions in the Anapanasati Sutta, that title being rendered by Buddhadasa as "Mindfulness while [not 'of'] Breathing", are quite explicit.>> -------------------------------------------------------- You (and I think Victor also) see the Anapanasati Sutta as 'instructional' in the sense of laying out a course of practice to be followed by anyone who wishes to develop insight. I would like to try and explain why I do not share that view. As in the case of any sutta, one needs to ask the question, 'What exactly is the message being conveyed here, and to/for whom?'. Nina has already given us a lot of material from the commentarial texts, which to me give a clear answer to those questions. However, as I know you have reservations about the authenticity of the commentaries, I would like to make one or two observations based on the text of the sutta alone, taking the first part of the passage quoted by you below as an example. 1/. A closer look at the wording of the text. The structure of the passage is rather complex, so I think it helps to break it down a little. Here’s my breakdown-- (a) Now, on whatever occasion a monk breathing in [or out] long [or short] discerns that he is breathing in [or out] long [or short]; (b) trains himself to breathe in or out sensitive to the entire body, or calming bodily fabrication: (c) On that occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- subduing greed & distress with reference to the world. (d) I tell you, monks, that this -- the in-&-out breath -- is classed as a body among bodies, which is why the monk on that occasion remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. … (e) This is how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued so as to bring the four frames of reference to their culmination. To me, the words 'on whatever occasion' in par. (a) indicate that what immediately follows is not meant to be ‘instructional’, but to describe a situation that may occur. I see that expression as equivalent to present-day ‘in the case where’. The key to the whole passage seems to be par. (c), because it is here that the first reference to mindfulness is found. Note, however, that par. (c) does not tell us *how* mindfulness is to be developed, but seems to refer to *mindfulness arising and taking a specific object, namely the body (i.e., rupas)*. So my reading of the whole passage would be something like this: *If* there is mindfulness of rupa as rupa ['the body in and of itself', in par. (c)] while focussing on the breath [as described in par. (a) and (b)] then this is mindfulness of breathing for the purposes of satipatthana [par. (d)]. 2/. The preliminary/underlying assumptions In the sutta, the whole passage on mindfulness of breathing, including the part quoted in your post, is preceded by the following: "Now how is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed & pursued so as to bring the four frames of reference to their culmination? "There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out..." This sets the context for what follows, including the passage discussed at 1/. above. I would like to focus on some particular aspects of this introductory section. Again, a breakdown may be helpful: (a) *There is the case where* a monk, (b) *having gone to the wilderness*, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, (c) and *sets mindfulness to the fore*. (d) *Always mindful*, he breathes in…" Again, this is a "case where" situation, not a "do this" passage [par. (a)]. To my reading, it refers to a particular class of monk, namely one who is not only leading the homeless life but is doing so in the manner recommended by the Buddha for those who wish to develop samatha to a high degree [par. (b)], and in whom both samatha with breath as object and mindfulness/satipatthana are well developed [par. (c) and (d)]. Who else could 'set mindfulness to the fore' and be 'always mindful' when breathing? It is to such a person that the rest of the sutta is pitched. Howard, I hope these comments give you some idea as to why I do not read the sutta as a general exhortation to practise mindfulness of breathing as a means of developing satipatthana, but rather as being directed to those with already-developed samatha where breath is the object. (I am of course not saying the sutta has no relevance or application to the rest of us, but simply that it has to be understood in its proper context.) Jon ************************************************ <<(The Four Frames of Reference) "[1] Now, on whatever occasion a monk breathing in long discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, discerns that he is breathing out long; or breathing in short, discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, discerns that he is breathing out short; trains himself to breathe in... &... out sensitive to the entire body; trains himself to breathe in... &... out calming bodily fabrication: On that occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- subduing greed & distress with reference to the world. I tell you, monks, that this -- the in-&-out breath -- is classed as a body among bodies, which is why the monk on that occasion remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. "[2] On whatever occasion a monk trains himself ... "[3] On whatever occasion a monk trains himself ... "[4] On whatever occasion a monk trains himself ... "This is how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued so as to bring the four frames of reference to their culmination ...">> ****************************************************** 15186 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 9:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Putting the Anapanasati Sutta into practice Victor --- yuzhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Again, the Buddha pointed out the benefit of developing the > mindfulness of in-&-out breathing and gave the instruction on it in > Anapanasati Sutta. It is up to one to put the