17401 From: peterdac4298 Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 5:57am Subject: Expressions of gratitude. Hi All, Just to say thanks for being out there. A positive force for spreading the Dhamma. Due to the absence of skillful friends, the practice has been not so good lately. Something of a problem ever since disrobing some thirteen odd years ago. The UseNet groups and mailing lists have gone someway towards redressing the balance, but newsgroups can be Dukkha, and mailing lists can be very Anicca. After a prolonged period of 'burnout', there was a definite need to come back into the on-line community, but finding a group that fitted in with the current predicament was no so easy. Even you guys seemed a bit too deep at first for this dyslexic, but having made a couple or few posts, the graft is beginning to take. The last few meditation sessions have shown a marked improvement due mainly to the content of random thoughts: they are much less worldly and more Dhamma related than before. Quite a relief, as it now seems as though the corner has been turned: there is hope for me yet! I especially appreciate the Abhidhamma interest, and more recently the Vinaya angle. Many of you seem to know each other personally due no doubt to sharing retreats etc, or even being fellow expats. This sense of community seems to be very rare in cyberspace. Just hope the Dukkha ain't too bad when these compounded things inevitably come to dissolution. No doubt these elements will come together in some other accumulation at some other time! Cheers Peter 17402 From: James Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 5:59am Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Hi James, (Ray, Rob M, Rob K & All), > > I have several of your anatta' posts in front of me and I'd like to pick > up on a few issues - many of which have probably been clarified for you > already by Ray, Rob M, Rob K and your own reflections. If you don't mind, > I'll use point form this time (more or less in the order you raised them): Sarah, Wow! These ambush posts of yours will be the death of me! :-) just kidding. The question of anatta is not so cut and dry as you seem to state here. From a purely historical perspective, there have been four major schools of thought within Thera Buddhism concerning anatta since the Buddha's death. Of the two largest schools, one proposed a `synthetic self', a temporary self that receives the result of karma and rebirth, etc.; the other proposed no self at all, temporary or otherwise. I am undecided at this point. My thinking is evolving as I study more. When you look at past posts of mine, some of them may still reflect my current thinking, some of them may not. This is a slippery matter and my thoughts change daily. I write to learn, not to teach…and I have no views currently about anatta. You won't see anymore posts about it from me. Metta, James 17403 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 6:40am Subject: Re: Expressions of gratitude. --- Dear Peter, I've been appreciating your posts too. And thanks Robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., "peterdac4298" wrote: > Hi All, > > Just to say thanks for being out there. A positive force for > spreading the Dhamma. > > Due 17404 From: Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 6:53am Subject: Re: Yuganaddha Sutta con'd: intellectual understanding and psychic experiences Dear James, Please forgive the delay in replying to your very revealing letter. This past week was H.M. the King's birthday here in Thailand, and for me it means a lot of ceremonies to attend. As you rightly surmised I have had many of the same experiences that you have had, especially the psychic ones, such as seeing black shapes that incited fear. But I now find, after having studied with Achaan Sujin these last 2 1/2 years, that such experiences were "just thinking" and that they hindered rather than helped understanding to arise. They hinder the arising of understanding because such experiences encourage the laying on of more layers of "I-ness" to form over the already overloaded ego each of us already thinks we have. When I studied with my first teacher years ago, such experiences were subtly (and not so subtly) encouraged and his students liked to talk about them quite a bit. It became a real ego thing because the more experiences one had, the more one was "respected" by the group as being "advanced," etc. And even if you never tell anyone about them, they are still manifestations of the ego because it is always "I am experiencing such and such" and we tend to get carried away by the experiences themselves, losing track of the real reason for studying Dhamma. In such ways, the ego expands. If the ego, atta, expands, can understanding of its true nature arise? Can understanding of anatta arise? But think about it: was any understanding of the true nature of "us," "the mind" and "the world," reality, ever revealed through such experiences? Think about those last statements, check them out, that is, contemplate about them, see if they are true or not, for yourself. Contemplation on such questions is part of pariyati learning (see below). On a number of occasions, Lord Buddha told his students (sorry, I'm very weak on sutta references), that what he had taught them was only as much as a handful of leaves, out of a forest of uncountable numbers of leaves. But, and I'm just paraphrasing this from a rather faulty memory, that that handful was the basic information they needed, the Dhamma, and that all else was unnecessary. There is a lot of information and unexplainable phenomena "out there" that is unnecessary for understanding the way of letting go of defilements. And from my experience, the psychic stuff falls into that category. By the way, I no longer have such experiences, perhaps because "I" am no longer looking for them. When you speak about learning the Dhamma through the intellect, and contemplation, what you have described is the first step of a 3 part learning process. The 8 Fold Path begins with understanding. This is the type of understanding that is called pariyati, or intellectual learning. Sati (awareness, but more than that) cannot arise unless there is knowledge of the Realities that sati can be aware of (excuse the poor grammar). How can you know what anatta is if there is no basic intellectual understanding of it? (You asked, "Why can't I achieve nibbana...?" Your question reveals the answer) This type of learning is a necessary prerequisite, because it helps develop the conditions for the next level of learning, patipatti (practice, but not necessarily what many people refer to as meditation) to occur. These second and 3rd levels deal with the arising of sati and panna (understanding, insight) which truly starts to gradually understand the nature of anatta so that defilements can be gradually let go of. Pariyati learning can occur in various ways: reading, listening to tapes, cd's, etc., studying, discussing, reading the letters on this list and writing in to dsg (anomodhana to Jonothan and Sarah for providing this wonderful forum). The more kusala (wholesome) actions that are performed (and pariyati learning of the Dhamma is definitely kusala), the more chances there are for future kusala actions to occur. It accumulates with each citta. Thus, another way of saying this is that when kusala cittas and cetasikas arise, it creates conditions for more of the same to arise in future. It also works the other way around, unfortunately: when akusala (unwholesome) cittas and cetasikas arise, this also creates conditions for more of the same to arise in future, too. All this is repetition from my previous letter, but one can never hear enough of it. However, this is far too long and I have not even gotten to explaining patipatti and pativedha, the next 2 levels of learning. Others can explain it far, far better than I can ever hope to. Therefore, may I suggest that you go to the websites listed below where you can download the writings of Nina van Gorkom, who can best explain the Dhamma to English speakers. You are indeed fortunate because Nina herself is a regular participant in this forum, and should you then have any questions on anything found in her readings, you can ask her directly through dsg, or by writing to her e-mail address. Such reading will become part of your pariyati learning, which is the prerequisite for going further along the Path. metta, Betty May I suggest that you can continue "your" pariyati learning with the following of Nina's works: Buddhism in Daily Life Abhidhamma in Daily Life These can be found at the following sites: www.buddhadhamma.com www.abhidhamma.org www.zolag.co.uk _______________________ Mom Bongkojpriya Yugala 38 Soi 41 Phaholyothin Road Bangkok 10900, Thailand tel: 662-579-1050; 661-826-7160 e-mail: beyugala@k... > > Betty, > > Thank you for the post. I think that you are trying to tell me > something that I have just begun to figure out. Perhaps you have a > connection with me, beyond this Internet, and I want to encourage > you to keep it. According to this very important sutta by Ananda, > some achieve Nibbana through samatha, some through vipassana, some > through both in tandem, and a few, a very few, through the power of > the mind alone.through reasoning. I have been a Buddhist for 15 > years and have practiced meditation for most of those years. > Samatha didn't do much for me, vipassana did a bit more but I still > felt that it was lacking for me, and now I have given up both and > begun to apply the power of my mind alone to dharma. This is how > Ananda describes it: > > "Then there is the case where a monk's mind has its restlessness > concerning the Dhamma well under control. There comes a time when > his mind grows steady inwardly, settles down, and becomes unified & > concentrated. In him the path is born. He follows that path, > develops it, and pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & > pursuing it -- his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed. > > I should be obvious to everyone in this group that I have a great > deal of restlessness concerning the Dhamma. Why? I must understand > Dhamma with my mind, with my cognitive thought, in order for insight > to arise in me. That is just the way my mind is. I can accept that > now, before I could not. I kept meditating and not much was > happening. I study the suttas and read everything I can get my > hands on now because that is how I `meditate'. During the Buddha's > time, many monks achieved Nibbana simply from listening to the > Buddha speak. This wasn't magic, they just had a mind similar to > mine. Why can't I achieve Nibbana just from reading the suttas? > Two reasons: One, they aren't spoken by Lord Buddha, so a lot is > lost there; Two, I am finding that the Pali language simply doesn't > match English and most of the suttas are translated > improperly/incompletely. > > Recently, I have begun to focus my cognitive thoughts on the > question of anatta/ultimate reality, since that is the heart of the > Buddha's insight/teaching. I am not sure of my progress, but I > think I understand a bit more than I did before. Consequently, I > have had very real, brief visitations these past three days from a > very short, pale figure dressed all in black (black cloak and hat, > and walking stick) who raises a fear in me unlike I have experienced > before. I don't think I need to say more, maybe you know what I > mean. I will move forward. I wish you well in your practice as > well, Betty. Thank you for