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 Ma