instruction into > practice. > > If you don't see that you can put the instruction into practice, then > perhaps you might want to find out what hinders you from developing > the mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. > > I look forward to discussing with you on any issue you have regarding > anapanasati after you start developing the mindfulness of in-&-out > breathing. > > Regards, > Victor Thanks for offering to discuss this sutta further, from the point of view of 'putting the instruction into practice'. You will have seen the post I just sent to Howard, and you may have already anticipated my question. It relates to the very beginning of the 'instruction' on mindfulness of breathing: "Now how is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed & pursued so as to bring the four frames of reference to their culmination? "There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. ..." My question is, how does a person get to be within the ambit of this introductory passage, i.e. of being a person who -- (a) having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, has sat down folding his legs crosswise and holding his body erect, (b) has *set mindfulness to the fore*, and (c) is *always mindful* as he breathes in…" I would be interested to hear your thoughts on each of these factors as prerequisites to the actual 'practice' of mindfulness of breathing. Thanks. Jon 15187 From: Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 6:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Putting the Anapanasati Sutta into practice Hi, Jon - I will insert some comments below. But as an advance summary: I do not see matters as you do here. In a message dated 8/25/02 12:31:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard (and Victor) > > My apologies for not getting back sooner on this interesting post. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > <<... Mindfulness of breathing *as taught* in the Anapanasati Sutta > and as elucidated upon by many, including, for example, Bhikkus U > Silananda and Buddhadasa, is a complete system of meditative practice, but > it could also be used in lesser, partial ways, most particularly only for > samatha bhavana. > Developing awareness of the breath strictly as a concentration on > the breath, as a focussing technique, might bring the jhanas, but, by > itself, would not fully implement vipassana. The instructions in the > Anapanasati Sutta, that title being rendered by Buddhadasa as "Mindfulness > while [not 'of'] Breathing", are quite explicit.>> > -------------------------------------------------------- > > You (and I think Victor also) see the Anapanasati Sutta as 'instructional' > in the sense of laying out a course of practice to be followed by anyone > who wishes to develop insight. I would like to try and explain why I do > not share that view. > > As in the case of any sutta, one needs to ask the question, 'What exactly > is the message being conveyed here, and to/for whom?'. Nina has already > given us a lot of material from the commentarial texts, which to me give a > clear answer to those questions. However, as I know you have reservations > about the authenticity of the commentaries, I would like to make one or > two observations based on the text of the sutta alone, taking the first > part of the passage quoted by you below as an example. > > 1/. A closer look at the wording of the text. > The structure of the passage is rather complex, so I think it helps to > break it down a little. Here’s my breakdown-- > (a) Now, on whatever occasion a monk breathing in [or out] long [or > short] discerns that he is breathing in [or out] long [or short]; > (b) trains himself to breathe in or out sensitive to the entire body, or > calming bodily fabrication: > (c) On that occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of itself > -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- subduing greed & distress with reference to > the world. > (d) I tell you, monks, that this -- the in-&-out breath -- is classed as > a body among bodies, which is why the monk on that occasion remains > focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting > aside greed & distress with reference to the world. > … > (e) This is how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued > so as to bring the four frames of reference to their culmination. > > To me, the words 'on whatever occasion' in par. (a) indicate that what > immediately follows is not meant to be ‘instructional’, but to describe a > situation that may occur. I see that expression as equivalent to > present-day ‘in the case where’. > > The key to the whole passage seems to be par. (c), because it is here that > the first reference to mindfulness is found. Note, however, that par. (c) > does not tell us *how* mindfulness is to be developed, but seems to refer > to *mindfulness arising and taking a specific object, namely the body > (i.e., rupas)*. > > So my reading of the whole passage would be something like this: *If* > there is mindfulness of rupa as rupa ['the body in and of itself', in par. > (c)] while focussing on the breath [as described in par. (a) and (b)] then > this is mindfulness of breathing for the purposes of satipatthana [par. > (d)]. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I would direct your attention to the following phrases in what you quoted above: "trains himself" "subduing greed" "putting aside greed & distress" "developed & pursued" -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 2/. The preliminary/underlying assumptions > In the sutta, the whole passage on mindfulness of breathing, including the > part quoted in your post, is preceded by the following: > > "Now how is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed & pursued so as to > bring the four frames of reference to their culmination? > "There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the > shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs > crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore. > Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out..." > > This sets the context for what follows, including the passage discussed at > 1/. above. I would like to focus on some particular aspects of this > introductory section. Again, a breakdown may be helpful: > (a) *There is the case where* a monk, > (b) *having gone to the wilderness*, to the shade of a tree, or to an > empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body > erect, > (c) and *sets mindfulness to the fore*. > (d) *Always mindful*, he breathes in…" > > Again, this is a "case where" situation, not a "do this" passage [par. > (a)]. To my reading, it refers to a particular class of monk, namely one > who is not only leading the homeless life but is doing so in the manner > recommended by the Buddha for those who wish to develop samatha to a high > degree [par. (b)], and in whom both samatha with breath as object and > mindfulness/satipatthana are well developed [par. (c) and (d)]. Who else > could 'set mindfulness to the fore' and be 'always mindful' when > breathing? It is to such a person that the rest of the sutta is pitched. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Whoever the person is, he/she must "go to the wilderness", must "sit down folding his legs crosswise", must "hold his body erect", must "set mindfulness to the fore". These things don't just happen! They are willful, Jon. They constitute deliberate practice, deliberate *training* (just as the Buddha said that the forest monk "trains himself"). The Anapanasati Sutta is not mere description of an event somehow occurring. It is prescription by way of description. It's like one person asking how to bake a cake, and getting the answer: "When a cake is being baked, first the ingredients are assembled, including flour, eggs, shorthening, and yeast, then ... " This is a method of instruction. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard, I hope these comments give you some idea as to why I do not read > the sutta as a general exhortation to practise mindfulness of breathing as > a means of developing satipatthana, but rather as being directed to those > with already-developed samatha where breath is the object. > > (I am of course not saying the sutta has no relevance or application to > the rest of us, but simply that it has to be understood in its proper > context.) > > Jon > ============================= So - we agree to disagree on this one, Jon. With metta, Howard > > > ************************************************ > <<(The Four Frames of Reference) > "[1] Now, on whatever occasion a monk breathing in long discerns that he > is breathing in long; or breathing out long, discerns that he is breathing > out long; or breathing in short, discerns that he is breathing in short; > or breathing out short, discerns that he is breathing out short; trains > himself to breathe in... &... out sensitive to the entire body; trains > himself to breathe in... &... out calming bodily fabrication: On that > occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, > alert, & mindful -- subduing greed & distress with reference to the world. > I tell you, monks, that this -- the in-&-out breath -- is classed as a > body among bodies, which is why the monk on that occasion remains focused > on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside > greed & distress with reference to the world. > "[2] On whatever occasion a monk trains himself ... > "[3] On whatever occasion a monk trains himself ... > "[4] On whatever occasion a monk trains himself ... > "This is how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued so > as to bring the four frames of reference to their culmination ...">> /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) 15188 From: Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 10:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] wrong view Hi Howard, how about this: We could dispense with free will in ethics by saying there is a conditioned, no-control ethics in which good deeds produce good results; saying "you should do this" or "I want to do that" or thinking about something is a condition conditioned by many conditions and it will contribute to (partially cause) many results, now and in the future. So much for free will; now all we have to do is establish the reality status of these causes and results. What confused me was that "impermanence" is used to establish the non existence of 'self' and the dependent existence of the khandhas. I thought because impermanence was the basis of both arguments, they were the same argument, but they aren't. The Buddha asserts that the only possible candidate for the self is one or more of the khandhas, but the self is believed, either psychologically or metaphysically, to be eternal. The khandhas are impermanent, so the khandhas are not a self. The khandhas are, however, dependently existent because they arise dependently, abide dependently and subside dependently. In other words, they are not independent (aka 'ultimately existent'). This is all due to the process nature of impermanence. This logic also applies to 'wholes'. So I could give a nice scientific definition of an emotional human being and we (you and I) could agree that it is truly, dependently existent in process but it has a mistaken belief in a non-existent eternal self. Plus it fails to recognize that its wholeness is dependent on countless parts (results) and conditions and is 'in process'. Instead of saying that the belief in a self is personal, I think I would prefer to say it is based on desire. This is a little tricky because it is almost like self and desire are the same thing, but they aren't. Desire is real. The impersonal nature of identifying desire when it arises is due to the kusala nature of satipatthana. But one could also say desire has shifted from being subject to being object. Instead of looking on desire