coming out of the woodwork to address me. > > Metta, James > > > ADVERTISEMENT 17405 From: James Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 7:07am Subject: [dsg] Re: Fear of Rupas --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > It is not important whether we refer to the external sense-objects as > rupas or by some more conventional name; the important thing is to > know that they are among the 'dhammas' that the Buddha said are > capable of being directly experienced, should be known and are to be > abandoned. Dear Jon, In what suttas does the Buddha define "Forms" as material objects existing outside of the body? I would like at least a few vague ones or one specific one. M. Buddhists, of which I tend to incline in regards to higher philosophical questions, states that 'Forms' are 'Forms of the mind', not forms outside the body. I agree with everything you wrote except your definition of 'Form'. Define that for me using suttas and I will reconsider the worth of rupa. Metta, James 17406 From: James Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 7:28am Subject: Re: Yuganaddha Sutta con'd: intellectual understanding and psychic experiences Dear Betty, Thank you for the e-mail. I have some things to discuss and some questions to ask, but I will not do it on this list. I will write to you privately. I have not seen others in this group say that they have encountered such things. Seeing Mara isn't a result of ego. The Buddha saw him frequently and he was void of ego. Metta, James ps. If one more person tries to push off Nina's book on me, I am going to scream! :-) Just kidding...but I may frown very seriously ;-) I have already read as much of that book as I care to. I have addressed questions to her in this group and she has blatantly ignored them while addressing others. If an author cannot defend his/her own book, from questions by an educated person, I don't hold that type of author in high regard. I don't even think that this book is published in paper form. It has not withstood the rigors of investigation for its scholarship, It has not been supported against critics. I know that this position won't make me extremely popular in this group, but I don't strive for popularity--I strive for truth. 17407 From: Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 2:40am Subject: Some Considerations Re: [dsg] Re: Vajira and Mara Hi again, James - In a message dated 12/6/02 2:10:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Hi, James - > > You might consider re-reading what I wrote. I never denied that there > is a deva who spends his time as an adversary, attempting to thwart > liberation. I simply don't know first-hand that there is. My point was that > > personal temptations constitute a more important impediment. > > With metta, > Howard > > ============================ A thought occurred to me that I decided to pass on to you. I used to know an old Hindu man, a long-time grad student in my department, who talked a lot with me about his meditative practice. He had engaged in a regular samatha-type meditation for years. He felt he could be honest with me, and told me that one consequence of his type of meditation was the ability to see (but not hear in his case) "people" who were invisible to others. This was a common occurrence for him. I, myself, have, on a couple occasions, seen, or thought that I saw (I couldn't be certain which), shadowy persons "out of the corner of my eye". This business with me has been quite infrequent and also questionable as to its nature, but the experiences of the Hindu gentleman and your experiences seem to have far greater verisimilitude. One thing that I wonder is whether or not your meditation practice has been long in time and heavy in the samatha direction. If yes, possibly your mind and senses have developed a kind of sensitivity of the sort appropriate to such experience. Whether that is so or not, I would strongly suggest that you speak to a senior monk at your temple who is a knowledgeable and well practiced meditator before involving yourself on your own in chakra meditation. I think that pursuing that on your own, especially given the "visits" you have been having could be risky. If what you have been experiencing is not a mental projection of yours, an objectivization or exteriorization of adversarial tendencies of your own mind, then, it could be Mara, or it could be *a* mara, or it could be a spiteful, harmful "earthbound" character who is hounding you. In any case, whatever the source of your experiences may be, I think it could be a serious mistake to go it alone in this. 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) 17408 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 8:23am Subject: [dsg] Re: Is this a contradiction? Please help... Hello Sarah, Let me ask you a question: If you were being shot by a poison arrow, would you claim that there is no poison arrow, no shooting, no one being shot? Would such claim be true or just a plain lie, a denial of what had actually happened to you? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Dear Victor, > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > > If someone was being pricked by a needle, how would speaking strictly > > in abhidhamma term "there is no person, no pricking, and no needle" > > help him or her? > .... > This is a very good question.......;-) > > Depending on the understanding at any given time, it may lead to > detachment from the idea of a self and may help to see the conditioned > nature of present phenomena. What is being taken now for an experience or > a situation is in reality a variety of conditioned phenomena (as I > understood Howard to be suggesting) - hardness, heat, pain, consciousness, > feeling. In other words, just the namas and rupas you originally were > asking about (without any names;-)). > > To quote from what you wrote to Ray: > > "The Buddha's teaching on each and every aggregate being not self is a > simple yet profound and liberating teaching. Self-views are entangling. > One would never get close to understand the Buddha's teachng if he or she > tries to understand it with a self-view." > > Pls let me know if you have further comments/questions on this. As Howard > also commented, understanding realities doesn't mean abandoning concepts > either;-) > > Sarah > ===== > > > 17409 From: Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 3:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vajira and Mara Hi, Peter - Thanks for the link. It's a good one. Of course what James is addressing is not Mara as psychological metaphor, but as the current holder of a devic job-category, the job-description of which involves temptation and misdirection. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/6/02 8:31:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, peterd@p... writes: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, James - > > > > You might consider re-reading what I wrote. I never denied > that there > >is a deva who spends his time as an adversary, attempting to > thwart > >liberation. I simply don't know first-hand that there is. My point > was that > >personal temptations constitute a more important impediment. > > > >With metta, > >Howard > > > Hi Howard > > I think that the point of the Mara mythology is that "personal > temptation" is a manifestation of Mara's retinue, e.g. his daughters > and his cohorts. I hope the following link puts it well. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/demons.html > > Cheers > Peter > /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) 17410 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 8:46am Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta We can say that everyone has wrong views > concerning self (sakkaya ditthi) apart from the ariyans including > sotapannas. Regardless of the views, there is no self. Realities don't > change, but the understanding of them does. Sarah, you are still entrenched in self-view; otherwise, you wouldn't claim that there is no self. It is hard to give up self-view, just like it is hard to give up wealth and sex. Metta, Victor 17411 From: James Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 9:19am Subject: Some Considerations Re: [dsg] Re: Vajira and Mara --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, James - > A thought occurred to me that I decided to pass on to you. I used to > know an old Hindu man, a long-time grad student in my department, who talked > a lot with me about his meditative practice. He had engaged in a regular > samatha-type meditation for years. He felt he could be honest with me, and > told me that one consequence of his type of meditation was the ability to see > (but not hear in his case) "people" who were invisible to others. This was a > common occurrence for him. I, myself, have, on a couple occasions, seen, or > thought that I saw (I couldn't be certain which), shadowy persons "out of the > corner of my eye". This business with me has been quite infrequent and also > questionable as to its nature, but the experiences of the Hindu gentleman and > your experiences seem to have far greater verisimilitude. > One thing that I wonder is whether or not your meditation practice has > been long in time and heavy in the samatha direction. If yes, possibly your > mind and senses have developed a kind of sensitivity of the sort appropriate > to such experience. Whether that is so or not, I would strongly suggest that > you speak to a senior monk at your temple who is a knowledgeable and well > practiced meditator before involving yourself on your own in chakra > meditation. I think that pursuing that on your own, especially given the > "visits" you have been having could be risky. If what you have been > experiencing is not a mental projection of yours, an objectivization or > exteriorization of adversarial tendencies of your own mind, then, it could be > Mara, or it could be *a* mara, or it could be a spiteful, harmful > "earthbound" character who is hounding you. In any case, whatever the source > of your experiences may be, I think it could be a serious mistake to go it > alone in this. > > With metta, > Howard Howard, Thank you for the letter. I will consider. For some reason I don't know, I feel quite safe today. I have been able to ponder anatta without getting the visitor Mara. Perhaps a lot of psychic energy is being projected to protect me. No, I have practiced Vipassana meditation as my teacher Ajahn Somporn taught me. Actually, he called it nama/rupa meditation and I was to label sensations from the outside and the body as rupa and mind moments as nama. I tried this for about a year and found that I could not truly distinguish between nama and rupa. I eventually saw all experience as nama in order to see how the mind perceives reality. I didn't try to figure out things I didn't know outside of my mind. I told my teacher and he said that was fine. Keep going with that. I don't practice samatha meditation. I practice awareness of breath-body-mind connection meditation, and its transient, all-encompassing nature. And chakra meditation is quite harmless. But I am speaking to others. The monks currently at my temple are not meditation monks, they are community monks. I am not going to call an exorcist yet! ;-) Metta, James ps. Thank you for your concern. Sorry if my other post seemed a little nasty. I really did misinterpret what you wrote as compared to what you were thinking. 17412 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 9:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta/pronouns Hello Christine, Thank you for this helpful reference. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Victor,Ray,and all, > > Sorry I wasn't here to join in this thread. And as I haven't yet > caught up with all the previous posts, I hope I am not repeating > something, or entirely off the point. Somehow I feel you'll point it > out if I am, Victor. ;-) > > This excerpt and link may be of interest about pronouns: from > Dialogues of the Buddha {The Dîgha-Nikâya} Translated from the Pâli > by T. W. Rhys Davids London, H. Frowde, Oxford University Press > [1899] Vol. II of The Sacred Books of the Buddhists > > "It was the refusal to allow any place for this universal belief in a > semi-material soul in his own system that is the most striking, and > perhaps the most original feature in Gotama's teaching. No other > religion of which we have sufficient records to enable us to form an > opinion on the point has been constructed without the 'soul.' Where > the others said 'soul,' Gotama said usually 'Action,' which comes to > much the same as character. In this respect he came very near to our > modern use of the word in such expressions as 'a high-souled man' > or 'a soul for music.' And it is worth calling attention to the fact > that even in Shakspere more than half the times the word is used it > is in this secondary, ethical, emotional sense. Even in the old > authorised translation of our Bible, in which the word occurs > altogether 449 times, it is used 55 times merely in the sense of > person, only 85 times in the animistic sense, and 306 times in the > sense of emotional or intellectual qualities or disposition > > This will make Gotama's position, which is really very simple; > more clear. He rejected entirely the use of the word in the old > animistic sense. He retained it in a personal sense, in the meaning > of 'oneself, himself,' And though, of course, he acknowledged the > reality of the emotional and intellectual dispositions, he refused > absolutely to look upon them as a unity. > > The position is so absolute, so often insisted on, so fundamental > to the right understanding of primitive Buddhism, that it is > essential there should be no mistake about it. Yet the position is > also so original, so fundamentally opposed to what is usually > understood as religious belief, both in India and elsewhere, that > there is great temptation to attempt to find a loophole through which > at least a covert or esoteric belief in the soul and in future life > (that is of course of a soul), can be recognised, in some sort of > way, as part of so widely accepted a religious system. There is no > loophole, and the efforts to find one have always met with unswerving > opposition, both in the Pitakas themselves and in extra-canonical > works." > > http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/dob/dob-06in.htm > > metta, > > Christine 17413 From: Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 5:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi, Victor - In a message dated 12/6/02 11:47:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Sarah, you are still entrenched in self-view; otherwise, you wouldn't > claim that there is no self. > > It is hard to give up self-view, just like it is hard to give up > wealth and sex. > > Metta, > Victor > > ======================== C'mon, Victor - if someone says there are no unicorns is that being entrenched in unicorn-view? Are you saying that not to be entrenched in a view about some topic requires avoiding consideration of that topic? It seems so. 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) 17414 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 1:18pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Howard, If you like, you might want to examine how the Buddha used the word "self" as recorded in the Pali Canon. Metta, Victor > ======================== > C'mon, Victor - if someone says there are no unicorns is that being > entrenched in unicorn-view? Are you saying that not to be entrenched in a > view about some topic requires avoiding consideration of that topic? It seems > so. > > With metta, > Howard 17415 From: peterdac4298 Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 2:51pm Subject: Re: Expressions of gratitude. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- > Dear Peter, > I've been appreciating your posts too. > And thanks > Robert > In dhammastudygroup@y..., "peterdac4298" wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Just to say thanks for being out there. A positive force for > > spreading the Dhamma. > > Thank you Robert, I was about to add a trailer to the message w.r.t. having just read the intorductory posts and banner paragraph. I do now realise that I have unintentionally trivialised the group founders, not realising the group's fine lineage. As such, I would like to apologise for any offence that may have arisen from this. Thirty plus years is a long time for someone to be in practice in the Theravada tradition, let alone a group of such people being actively in contact for that length of time. And to have such wonderful teachers right from the very begining is indeed a blessing for the world. I am so glad to have found this group, my only regret being not to have found it earlier! It is probably too ambitious to try to read all posts at all times. Being dyslexic, reading is hard work and I quickly drain. However, will try to contribute as much as I benefit from the reading that does get done. Cheers Peter 17416 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 6:08pm Subject: Re: Mara Dear James, --- "James" wrote: KKT, It means that I was thinking of something else, in a rather relaxed way (I believe I was pondering the nature of humans and planets), with my eyes closed, when I suddenly saw everything like my eyes were open. I saw, what I felt was Mara afterward, walk past the side of the chair looking straight ahead. When I opened my eyes in a fright, there was nothing there. I have never had experiences or visions like that. I was wholly unique and wholly real. Metta, James KKT: Mara is also the Lord of the Sixth Heaven (the highest) of the Desire Realm. Do you know this? Metta, KKT 17417 From: Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 10:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Victor, You wrote: "Sarah, you are still entrenched in self-view; otherwise, you wouldn't claim that there is no self." L: I've been studying and contemplating on "views" and have found that the Purification of View in the Path of Purification is basically an inventorying of reality with the result that a self is not found there-in. So saying "there is no self" or "there is no self in reality" or "this part of reality is not self and any other part of reality is not self"amounts to the same thing. However, for me, in order for this inventory to be convincing I need to recognize that grasping "I am" is the reality of grasping a usually meaningless concept. So, self-view is actually a reality even though a self is not found when sought. Also I should add there is a big difference between the Purification of View and the eradication of view that is Stream Entry. Purification of View is somewhat on the level of being 'politically correct' while Stream Entry is a glimpse of nibbana. For more info on Purification of View see ch. XVIII Visuddhimagga. Larry 17418 From: Sarah Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 10:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Is this a contradiction? Please help... Hello Victor, I'm always glad to know you're reading the posts carefully;-) --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hello Sarah, > > Let me ask you a question: If you were being shot by a poison arrow, > would you claim that there is no poison arrow, no shooting, no one > being shot? Would such claim be true or just a plain lie, a denial > of what had actually happened to you? ..... Let me ask you a question in return: Do we need to hear and consider the Buddha's Teachings and wisdom to understand conventional truths? Metta, Sarah ======= 17419 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 11:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] vipaka, conditions, and the puppet Chris Thanks for posting some thoughts on the weekend in Thailand. I am sure it was quite an experience for you, staying in a 'local' environment. I enjoyed the weekend myself, especially the dhamma shared batween friends. --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear All, ... > .... Being kept awake all night by 'the unpleasant object' > (sound) was not the result of crying babies or unskillful > parenting, > but because of kamma each of us committed somewhere back in > beginningless time? The crying babies in the plane is 'just the > story'? I used to think 'There is nothing bad except thinking > makes > it so' - but Jon and I had a part conversation about unpleasant > visible object which seemed to bring accumulations and conditions > into the mix - sorry Jon if I misunderstood completely - probably > did? OK, here is a quick recap of the discussion we had on the moving walkway at Hong Kong airport after our flight from Bangkok, when our brisk walk towards Immigration was checked by 2 other passengers in front who were standing across the walkway, chatting. AS I recall, we agreed that dosa on account of people who stand blocking the way, apparently without regard for those who might want to get past, is likely to be conditioned by mana (conceit). It should not be regarded as being conditioned by the visible object, since the visible object per se in that situation is no less pleasant/more unpleasant than if the people were standing to one side considerately. The pleasantness/unpleasantness of the visible object is determined not by the 'scene' before us but by other factors not associated with the 'story'. This is perhaps easier to see by taking one of the other doorways to consider first. If something that contacts us is too hot, that is an unpleasant object regardless of whether the 'too hot' is related to something we regard as pleasant or unpleasant. Likewise with smell, sound and the other sense-door objects. A lot of the dosa that arises in the course of a day is of this kind, conditioned by mana rather than by the unpleasantness of the sense-door object. Is this more or less how it went? To relate this to your later experience on the flight back to Oz, when there is the sound of babies crying, the reality of that moment is just sound. Ideas about 'why me', unskilful parenting, lack of sleep, etc, are aspects of thinking conditioned by that sound and one's inherent tendencies. At the precise moment that the sound is experienced at the sense-door, there is no such story in the sound or in the consciousness that experiences it. In this instance it is probably safe to assume that the object (sound of baby crying) is intrinsically unpleasant. Nevertheless, much of the dosa arising is still likely to be conditioned by mana (in my own experience, at any rate). In other words, the problem is much more likely to be our accumulated tendencies than the object. Jon 17420 From: Sarah Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 11:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Freewill is out?!;-)?!:-) Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Good to have you back and read all your interesting comments. .... I appreciate that, thanks. ..... You wrote: > "Larry, she was stressing that we putthujanas (worldlings) have all > combinations of carita (character), i.e all the different types > discussed in detail in some texts." > > It seems that no modern teachers are interested in this aspect of the > commentary. Did K. Sujin, or do you, have any alternate ideas on why 4 > satipatthanas? .... I’m not sure this is true in K. Sujin’s case. I can’t speak for other ‘modern teachers’. Indeed she encourages us all to read details in various texts and discusses these parts of the commentary at length. (There is a recorded discussion made recently on this topic - if you or anyone else would like to get a copy. I haven’t listened yet, but Rob K and Nina say it’s helpful and clear). Can we know ‘our’ carita or character at this moment? Is there any understanding of whether the citta is kusala or akusala, whether there is attachment of calm, for example? When we say we or someone else is a ‘greedy’ type or a ‘loving’ type, it’s just thinking and merely reflects the tendency to think in this way at this time. Understanding any realities is not so simple and very different from conventional understanding of character and type. I looked at the section on carita in the link Rob M gave : "The *other* "Abhidhamma in Daily Life" by Ashin Janakabhivamsa has an interesting chapter on carita (Chapter 5)." http://www.geocities.com/ekchew.geo/Abhidhamma.htm However, I find it somewhat simplified and generalised. For example, it says “One can generally identify a person’s carita by watching attentively his gestures and movements, his style of living...etc”. This is just thinking and speculating and may be of some value conventionally only. As carita is used in the texts however, I understand it to relate to characteristics and tendencies which can only ever be known at the present moment. For example, from the Netti, we read (ch3, p.149 PTS transl): “One of view temperament approaches form as self, approaches feeling...perception...determinations..consciousness as self. One of craving temperament approaches self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form...etc” Surely, one moment there is ‘view temperament’ and the next moment there is ‘craving temperament’. Who knows from observing us? Only panna can know the citta or kind of sakkaya ditthi(self view) at any moment. Why 4 satipatthanas? I did hear K.Sujin say this is to cover all realities. For myself, I don’t attach much importance to the number of categories in a classification. These are merely for convenience, I understand. For example, 5 hindrances, 4 floods, 4 kinds of clinging, 5 groups of clinging and so on.....Feelings are classified in many, many different ways with different numbers accordingly, depending on context and emphasis. Good to touch base with you again, Larry and looking f/w to the next stage of the Way with all its tricky points.I took my copy of B. Soma’s transl to Thailand and didn’t open it once;-) Sarah ===== 17421 From: Sarah Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 0:27am Subject: Ignored.... Dear Ignored (AKA James) & Betty, Look forward to more of your helpful discussions ;-) --- James wrote: > ps. If one more person tries to push off Nina's book on me, I am > going to scream! :-) Just kidding... .... James, Betty may not have read other messages recommending the same...I know she skips some and we all pay a price for post-hopping;-) Nina would be the first to say, no need to read her books if they don’t appeal...just read what is right for you at the time. As Rob Ep said, there’s no set reading list here. .... > I have > addressed questions to her in this group and she has blatantly > ignored them while addressing others. .... LOL, this really does sound just like my students, especially Philip who you commented was just like you. After he wrote his first letter and got no reply from you, he demanded to know why Jan had so many and you were writing to others but ignoring him ;-) ;-) We’re all like the kids in so many ways, aren’t we? On the way down to Krang Kajan, Nina and I were discussing posts on the list and she said how much she enjoyed your posts, even the ‘rupa is rubbish’ ones. So I know for a fact she is not ignoring them, just as I know you’re not ignoring those by Philip or little Sandy, just because you didn’t reply to their letters. What I tell the students, if they would particularly like to hear from you, is to address you by name, dirctly and politely and ask questions on Buddhism. Why not try this approach with Nina as Larry and others do? You may not get a response, just as the children sometimes don’t. As I tell them, ‘he may be busy’, ‘he may miss your message’, ‘he may be tired’ or there may be any other conditions at work. It doesn’t mean ‘you’ are being ignored or your points have no validity. Sometimes friends on the list comment that they become discouraged if they don’t receive a reply. Well, I’d never post if that were the case - I probably hold the record for lack of replies to posts;-). It doesn’t bother me at all and I would like anyone to feel they were under any obligation of any kind..There’so need to take it personally in anyway. I think it’s best to just write what one can with good intentions and without expectations and leave it at that. ..... >I I don't even > think that this book is published in paper form. ..... I forget which book you’re discussing. Some are available for free distribution (ADL, Realities & Concepts), some can be purchased from Wisdom (Cetasikas, Buddhism in Daily Life...) or other publishers and some are not yet published. ..... >....but I don't strive for > popularity--I strive for truth. ..... As you commented to Ray, there’s no ‘position’ in this group.....everyone has their own preferences, understandings and inclinations.....I’m sure we all respect yours and you’ll be no less popular if they are different from anyone else’s;-). Best wishes, Sarah p.s Betty, so nice to see TWO posts from you in a few days;-) Nina also mentioned you’d been raising some useful questions about points in ‘Survey’. After she leaves, Bkk, if you can, pls raise them here for us all to enjoy;-) ============================================== 17422 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 0:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Fear of Rupas James --- James wrote: ... > In what suttas does the Buddha define "Forms" as material > objects existing outside of the body? I would like at least a few > vague ones or one specific one. M. Buddhists, of which I tend to > incline in regards to higher philosophical questions, states that > 'Forms' are 'Forms of the mind', not forms outside the body. I > agree with everything you wrote except your definition of 'Form'. > Define that for me using suttas and I will reconsider the worth of > rupa. I would not describe the term 'forms', as used in these suttas, as 'material objects existing outside the body'. I understand 'forms' here to be to the eye and seing what sound is to the ear and hearing, aromas are to the nose and smelling, etc. That is to say, it is the (mere) visible datum that is experienced by seeing consciousness, at this moment of seeing. This sounds simple but it's not. It's one of the most difficult things to grasp, even intellectually, for most people (including myself). Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------- Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.23 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-023.html Sabba Sutta (The All) Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. "Monks, I will teach you the All. "What is the All? "Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. "This, monks, is called the All. "Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." ------------------------------------------------------------------- Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.24 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-024.html Pahanaya Sutta (For Abandoning) Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. "Monks, I will teach you the All as a phenomenon for abandoning. "And which All is a phenomenon for abandoning? to be abandoned? "The eye is to be abandoned. Forms are to be abandoned. Consciousness at the eye is to be abandoned. Contact at the eye is to be abandoned. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye -- experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain -- that too is to be abandoned. "The ear is to be abandoned. Sounds are to be abandoned... "The nose is to be abandoned. Aromas are to be abandoned... "The tongue is to be abandoned. Flavors are to be abandoned... "The body is to be abandoned. Tactile sensations are to be abandoned... "The intellect is to be abandoned. Ideas are to be abandoned... "This is called the All as a phenomenon for abandoning." ------------------------------------------------------------------- Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.82 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-082.html Loka Sutta (The World) Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "'The world, the world (loka),'it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply? "Insofar as it disintegrates (lujjati), monk, it is called the 'world.' "Now what disintegrates? "The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye -- experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain -- that too disintegrates. "The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate... "The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate... "The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate... "The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate... "The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate... "Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'" ------------------------------------------------------------------- 17423 From: Sarah Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 0:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rebirth-Immediate? Hi Ignored (AKA Rahula), I don't think anyone replied yet to this: --- rahula_80 wrote: > Hi, > > Is rebirth immediate? > > SN 4.400 At that time, Vaccha, when a being has laid down this body, > and that being (satto) has not yet taken up another (annataram) body > (kayam) in rebirth (anupapanno); therein I declare [that beings] fuel > to > be thirstfulness (tanhupadanam). At that time, Vaccha, I declare [the > beings] fuel to be thirstfulness. > > > This sutta seems to suggest that it is not. ..... Christine raised the same quote and Jim replied in this message w/ the Pali: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m12016.html You may like to check other posts in the thread. Sarah ======= 17424 From: James Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 0:49am Subject: Re: Mara --- "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > KKT: Mara is also the Lord > of the Sixth Heaven (the highest) > of the Desire Realm. Do you know this? > > > Metta, > > > KKT KKT, Yes, I know what you are driving at but you have your facts off a bit. Mara is simply a deva who resides in the 11th plane of existence of the The Sensuous World (kama-loka) (being Samsara, they all have 'Desire' so the lowest category isn't called the 'Desire Realm', Nibbana is the only thing that doesn't have desire). Mara is not a 'Ruler' of that Realm anymore that there exists a 'Ruler' of our `Human Beings Realm' (manussa loka). He is just a resident being (without an essence like the rest of us). His realm is officially called, "Devas Wielding Power over the Creation of Others (paranimmita-vasavatti deva)." I believe that, like the Buddha, he has the psychic power of `multiplicity.' In other words, he can create himself over and over again and each entity can do different activities (good proof of anatta…we could all repeat ourselves over and over again because there isn't a permanent core). The Buddha said that Mara came at him with his army a million strong before reaching enlightenment. I posit they were all Mara, duplicated a million times and each of the same strength. I hope this answers your question. I think you have some sort of unstated agenda for asking the question, but I will let you state it if you wish. It seems that leading questions based on circular logic are en vogue nowadays in this group. I hope that trend stops. Metta, James 17425 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 0:50am Subject: Re: Yuganaddha Sutta con'd: intellectual understanding and psychic experiences ------ > > . If one more person tries to push off Nina's book on me, > ;-) I have already read as much of that book as I care to. I have > addressed questions to her in this group and she has blatantly > ignored them while addressing others. If an author cannot > defend his/her own book, from questions by an educated > person, I don't hold that type of author in high regard. I don't even > think that this book is published in paper form. It has not > withstood the rigors of investigation for its scholarship, It has not > been supported against critics. I know that this position won't > make me extremely popular in this group, but I don't strive for > popularity--I strive for truth. ____________ Dear James, Nina has been in Thailand and Cambodia for the last 10 days and doesn't have access to the internet. I don't recall you asking her questions on this group, but as I don't read all your posts I suppose you may have. In any event most of us reply to posts only if we think it is beneficial. For example in my own case, someone may say something that I believe is incorrect but I don't try to correct it as I sense (rightly or wrongly) that the person is not open to correction or they are interested in dispute rather than Dhamma. Or I think they will sooner or later find out for themself. From my experience Nina is very open to questions and comments but also she gives priority to her translation work and writings .She unfortunately doesn't have time to respond to all posts. +++++++++++++ James: I don't hold that type of author in high regard. I don't even > think that this book is published in paper form. ++++++++ Buddhism in Daily life' has been through about 10 reprints in Thailnd over the years since it was first published in 1969 (all distributed for free). In addition Nina has 6 or 7 other books available for sale (distributed by Wisdom publications). As well as hardcopy these books are also available for free download on the internet. Some of her books have been translated into Thai and I think around 100,000 copies of the Thai versions have been printed and distributed to date. _________ I'd also like to comment on what Betty said:"""You > are indeed fortunate because Nina herself is a regular participant in this > forum, and should you then have any questions on anything found in her > readings, you can ask her directly through dsg, or by writing to her e-mail""". ______ I spoke to Nina just last week about off-list correspondence. As I said she gives priority to her writings and has relatively little time to devote to the internet. I believe that she prefers to answer publicly on dsg rather than answer private comments sent privately to her email address. As I understand it Bhikku Bodhi made similar comments to Sarah. This is simply a matter of limited time and naturally if someone had pressing reasons to write off-list I am sure Nina would understand. Robert > address. 17426 From: James Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 0:59am Subject: Re: Ignored.... --- Sarah wrote: So I know > for a fact she is not ignoring them, just as I know you're not ignoring > those by Philip or little Sandy, just because you didn't reply to their > letters. Dear Sarah, Oh my goodness! I thought I had answered every letter from Philip and I don't remember one from little Sandy. Give me the numbers for these posts and I will respond immediately. Since not replying is okay, I won't reply to the rest of this post ;-) (So There! :-P) Me childish!? HA! :-) Metta, James the Ignored :-( 17427 From: James Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 1:17am Subject: Sorry Nina Dear Nina, I apologize for a recent post of mine that jumped to some false conclusions. I now understand that you have not slighted me due to non-response concerning questions regarding your book "Abhidhamma in Daily Life" (which first brought me to this group). I also understand now that many of your books have been published by Wisdom publications (why they then allow free distribution on the Internet I have no idea, but a side issue). And I am glad that you enjoy my posts. I don't intend to make them enjoyable, but I am glad that members, including you, enjoy them. This medium is very limited and I am satisfied that I found out this information. I am not sorry that I brought the subject up, but it should have been more `questioning' than `reactionary'. I have been a bit out of sorts lately…but getting better. Sorry again. Metta, James 17428 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 1:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Forgiveness Chris My analysis of the 'forgiveness' scenarios you ask about would be as follows. As regards any wrong done by oneself, one is encouraged to acknowledge the error and resolve not to repeat it. In the order of monks, this takes the form of a confession procedure. As regards wrong done by others to oneself, the Buddha explained on many occasions the need to understand that people act the way they do because of their accumulated nature, that one is reaping the result of one's own previous deeds, that the wrongdoer will likewise reap the results of his/her deeds. In the well-known sutta on metta, the Buddha pointed our that even being sawn in two by robbers should not be seen as justification for aversion towards the 'wrongdoers'. No aversion, so no concept of 'wrong conduct by another' to be 'forgiven'. Jon --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello all, > > I was wondering what the Theravada teachings say > about 'forgiveness'. Christianity has a lot to say about this .. > about asking for one's own forgiveness from others and from the > Lord, about forgiving others, about forgiving oneself. Maybe I'm > still 'trailing clouds of glory' from that faith, but forgiveness > would seem to me to be quite an important thing to ask for and > give, > and I wonder why I can't find any teachings. There seems to be some > teachings in Mahayana writings - e.g. Bodhicitta. I looked but I > couldn't find much in Theravada ... accesstoinsight doesn't even > have 'forgiveness' under the subject headings in the sutta > listings. Perhaps it's called something else? > If someone did a wrong to me, would my forgiving them affect the > kammic fruit of their act? Would my not forgiving them affect my > kammic fruit? Somehow I feel the answer is 'no' to the first > and 'yes' to the second. > The mechanism of forgiveness would seem to involve 'acceptance of > self and other', 'metta to both other and self (oops)', 'compassion > for both', 'equanimity', 'putting oneself in the position of the > other', and 'anatta'. Maybe that's why there is a 'forgiveness- > shaped' blank in Theravada - no simple one word topic? > > metta, > Christine 17429 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 1:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] question Ranil Being scolded is 1 of the 8 worldly conditions and hence part of the nature of life in this existence. The reason it is such a problem for us is that we are obliged to listen to words that we don't want to hear, that we react strongly to. This reaction is conditioned by our accumulated uwholesome tendencies. Usually, what is said is intended to condition aversion in us, and given the extent of our accumulated unwholesome tendencies (including, most importantly, conceit), this probably does not require much skill on the part of the 'scolder'. For the 'scolder', however, it is likely to be akusala kamma patha (completed action) through speech door. So however much we may find it an unpleasant experience at the time, the scolder is bringing similar or greater unpleasantness upon him/her self in the future. For this, they deserve our sympathy and understanding. Jon --- ranil gunawardena wrote: > > if another person misunderstands us, > on the misunderstanding builds more and scolds us, > how should we handle the situation? > what thoughts should we have towards that person? > > ~meththa > ranil 17430 From: Sarah Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 1:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Expressions of gratitude. Hi Peter, We’ve also been appreciating your posts, comments and links. Thankyou very much for telling us a little more about yourself and your background. It’s very encouraging when members feel they can share and find benefit. I’m so glad the ‘graft is beginning to take’ and realize it must be very confusing in the beginning. It’s true that a few of us have known each other personally for quite a long time (or what seems a long time in this life;-)). On the otherhand, I think I can say that some of us feel quite a strong bond, even though we’ve just had a cyber relationship for a relatively shorter time. After all, we ‘talk’ to each other almost daily and about the issues of greatest value in our lives. We plan to continue giving and receiving support in one form or other for as long as we can and have various safeguards in place to preserve the archives. ..... > I was about to add a trailer to the message w.r.t. having just read > the intorductory posts and banner paragraph. I do now realise that > I have unintentionally trivialised the group founders, not realising > the group's fine lineage. As such, I would like to apologise for > any offence that may have arisen from this. ..... Not at all and certainly nothing to apologise for. Like Rob, we just appreciated the kind sentiments and you’re as much a member of the ‘group’ as anyone else - nothing stuctured and no lineage.....;-) ..... > Thirty plus years is a long time for someone to be in practice in > the Theravada tradition, let alone a group of such people being > actively in contact for that length of time. And to have such > wonderful teachers right from the very begining is indeed a blessing > for the world. ..... For myself, I’d say there have been many ups and down and with Nina, for example, sometimes I’ve had more contact (like when I used to live in England or now with internet) than at other times. I was talking to Azita at the weekend. We knew over 20 years ago but only very recently resumed contact. We discussed how easily we’ve been led astray by lobha for all sorts of less worthy pursuits, even having been fortunate - as you say - to have wonderful teachers from early days. ..... > I am so glad to have found this group, my only regret being not to > have found it earlier! ..... I feel that way about internet and DSG, but we can make up for lost time now;-) Who knows whether we’d have really appreciated these resources if we’d had the access earlier? ..... > It is probably too ambitious to try to read all posts at all