with satipatthana, however, one could view it with regret, for example. This would still be desire as subject (regret) and a basis of belief in a self. For this particular argument I don't think it makes a difference whether the ultimate stuff of existence is matter or consciousness or a mix of the two. Larry 15189 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 10:25pm Subject: Stream Entry (Sotapanna) Dear Group, As an ordinary person (puthujjana), still possessing all of the ten fetters, and so bound to the round of rebirths, from time to time I get a little concerned about the shortness and uncertainty of life, particularly after the death of someone I know. Most people seem totally unprepared for death, even those of great age, seem shocked if they know about it in advance. Many people say that they are not concerned with death, but with the dying - whether they will die in unrelieved pain, or alone. My concern, when it arises, is with the fact that those of us who are not Sotapannas (Stream Enter-ers) are in grave danger when it comes - firstly to death at any time, and secondly to where Rebirth will occur. It is only Stream Entry that ensures that there is no more to rebirth in woeful states, and human birth being so very rare. Entry into the Stream is marked by the elimination of three fetters. 1. Sakkaya-ditthi (Personality Belief) 2. Vicikiccha (Doubt) 3. Silabbata-paramasa.(Attachment to mere Rule and Ritual). Stream Entry also ensures that there will be (a maximum of) seven more cycles through the round of rebirths. Given that these laws are relentless and inexorable, and are not nullified by lack of believing in rebirth, it seems like a good thing to energetically follow the Path to safety. To me, it seems the hardest fetters to eliminate are the first two - understanding of Anatta, and the elimination of Doubt.... Could it be that they are not as hard as portrayed? or could it be that I am deceiving myself by thinking the other eight fetters are easier (at least, seven of them)? It seems that the first two concern understanding the Dhamma - realising about not-self, and developing unquestioning confidence in the Word of the Buddha, while the next seven involve working away at behavioural characteristics. And then there is Avijja ..... The Ten Fetters that bind us to the wheel of becoming: Doubt (vicikiccha) Attachment to mere Rule and Ritual (siilabbata-paraamasa) Sensual Lust (kamaraga) Ill-Will (vyapada) Craving for Fine-Material Existence (rupa-raga) Craving for Immaterial Existence (arupa-raga) Conceit (mana) Restlessness (uddhacca) Ignorance (avijja). Mostly, I don't aim at anything but eliminating my defilements - but maybe I should get more organised and have a Grand Plan with an Expected Date of Completion. metta, Christine 15190 From: Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 6:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] wrong view Hi, Larry - In a message dated 8/25/02 1:09:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, how about this: > > We could dispense with free will in ethics by saying there is a > conditioned, no-control ethics in which good deeds produce good results; > saying "you should do this" or "I want to do that" or thinking about > something is a condition conditioned by many conditions and it will > contribute to (partially cause) many results, now and in the future. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. Also, while the notion of free will as unconditioned choice makes no sense in the Buddhist context, that does not say that there is no willing at all. There *is* willing, there *is* the exercise of volition. That, in fact, is exactly kamma. --------------------------------------------------- > > So much for free will; now all we have to do is establish the reality > status of these causes and results. What confused me was that > "impermanence" is used to establish the non existence of 'self' and the > dependent existence of the khandhas. I thought because impermanence was > the basis of both arguments, they were the same argument, but they > aren't. The Buddha asserts that the only possible candidate for the self > is one or more of the khandhas, but the self is believed, either > psychologically or metaphysically, to be eternal. The khandhas are > impermanent, so the khandhas are not a self. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm - I'm not completely sure that the only candidates for self are one or more of the khandhas. There is also the notion of 'self' as some principle *underlying* the khandhas, a kind of unmoved mover, and agent which, itself, is the "true being", unchanging, eternal ... soul. Vedanta, for example, viewed the khandhas and all aspects of the world as illusory except for the atman, the "reality" which underlies the individual, illusory "person" and is identical with Brahman, the "reality" underlying all of maya. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > The khandhas are, however, dependently existent because they arise > dependently, abide dependently and subside dependently. In other words, > they are not independent (aka 'ultimately existent'). This is all due to > the process nature of impermanence. This logic also applies to 'wholes'. > So I could give a nice scientific definition of an emotional human being > and we (you and I) could agree that it is truly, dependently existent in > process but it has a mistaken belief in a non-existent eternal self. > Plus it fails to recognize that its wholeness is dependent on countless > parts (results) and conditions and is 'in process'. > > Instead of saying that the belief in a self is personal, I think I would > prefer to say it is based on desire. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I think it is based both on desire and illusion. ------------------------------------------------------ This is a little tricky because it> > is almost like self and desire are the same thing, but they aren't. > Desire is real. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. Desire occurs. But there is no self. -------------------------------------------------- The impersonal nature of identifying desire when it> > arises is due to the kusala nature of satipatthana. But one could also > say desire has shifted from being subject to being object. Instead of > looking on desire with satipatthana, however, one could view it with > regret, for example. This would still be desire as subject (regret) and > a basis of belief in a self. > > For this particular argument I don't think it makes a difference whether > the ultimate stuff of existence is matter or consciousness or a mix of > the two. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that's true. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Larry > ============================ 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) 15191 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 10:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness of Breathing Dear Nina, thank for this continuation of the discussion on Anapanasati. Best, Robert Ep. ============ --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > We should go back to the first tetrad of the Anapana Sati Sutta: > (I) Breathing in long, he knows 3I breathe in long2; or breathing out long, > he knows 3I breathe out long2. > (II) Breathing in short, he knows 3I breathe in short2; or breathing out > short, he knows 3I breathe out short2. (III) He trains thus 3I shall breathe > in experiencing the whole body2; he trains thus 3I shall breathe out > experiencing the whole body2. (IV) He trains thus 3I shall breathe in > tranquillizing the bodily activity2; he trains thus 3I shall breathe out > tranquillizing the bodily activity2, at that time, monks, the monk is faring > along contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly conscious (of it), > mindful (of it) having put away the covetousness and dejection in the world. > I say, monks, that of bodies, this is (a certain) one, that is to say > breathing-in and breathing-out. That is why, on that occasion, monks, the > monk is faring along contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly > conscious (of it), mindful (of it) having put away the covetousness and > dejection in the world. > > In the word commentary to the above quoted sutta the Visuddhimagga (VIII, > 223-226) mentions with regard to the first tetrad (group of four clauses, > marked I-IV) of the sutta the different stages of insight-knowledge which > are developed after emerging from jhåna. We read Vis. 223 > < On emerging from the attainment he sees that the in-breaths and > out-breaths have the physical body and the mind as their origin; and that > just as, when a blacksmith1s bellows are being blown, the wind moves owing > to the bag and to the man1s appropriate effort, so too, in-breaths and > out-breaths are due to the body and the mind. ... 15192 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 10:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nutriment (was, Kalapas According to Nyanatiloka) --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > Thank you for the following information. I must say, though - this > business strikes me as 1) a mixing of actuality and concept, and 2) > pseudo-scientific from the modern perspective. > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 8/24/02 3:21:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > jonoabb@y... writes: > > Every rupa has its characteristic. In the case of nutriment, that > > characteristic is that which can sustain life by being food. You will > > find a detailed description in Nina's book 'Rupas' available online at the > > link below. I have extracted part of the text. Hi Jon, Hope you'll forgive me for jumping in like this, but how can 'the ability to sustain life by being food' possibly be a characteristic in the moment apart from thought? Surely, one can only encounter a characteristic that is actually present in the rupa itself, not something that has to be adduced of it? How can one perceive in the moment that an object is capable of being food? And an even bigger problem: how is it possible for a rupa to present 'being food' in as the characteristic of its single quality? A rupa such as hardness, softness, brightness, or whatever other single quality it may have, can never contain a characteristic as complex as 'being food' which is several concepts removed from the moment in which it is apprehended. A rupa which is potentially food can be 'seen in the moment' but cannot be seen as food, that is a concept. A rupa which is potentially food can be tasted in the moment *as* an actual food being eaten, but even then, the idea of food and the idea of eating are complex concepts that go well beyond the rupa itself. So how can a rupa possibly have the characteristic of what is surely a concept, 'being able to sustain life by being food'? This seems to me to be a conceptual imposition upon the rupa. Not only that, it puts distinct rupas, each of which is single, into a grouped category that stands outside all of them and categorizes them as if they were real objects, the opposite of the rupa in my understanding. Best, Robert Ep. 15193 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 10:59pm Subject: What is Anatta? (was: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go) --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Christine, > > To me anatta is the *most* difficult concept of > Buddhism. It always leads to difficult questions, > like "is there a free will and if there is no free > will how do we practise in the first place." > > Pple who believe in no free will is I said b4 a few > months ago is extremist. Anatta is pretty extreme too. It means 'not self'. Not = no. No self. Atta is self. An-atta is the negation of this entity. You can argue that anatta is applied only to objects of clinging and not to one's personal self, but