times. > Being dyslexic, reading is hard work and I quickly drain. However, > will try to contribute as much as I benefit from the reading that > does get done. ..... You seem to be doing really well so far, Peter....just what you’re able. Did you say before you live in England? If so, whereabouts? I may have imagined that. I’ve been reading I.B.Horner’s intro to ‘Book of the Discipline’ series as I was getting confused about the order and presentation in the ‘Vinaya Texts’ (SBE series) on the net which you gave a helpful link for (I'll explain separately). This led me into re-reading the parajika (defeat) accounts, i.e story leading to these rules, the patimokkha rule and penalty (in these cases usu. expulsion from the order), old commentary definitions of words, more stories and deviations and so on. I like to reflect on the relevance of the Vinaya in daily life a lot. James, Nina and perhaps others also have interest in ‘armchair’ vinaya, so maybe I’ll try to write more on what I found helpful as you have knowledge an interest too. Perhaps others will contribute as well. I was also interested in your comments on Sariputta. I believe that some of the suttas which he spoke would have originally been commentaries that became part of the Sutta Pitaka itself either at the 1st Council or soon after. The entire Patisambhidamagga and suttas in the MN and other Pitakas would be examples. I understand that possibly after Buddhaghosa’s editorial work, it was considered so comprehensive and was so well-received that there was no considered need to preserve the earlier collections. I’ll sign off now but leave you with an extract from an earlier post I wrote on a series about the origins of the commentaries and Abhidhamma - Sarah ====== “I’d just like to consider the question of the commentaries and the First Council. In the introduction to the translation of the Bahiranidana , Jayawickrama talks about Buddhaghosa’s ‘indebtedness to the Siihala A.t.thakathaa (Commentary) which he constantly refers to. Some references are also given in the vinaya itself. With regard to the commentaries (as we read them)., Malalasekera in ‘The Pali Literature of Ceylon’ suggests ‘The Elders had discussed the important terms at the First Council, and had decided on the method of interpreting and teaching the more recondite doctrines.’ In fact (according to this book) it seems that they were the utterances of disciples that had received particular approval from the Buddha that were ‘esteemed’ and ‘honoured as much as the words of the Buddha himself’. ‘These formed the nucleus of the commentaries. Often, when the Buddha preached a sermon in concise form on some aspect of the doctrine, the monks used to repair to one of the chief disciples and get the points explained in greater detail. Such was Maha-Kaccayana, for example, who was foremost in reputation for his power in giving detailed expositions of what the Buddha said in brief. ..’ “ *************** 17431 From: chase8383 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 2:46am Subject: Re: Emptiness? Hi James I'm new here, was reading through the messages, and found yours on emptiness. It is, as you say, a very profound and important subject to the Buddhist. And, very hard to grasp. If you try to get it as concept you will have trouble I think but, if you use a practice it may come easier. One such practice goes like this. Take an object, like your car. Than pick a place on your car and point to it. Say the drivers side door. Is that your car? Is that the "self" of you car? Or is it just a sheet of iron? If you go through your whole car, pointing to different places and things, will you ever find a spot that is the "self" of your car? Or will you just find a series of interconnected things that togather make up what we call a car? That is emptiness. There really is no car there. Just an object made up of interconnections. You may know all this. Dave 17432 From: peterdac4298 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 3:57am Subject: [dsg] Re: Expressions of gratitude. --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Peter, > You seem to be doing really well so far, Peter....just what you're > able. Hi Sarah Thanks > Did you say before you live in England? If so, whereabouts? I may > have imagined that. Yep! My current domicile is Watford, Hertfordshire, just North of London at the intersection of the M1 and M25. The M25 being the de facto boundary of the greater London area these days, for all practical purposes. > > > I've been reading I.B.Horner's intro to `Book of the Discipline' > series as This is most interesting. I would follow up on this material, but it would take up so much time that I would have to abandon virtually everything else that needs doing. Please don't take it as a disrespect. > > I'll sign off now but leave you with an extract from an earlier > post I wrote on a series about the origins of the commentaries and > Abhidhamma - > > Sarah > ====== > Thank you so much for bringing this material to my and everyone else's attention. It is positively fascinating, but I know from past experience, that perusing such avenues leads to disastrous distortions of immediate priorities. So I hope you guys don't mind if I hitch a ride on the back of all your superb endeavours and just enjoy the fruits of other peoples labours, with the occasional insertions of my own two pen'th worth. > "I'd just like to consider the question of the commentaries and > the First Council. In the introduction to the translation of the > Bahiranidana , Jayawickrama talks >about Buddhaghosa's `indebtedness to the Siihala A.t.thakathaa (Commentary) which he > constantly refers to. Some references are also given in the vinaya itself. > > With regard to the commentaries (as we read them)., Malalasekera in `The > Pali Literature of Ceylon' suggests `The Elders had discussed the > important terms at the First Council, and had decided on the method of > interpreting and teaching the more recondite doctrines.' > > In fact (according to this book) it seems that they were the utterances of > disciples that had received particular approval from the Buddha that were > `esteemed' and `honoured as much as the words of the Buddha himself'. > `These formed the nucleus of the commentaries. Often, when the Buddha > preached a sermon in concise form on some aspect of the doctrine, the > monks used to repair to one of the chief disciples and get the points > explained in greater detail. Such was Maha-Kaccayana, for example, who > was foremost in reputation for his power in giving detailed expositions of > what the Buddha said in brief. ..' > " > *************** > ~Naanmoli's "Word of the Buddha" seems to indicate such developments, especially wrt Sariputa: who would _not_ have been at the first council! Cheers Peter 17433 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 3:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nama Rupa Victor Here is an alternative way of looking at this question. 'Nama' and 'rupa' are terms chosen by the Buddha to designate certain aspects of the knowledge gained by him in attaining enlightenment. They are not something that was there waiting to be 'discovered' by the Buddha. To my understanding, 'nama' and 'rupa' designate the dhammas/fundamental phenomena of which the world as we know it is comprised. In other words, they designate something about the present moment -- for me, the moment conventionally known as 'writing a post', for you, 'reading a post'. Writing/reading posts is the conceptual description of the present moment; the reality is various namas and rupas. Just to complicate things, the compound term nama-rupa has a slightly narrower meaning in certain contexts. But it still refers to specific aspects of the fundamental phenomena of which the present moment is comprised. In my view, the best place to find out more about the underlying phenomena designated by these terms is the Abhidhamma, the commentaries, and the Visuddhi-Magga. I do not think there is much to be gained by looking into the derivation of the terms themselves, since they are only labels (although the Visuddhi-Magga does give an explanation for each in terms of its derivation). Just my thoughts. Jon --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi all, > > I have been thinking for the last couple days about the meaning > of "nama-rupa" and would like to write down some ideas. > > 1. The Sanskrit/Pali word "nama", the English word "name", the German > word "Name", and the French word "Nom" all share the same root in the > linguistic family of Indo-European languages. The Chinese > translated "nama-rupa" as "ming-se", where "ming" means "name" in > English, and "se" literally means "color". The compound word "nama- > rupa" has been translated as "name-and-form" in some literature > and "mentality-materiality" in other. Whether the word "nama" is > translated as "name" or "mentality" in English, questions remain: > what does it mean by "nama"? What does it mean by "rupa"? > > 2. Name is representation. Rupa is what is being represented. There > are representations of representations. In other words, nama and > rupa are relational. They are not two categories with some number > of elements. > > 3. Representation of something is possible only when there is > consciousness, and representations are representation through six > modalities of senses (five modalities of bodily senses plus the > modality of intellect.) > > I look forward to some discussion on the meaning of nama-rupa. > > Have a good day, > Victor 17434 From: chase8383 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 3:58am Subject: Re: Yuganaddha Sutta con'd: intellectual understanding and psychic experiences James "Seeing Mara isn't a result of ego. The Buddha saw him frequently and he was void of ego." Mara is your ego. Remember, Buddha is mind. Mara is mind. Nirvana and samsara are mind. None exist anywhere but in your mind. And they are all of the same mind. There is only one mind. 17435 From: robmoult Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 4:15am Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Swee Boon, Sorry for the delay in responding. I am finally healthy again. I spent today at a "Global Conference on Buddhism 2002". About 1000 people in attendance. I sat at the back and managed to go through more than 100 back posts during the opening ceremony speeches. Yes, the stream is a concept. It does not mirror the present moment. I know "intellectually" that there is no self in the stream, but it is not yet "in my heart". In the past, I knew "intellectually" that there was no self behind the thought process, but now I can say with my heart, "There cannot be a self behind the thought process." I need to ruminate on the lack of self in the stream. At some point, I will "get it into my heart". Thanks for your attempt. I appreciate your effort. Metta, Rob M :-) PS: If there are others to whom I have not replied, please send me a reminder. --- "nidive" wrote: > Hi robmoult, > > Is this stream something which is reality (dhamma) according to the > Abhidhamma? Or is it merely a concept? Is this stream citta, > cetasika or rupa? Or is this stream neither citta, nor cetasika, nor > rupa? > > If this stream is merely a concept that does not mirror what is > reality RIGHT NOW, then this stream doesn't exist and is purely > imagination, with time and memory as parameters feeding into it. > Don't you agree? > > NEO Swee Boon > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > > =========================== > > > Could you explain how kamma / rebirth works *with* a > > self? ;-) What is > > > self is permanent, unchanging, fixed. > > > > In this case, self is seen as the stream of kamma. > > > > In a conventional sense, the water in the stream keeps changing, > but > > it is still has an identity as a stream. > > > > At this moment, I create kamma. The vipaka from that kamma will > > impact what? Answer: My stream, not your stream. It is easy to > > associate the stream of kamma with a self. Intellectually, I feel > > that this is wrong view, but I haven't had the "ah-ha" moment that > > allows me to proceed with an anatta perspective. > > > > Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect two "ah-ha" moments in the > same > > week :-). > > > > Metta, > > Rob M :-) 17436 From: robmoult Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 4:20am Subject: Re: Freewill is out?!;-)?!:-) Hi Sarah, --- Sarah wrote: > As we discussed before, yoniso > manasikara (wise attention) and ayoniso manasikara (unwise attention) only > arise during the javana process, prompting kusala and akusala states. I was still under the impression that yoniso manisakara / ayoniso manasikara arose during the determining stage and thereby conditioned either kusala or akusala at the javana stage. Did we discuss this before? Metta, Rob M :-) 17437 From: robmoult Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 4:57am Subject: Re: ATTENTION: DSG "LURKERS" Hi Swee Boon, --- "nidive" wrote: > Hi robmoult, > > You said: > Consciousness (citta) is grouped into four classifications according > to jati (birth): > - Kusala: active "good" states (generates kamma) > - Akusala: active "bad" states (generates kamma) > - Vipaka: passive result of past kusala or akusala (result of kamma) > - Kiriya: functional states, not associated with kamma > > How does that fit into SN XXXVI.21 ? ... > Please let me know if this is still a question. Sarah posted some info and the escribe function has a discussion on this Sutta. Interesting enough, one of the speakers at the conference today brought up this Sutta and said that it confused him. > Other Questions: > > If I am hurrying home and the rain started to pour halfway through > and I got all drenched, is 'being drenched by the rain' vipaka? What > is the cause of 'being drenched by the rain'? Need there be a cause > for it? It 'being drenched by the rain' necessarily vipaka even > though it is unpleasant? > > I am repairing a car. While I was repairing, I accidentally poked my > hand with the screwdriver. Blood oozed out from my hand and it was > painful bodily. Is this vipaka? What is the cause for it? Yes, they are both vipaka. Each microsecond, there are millions of thought processes. Each thought process has one javana citta that can create vipaka in this life, one javana citta that can create vipaka in the subsequent life and five javana cittas that can create vipaka for an indefinite number of lifetimes. At any one instant, there are approximately a gazillion vipakas that are waiting to happen. Conditions (storm clouds, etc.) determine which of the gazillion will arise. Obviously, if we put ourselves in a bad situation, conditions will allow more akusala vipaka. It says in the texts (can't remember where) that only a Buddha can understand the workings of kamma. I hope that I answered your question. Again, I apologize for the delay in responding. Metta, Rob M :-) 17438 From: robmoult Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 5:05am Subject: Re: Freewill is out?!;-)?!:-) Hi Peter, --- "peterdac4298" > "...Cover story: > On the seventh year after His Enlightenment, the Buddha preached the > Abhidhamma (Higher Doctrine) in Tavatimsa Heaven. As a fulfillment > of gratitude to his former mother, now a Santussita deva, the Buddha > then delivered a sermon on the Higher Doctrine to thousands of Devas > (Gods) and Brahmas (higher celestial beings) who attained the > various stages of Noble Sainthood. ..." > > Can we deduce, in this example from the life of the Buddha, that a > period of meditation, in which reflection on the intricacies of the > Dhamma, is as worthy (i.e.. conducive for future development) as a > similar period involved in cultivating jhanas or investigation of > current processes would be? > > In simpler terms, would this period of clear reviewing (should it > ever arise) be as useful as similar periods of either cultivation or > investigation? Presumably it would depend on such things as the > degree of clarity and compassion accompanying it, etc. I'm not sure that I would make that conclusion. At this point, the Buddha was already enlightened, so there was no need for further purification. However, for those of us who are not enlightened, I belive that contemplating on the Dhamma (or Abhidhamma) is probably kusala (depending on the motivation). Hard to make comparisions of the relative value of "one hour of cultivating jhana" vs. "one hour of vipassana" vs. "one hour of studying the dhamma". In general, the kammic weight depends on the strength of the volition. Hope that I understood and answered your question. Metta, Rob M :-) 17439 From: Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 0:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Fear of Rupas Hi, Jon (and James) - In a message dated 12/7/02 3:43:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > James > > --- James wrote: > ... > >In what suttas does the Buddha define "Forms" as material > >objects existing outside of the body? I would like at least a few > >vague ones or one specific one. M. Buddhists, of which I tend to > >incline in regards to higher philosophical questions, states that > >'Forms' are 'Forms of the mind', not forms outside the body. I > >agree with everything you wrote except your definition of 'Form'. > >Define that for me using suttas and I will reconsider the worth of > >rupa. > > I would not describe the term 'forms', as used in these suttas, as > 'material objects existing outside the body'. > > I understand 'forms' here to be to the eye and seing what sound is to > the ear and hearing, aromas are to the nose and smelling, etc. > > That is to say, it is the (mere) visible datum that is experienced by > seeing consciousness, at this moment of seeing. > > This sounds simple but it's not. It's one of the most difficult > things to grasp, even intellectually, for most people (including > myself). > > Jon > > ========================== Some thoughts. Yes, open your eyes and there's a lamp on a table on top of a carpet and next to a chair in the room. What is all that? It's as follows: Experience (by means of volition) the sequence of events we call "opening our eyes", and there is activated the operation of discernment [sankhara -> vi~n~nana]. Because the required discernment is operative, there can arise a visual object (an image) [vi~n~nana -> namarupa]. Because the required image is available the sight sense door can be activated [namarupa -> salayatana]; actually, the coming together of discernment (vi~n~nana), sense object (namarupa), and sense door *is* the contact. Contact is followed by feeling. Then things seem to become personal - what one feels one recognizes (and our concepts come into play, making us see "external objects" such as lamps etc). This is my understanding. 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) 17440 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 5:56am Subject: Re: Sorry Nina --- "James " wrote: > Dear Nina, > > I apologize for a recent post of mine that jumped to some false > conclusions. I now understand that you have not slighted me due to > non-response concerning questions regarding your book "Abhidhamma in > Daily Life" (which first brought me to this group). I also > understand now that many of your books have been published by Wisdom > publications (why they then allow free distribution on the Internet > I have no idea, but a side issue). _____________ Dear James, Nina won't read your letters until late next week (if then as she has so many back posts to read). But knowing her I'm sure she is not offended at all (but appreciates the kusala of an apology nonetheless). Just to clarify her publisher in the west is Zolag not wisdom. Wisdom are only the distributor. I think although book sales are lessened because the books are on the net many people still like to purchase the very nicely printed hardcopy. They all used to be printed and distributed free in Thailand but it was very hard for people to get them in the west because obviously distributors aren't interested in giving books away. robert 17441 From: peterdac4298 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 6:02am Subject: [dsg] Re: Expressions of gratitude. --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Peter, > We've also been appreciating your posts, comments and links. > Thankyou very much for telling us a little more about yourself and > your background. It's very encouraging when members feel they can > share and find benefit. I'm so glad the `graft is beginning to > take' and realize it must be very confusing in the beginning. > Sarah Hi Sarah I started off in the late sixties, coming from a background in engineering, needing something to sort myself out with and dabbled in Hatha Yoga. From this I later dabbled a little further into Kundalini, just enough to have some idea of what and where the Chakras are. All this lead me, in 1970, by pure chance to the only Theravada teacher in London at that time, an amazing chap known as Kapilavaddho. In 1955 he had founded the English Sangha Trust which in 1970 was based at their property, the Hampstead Vihara aka Wat Dhammapadipa. After he died in early '71, his senior disciple Alan James and his wife Jaquie took over and continued my training and started me off with Sutta study, until I decided to go off on my first trip to India (as one did in those days!). When I finally got back, the Hampstead Vihara had no resident teacher, Alan and Jaquie having decided to start a group of their own in Bradford-on-Avon, Wiltshire, based at their House of Inner Tranquility. Meanwhile, Ajahn Cha came over at the invitation of the directors of the English Sangha Trust and decided to 'adopt' the Trust as a lay support facility for his Western monks to train local people in the Thai Forest Tradition. At this point in time I was in Sri-Lanka ordained as a Samanera at a Forest Monastery just out side of Colombo. Due to domestic problems at home, I disrobed and returned to UK so as to be of help to my family. When things stabilised somewhat I returned to the Hampstead Vihara and threw my lot in with Ajahn Sumedho and the Western disciples of Ajahn Cha, and was able to help out in the move to Chithurst Forest Monastery in W Sussex, and later the branching out to Amaravati in Hertfordshire. This lasted up until 1989, when I disrobed again and returned to lay life as a hotel porter where I have remained since. I count myself most fortunate in having had the chance to know Ajahn Cha for a year or so, most of which was spent in NE Thailand at Wat Ba Pong and local branches, whilst he was still active. It was a bit like being in the Scouts and having a spell at Camp. One learned all the techniques for making and dying robes, keeping out termites and other skills of living in the Forest as an Alms Mendicant under the Vinaya. However this only lasted a year, the original domestic problems resurrected, requiring my re-return to UK. When things where finally resolved I rejoined the Western Monks at Chithurst just in time for their expansion