if that is the case there is really no difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. Hinduism also teaches total non-clinging and non-identification with external objects of desire. Hinduism also teaches that liberation of the mind leads to cessation of the continued round of birth and death. The non-existence of Atta or Atman [the inner spiritual self residing within the gross form] is the radical difference between most schools of Hinduism and all of Buddhism. Remember there is always a > choice. Why must there be a choice. Can you choose a different moment right now? Or do you merely experience what arises as consciousness? Answer according to your actual experience, and you will have a hard time finding where you can choose. In the moment of choosing, do you choose to choose? When you make the final decision, is there some way in which you finally decide, or does it just happen when it does? Choice apart from what happens is actually an illogical conceptual construct. If there is no choice, the power to choose > then Budhha will be wasting his time teaching us. We > might as well sit below the bodhi tree and do nothing > :). who's to say that's not the right thing to do? > I don't understand why free will must be associated > with a self. If there is no self, who needs the concept of free will? Who chooses freely? When consciousness arises and engages in an act it is spontaneous. Where's the will? It is unnecessary to postulate 'will' unless one wants to add a separate moment in which the self makes a separate decision about what to do. If there is only consciousness arising there is not only no free will, but will itself is redundant of the act of consciousness itself. If the will to do x or y arises in the moment as it is acted upon with no intervening self, it does not make much sense to talk about whether it is 'willed' or not, since there is nothing else that could possibly be taking place, and there is no decision of any kind. I think this is a concept developed by > the West (no offence please). We always forget that > there is a cetana that acts who itself is anatta. > Isn't this a wonderful paradox :). 'who itself is anatta' sounds like it is a kind of self-concept to me. Best, Robert Ep. 15194 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:02pm Subject: What is Anatta? (was: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go) By the way ken, I should have said 'hi' and 'nice to see you' before starting to pick on your post! hi! Best, Robert Ep. --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Christine, > > To me anatta is the *most* difficult concept of > Buddhism. 15195 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:38pm Subject: Re: Dhamma without abhidhamma? Hi Stephen, I asked: >>Did the Buddha teach anything you don't already know? to which you replied: ---------------- > Three things that come immediately to mind are anatta (and the fact that it's now widely accepted in psychology and possibly quantum physics, as you note, is a fairly recent confirmationâ€"a good thing, wouldn't we agree?); -------------------- Well, I'm not sure we do agree. Anicca, dukkha and anatta are characteristics of paramattha dhammas. The objects known to science are concepts (pannatti), not parramattha dhammas, they don't have characteristics (sabhava) -- they aren't anicca, dukkha, anatta. (I must admit though, that even concepts are to be understood as anatta. This was explained on dsg a few months ago, I forget the exact reasoning.) So when scientists say that matter lasts only a trillionth of a second and is devoid of substance, they are, `so close and yet so far.' ---------------------- > thinking in terms of a/kusala or un/skillful actions instead of rights, duties, etc.; ------------------------ What's ground-breakingly different about thinking in this way? Couldn't any philosopher come up with that? (I'd suggest many have.) ------------------------ > and a method, or methods (meditation, guarding the senses, etc.). -------------------------- A method that is practiced by paramattha dhammas (by, e.g., samma-ditthi, samma-sati,), can be attributed to the Buddha, all other methods were `old hat' even back then. ---------------------- > I could go on: Right Livelihood pushes forward, --------------------- You'd have to say more on that for me. ------------------ > paticcasamuppada... --------------------- Yes, perhaps,but I wonder -- without the understanding of how it operates in absolute reality, how is it different from other, merely clever, theories? --------------------- >(Of course there's knowing, then there's actual insight.) --------------------- Insight can be explained as consciousness (citta), in which certain rare, precious, mental factors (cetasikas), arise, all of which cognise another nama or rupa. How else can satiaptthana be seen as fundamentally different from ordinary knowing? I'll steer clear of your bit on "paramattha dhamma" being a commentorial innovation. I'm out of my depth there, but I see Jon has answered it. And I'll snip my bit on anatta (re quantum science), to which you replied: ----------------------- > This is the core, and possibly only, utterly new idea, of Buddhadhamma. ------------------ Once we have begun to accept anatta -- that is, once we can intellectually agree that reality is only the present nama and rupa, then the whole Buddhadhamma is brilliant and like nothing else we've ever heard. On the day when we directly know these Dhammas -- i.e., when we have entered the Eightfold Path of the Ariyans, then I think we really will feel the cosmos shake. I asked my opening question again but in a different way: >>Without the explanation of absolute reality, what is there in the Buddha's teaching that is, even remotely, ground-breaking? to which you replied: ------------------ > How about: absolute reality is all around us but we can't see it, can't see things as they are, because of self-view and its entailed defilements of lobha/dosa? ------------------ Exactly what I've been saying! Who's side are you on? :-) ----------------- >Which has nothing to do with concepts, or not. ------------------- Oh, I see. Well, yes it has (according to the Pali Canon), because miccha-ditthi, atta-sanna, lobha and dosa are paramattha dhammas, they are not those things we worldlings know as wrong view, perception of self, greed and hate. These conventional counterparts are just a lot of thinking(concepts, pannatti), they are not real and they can't be objects of satipatthana -- the Middle Way. Kind regards Ken H 15196 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:55pm Subject: Re: What is Anatta? (was: Re: [dsg] Re: Let go) Hi Robert k: It always nice to see u here :) > Anatta is pretty extreme too. It means 'not self'. > Not = no. No self. Atta is > self. An-atta is the negation of this entity. You > can argue that anatta is > applied only to objects of clinging and not to one's > personal self, but if that is > the case there is really no difference between > Hinduism and Buddhism. k: If you argue in this way, there will be no end. Just like impermenance is the opposite of permanent. Anatta is applied to everything not just objects. By the way when you mention about Hinduism, are these Hinduism concepts exist before when Buddha is around or evolve after Buddha enters Nibbana. I don't think earlier Hindusim (Vedaism - hope I get the spelling right) talks abt non-clinging. It is more likely, these concepts abt non clinging are borrowed from Buddhism (no offense please). Hinduism > also teaches total non-clinging and > non-identification with external objects of > desire. Hinduism also teaches that liberation of > the mind leads to cessation of > the continued round of birth and death. The > non-existence of Atta or Atman [the > inner spiritual self residing within the gross form] > is the radical difference > between most schools of Hinduism and all of > Buddhism. k: Why "non-clinging and non-identification with external objects of desire", since everything is inside. If Hinduism taught that by non clinging to external objects is the way then they have a big problem bc I dont believe in blaming external things for my weaknesses. It is all inside :). But I dont think I know Hinduisim concepts very well, even if it is similar, we should not be worry :). But there is one thing Hinduisim dont talk as much as Buddha, the consistent method in the eradication of moha. > Why must there be a choice. Can you choose a > different moment right now? Or do > you merely experience what arises as consciousness? > Answer according to your > actual experience, and you will have a hard time > finding where you can choose. In > the moment of choosing, do you choose to choose? > When you make the final > decision, is there some way in which you finally > decide, or does it just happen > when it does? Choice apart from what happens is > actually an illogical conceptual > construct. > k: Good questions and difficult to answer :). As I said before, if there is no choice why are you reading DSG mails :). If you said you are conditioned by your lobha or panna (to learn more), your actions are conditined by other cetasikas - you are not wrong. But if there is no power to choice then we might as well dont learn Buddhism at all since there is nothing we could choose to change our present and future state R: Do we choose to choose K: Definitely we choose to choose :) Is that a self that choose, if we are conditioned by moha yes there is a self, if we are conditoined by pana, there is no self involved (just like Arahats) :) R: Who chooses freely? k: We cannot choose freely bc we are conditioned, but remembers that does not imply we cannot choose to choose :) Dont take cetana as a self, bc it takes many more cetasikas before cetana could decide. Maybe I should said there is no such thing as free will but there is such a thing as the power of choice/volition. As I said b4, it is a wonderful paradox :). kind rgds Ken O 15197 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 0:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] The purpose of samatha (was, Right Concentration) Dear Jon, Let me ask, if samatha-jhana has no relation to the development of insight, then why does the Buddha state that developing insight with jhana is preferable to just developing insight alone? And why does the Buddha put any emphasis on samatha/jhana at all, if it is not necessary or desireable towards the development of insight, which is the doorway of enlightenment? In other words, if samatha/jhana are inconsequential towards the development of insight, what is the role of samatha/jhana in the path to enlightenment? I know they are kusala, but that is not enough to establish a specific role, which they clearly seem to have. Best, Robert Ep. =========== --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > < the purpose of samatha is to aid discernment both through calm and perhaps > by suppressing defilements, although I'm not sure that suppression of > defilements takes place below the level of jhana. > > < interested if you disagree -- and at the level of jhana defilements are > suppressed so that insight may arise without their obstruction. > > Interested to hear your comments.>> > > [Jon:] > My understanding is that while there is a correlation between the > development of samatha and the suppression of the hindrances, there is no > necessary correlation between the development of samatha and the > development of insight. > > That is to say, a person may develop samatha, even to the attainment of > the jhanas, without at the same time developing insight into the true > nature of dhammas (this indeed is what happens during times when the > teachings have disappeared completely) and, conversely, insight into the > true nature of dhammas can be developed by anyone regardless of their > present level of development of samatha. > > This also means that insight can be developed regardless of the fact that > the hindrances have not been suppressed. This I believe is absolutely > fundamental to the understanding of the Satipatthana Sutta (and please > note in particular the passage "... a bhikkhu understands consciousness > with lust, as with lust... with hate, as with hate ... with ignorance, as > with ignorance ..."). > > The idea that once the hindrances are suppressed insight may freely arise > is, in my view, mistaken. It seems to ignore the fact that insight can > only arise to the extent that it has actually been developed, in other > words, to the extent that the direct experience of dhammas has been > cultivated, and dhammas here includes dhammas of all kinds (i.e., rupas > and unwholesome mental states also), not just wholesome mental states. > The cultivation of mundane jhana and the direct experience of dhammas are > completely different skills. > > Jon > > PS I think this is the last post of yours in this series (phew!). Don't > dare check my inbox in case you've had one of your bursts and replied to > my weekend's work in a single sitting! 15198 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 0:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] The value of samatha (was, Right Concentration) thank. you've answered some of my questions in the last post. Best, Robert Ep. ====== --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep (again!) > > You suggest in the post below that the obvious explanation for the > frequent mention in the suttas of the cultivation of samatha is the fact > that it leads directly to greater understanding (in your view). Well, I > think there are a number of other possible explanations for this. > > First, the Buddha taught extensively about all kinds of kusala, whether or > not the kusala was capable of leading one out of samsara. The importance > of developing kusala regardless of its level cannot be overestimated. > Samatha in fact is a very high degree of kusala, the jhanas themselves > being a condition for rebirth in planes available only to those who > develop the jhanas (a sort of exclusive jhana-club). > > Secondly because, being kusala that is performed through the mind door > alone, samatha can be developed by an individual living a solitary life, > for whom generally speaking there will be large parts of the day when > there are not likely to be opportunities for other forms of kusala (dana > and sila). > > Thirdly, there are a number of suttas (the Anapanasati Sutta among them) > where the Buddha gave instruction to monks already well-practised in > samatha on how insight could be developed in conjunction with the > development of samatha. The reason why this was necessary is I believe > that insight cannot be developed at actual moments of jhana, and without > this instruction monks who have already attained the jhanas, or are > potential contenders for jhana, would not have known how to attain the > higher goal of insight based on jhana. > > Jon > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > < would a rather arbitrary state. If only for efficiency, Buddha would not > choose an arbitrary object. He would choose it not only for being a > kusala state, but one which had a special characteristic that was > necessary for enlightenment. > > < the special value of peacefulness in the noble eightfold path? If there > is none, then it is very strange that samatha is hanging around there, > with no special purpose other than being a kusala state. Even stranger > that samatha is so highly valued among Buddhists, if it has no real > importance. > > < higher attainment than enlightenment without it? There's got to be a good > reason, and it will point to the intrinsic value of samatha as a support > or facilitator of wisdom.>> > 15199 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 0:40am Subject: Re: Stream Entry (Sotapanna) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, >Mostly, I don't aim at anything but eliminating my defilements - but > maybe I should get more organised and have a Grand Plan with an > Expected Date of Completion. Dear Chris, This sort of thinking is very normal. It is what the mind does: desire and plan and intend. If the thinking is underlaid with lobha (looking fwd to being a sotapanna) then it will be associated with pleasant or neutral feeling and if it is associated with dosa(fear of rebirth or worry about how long it will take) then it will come with unpleasant feeling. I think as far as the path is concerned whatever type of thinking arises doesn't make that much difference; the crux is whether it is seen as thinking. If it is not then the concepts that are object of the thinking may be given more importance and 'reality' than they deserve. While if they are seen as concept then they may still occur but there will be less attachment to them. ) "For any priests or contemplatives endowed with wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood, wrong effort, wrong mindfulness, & wrong concentration: If they follow the holy life even when having made a wish [for results], they are incapable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when having made no wish, they are incapable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when both having made a wish and having made no wish, they are incapable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, they are incapable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an inappropriate way of obtaining results... "But as for any priests or contemplatives endowed with right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, & right concentration: If they follow the holy life even when having made a wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when having made no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when both having made a wish and having made no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an appropriate way of obtaining results." Robert