into Amaravati. I was again most fortunate at Amaravati in that Badanta Anandametreya stayed with us for a rains retreat. He led several courses during this time, one of which introduced us to the Abhidhamma, during which he skillfully resolved the confusion, that existed for many of us, as to the differences between Jahna and Nibbana: most useful indeed! Well, that's all I can think of for the moment. Hope it gives some idea of where I'm at. Cheers Peter 17442 From: chase8383 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 6:59am Subject: How I came to Buddism In June of 1968 I was at a Military Hospital, just outside of Boston Ma. USA. I was there to recover from wounds I had received in Vietnam. They were quite serious. I had been wounded on May 19th and by early June I had gone from 185lbs to under 100lbs. It would take one year and multiple surgical procedures for me to recover. As I lay on my bed, in early June, I thought of praying as a way of drawing enough strength to face my future. As I began to pray, I suddenly realized that no matter how much I prayed, it would still be me that had to face the operating table. It would still be me that would have to face the recovery. It would have to be me that was strong. It couldn't come from outside of me, from another being other than myself. No, it had to come from inside. And further more, it would have to come from my mind. After all, my body was damaged. Without knowing it, I was entering the Buddha's path. That turning of the mind on itself. That understanding of my impermanence. That taking of life, moment by moment. I had no place else to go. Fifteen years later I picked up a book on Buddhism in the library. As I read it I thought, I'll be damned. Here it is. Suffering, sickness, all of it and, the path out. The same path I had started all those years go, on my own. David 17443 From: nidive Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 7:04am Subject: 'Contradiction' resolved! Hi ALL, Thank you for your responses. I think I have resolved the 'contradiction'. If I am drenched by the rain, the event is not caused by kamma. But rather 'being drenched by the rain' is the condition that allows vipaka to come into force. Past kamma does not determine that I will be drenched by the rain at time X at place Y. But that the rain fell on me at time X at place Y is the condition for vipaka to come into force. If I poked my hand with the screwdriver, the event is not caused by kamma. But rather 'being poked by the screwdriver' is the condition that allows vipaka to come into force. Past kamma does not determine that I will be poked by the screwdriver at time X at place Y. But that the screwdriver poked my hand at time X at place Y is the condition for vipaka to come into force. If I am pricked by the needle, the event is not caused by kamma. But rather 'being pricked by the needle' is the condition that allows vipaka to come into force. Past kamma does not determine that I will be pricked by the needle at time X at place Y. But that the needle pricked my hand is the condition for vipaka to come into force. If I am disturbed by disorders of the bile, the event is not caused by kamma. But rather 'being disturbed by disorders of the bile' is the condition that allows vipaka to come into force. Past kamma does not determine that I will be disturbed by disorders of the bile at time X at place Y. But that disorders of the bile disturbed me is the condition for vipaka to come into force. As such, since past kamma does not determine 'what happens at the present' (only the results of kamma are manifested where there are appropriate conditions for their manifestation), concepts such as 'pre-destiny' are invalid. Personally, I do not think that the Buddha knew everything about the future of a particular case he concentrated on. The Buddha himself admitted that the 'end of samsara for all beings' is not in sight. This means that the Buddha could not possibly know everything about the future of whatever he concentrated on, because he would have to spend an 'eternity' concentrating on it. We know this 'eternity' to be impossible. Reasoning demands that the concept of pre-destiny is not valid and is mere wild imagination of the mind. This concept arises because one links prior knowledge of the future with the results of kamma without realizing that conditions necessary for the arising of vipaka is not caused by past kamma. There is no relationship between prior knowledge of the future and the results of kamma. Neither influences each other. There is also no relationship between prior knowledge of the future and the conditions necessary for the arising of vipaka. Again, neither influences each other. As another example, if I am reading a message posted by robmoult, the event is not caused by kamma. But rather 'reading the message posted by robmoult' is the condition that allows vipaka to come into force. Past kamma does not determine that I will be reading a message posted by robmoult at time X at place Y. But that the reading of the message posted by robmoult is the condition for vipaka to come into force. This message accounts for my understanding of Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.21 and the concept of pre-destiny. Incidentally, Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.21 implies that 'pre-destiny' is invalid... If disorders of the bile is not caused by past action, then the event of 'bile disorder' was not 'pre-destined' to happen. The event of 'bile disorder' is caused by external physical factors such as infection by viruses and bacteria. I don't suppose we can experience viruses and bacteria through the five senses and therefore the external event of infection by viruses and bacteria is not vipaka. NEO Swee Boon 17444 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 7:09am Subject: [dsg] Re: Is this a contradiction? Please help... Hi Sarah, What do you think: if you were being shot by a poison arrow, would you claim that there is no poison arrow, no shooting, no one being shot? Would such claim be true or just a plain lie, a denial of what had actually happened to you? What is the Buddha's teaching? It is the teaching on dukkha, the origin/cause of dukkha, the cessation of dukkha, the way leading to the cessation of dukkha. I think you need to be more clear on what you mean by conventional truth, and I think you are confusing what the Buddha taught with something else. And that confusion is reflected in your words. Metta, Victor --- Sarah wrote: > Hello Victor, > > I'm always glad to know you're reading the posts carefully;-) > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hello Sarah, > > > > Let me ask you a question: If you were being shot by a poison arrow, > > would you claim that there is no poison arrow, no shooting, no one > > being shot? Would such claim be true or just a plain lie, a denial > > of what had actually happened to you? > ..... > Let me ask you a question in return: Do we need to hear and consider the > Buddha's Teachings and wisdom to understand conventional truths? > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= 17445 From: phrapiyadhammo Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 7:13am Subject: Hello Hello List, I am responding to Jonothan and Sarah's welcome to DSG note. Thought I would take the time to introduce myself. Most of you already know me from D-list as David Koenes. I am a recently ordained Bhikkhu (two weeks ago...a babe). I will be able to read this list for a little less then a month. Then I will be off to Cambodia to dedicate a Wat that the people of our Wat (Wat Greensboro N.C. U.S.A.) built through their loving kindness and genorisity. All together Wat Greensboro (a Khmer Wat) is responsible for building 39 Wats in Cambodia and over 200 wells dug in villages, plus tons of rice at monthly intervals. The change in weather patterns in conection with the Chinese damning the river have been a disaster for the Khmer people. Especially for the eastern portion of the country bordering Laos and Vietnam. Fortuantly, it looks like if all goes well the current planting is looking ok. The temple we are going to dedicate, also bringing rice to the lay families, is near the Vietnamese border. From there we will travel by boat to visit Angkor Wat. Then by bus to Bangkok Thailand where I will train for several years at various Wats. So, this is a short window for me to be a part of this list. I will keep my membership active and perhaps I can drop a line once in a while. Piyadhammo Bhikkhu 17446 From: James Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 8:36am Subject: Re: Fear of Rupas --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and James) - > > Some thoughts. Yes, open your eyes and there's a lamp on a table on > top of a carpet and next to a chair in the room. What is all that? It's as > follows: > Experience (by means of volition) the sequence of events we call > "opening our eyes", and there is activated the operation of discernment > [sankhara -> vi~n~nana]. Because the required discernment is operative, there > can arise a visual object (an image) [vi~n~nana -> namarupa]. Because the > required image is available the sight sense door can be activated [namarupa -> > salayatana]; actually, the coming together of discernment (vi~n~nana), sense > object (namarupa), and sense door *is* the contact. Contact is followed by > feeling. Then things seem to become personal - what one feels one recognizes > (and our concepts come into play, making us see "external objects" such as > lamps etc). This is my understanding. > > With metta, > Howard > Howard, I agree with this sequence of events until you get to this part, "Because the required image is available the sight sense door can be activated [namarupa -> salayatana]." This is a HUGE assumption that what one sees is what actually exists. We `see' a permanent world, a samsara world but the world isn't permanent; our perception lies to us because our minds are ignorant of reality. When one begins the dharma path, and the closer that one looks at something—through meditation, pondering, and scientific investigation—the more that it is seen not to be what it first appeared to be. That for all practical purposes and to our ignorant mind that needs permanence, nothing really exists. Through the mind of ignorance, it is seen that everything exists and yet doesn't exist at the same time. When enlightened, this dichotomy is eliminated. Then one sees (and knows) that all is anatta, a category that is neither existence nor non-existence. Metta, James 17447 From: James Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 8:53am Subject: Re: Emptiness? --- "chase8383 " wrote: > Hi James > > I'm new here, was reading through the messages, and found yours on emptiness. It is, as you say, a very profound and important subject to the Buddhist. And, very hard to grasp. > > If you try to get it as concept you will have trouble I think but, if you use a practice it may come easier. > > One such practice goes like this. Take an object, like your car. Than pick a place on your car and point to it. Say the drivers side door. Is that your car? Is that the "self" of you car? Or is it just a sheet of iron? If you go through your whole car, pointing to different places and things, will you ever find a spot that is the "self" of your car? Or will you just find a series of interconnected things that togather make up what we call a car? > > That is emptiness. There really is no car there. Just an object made up of interconnections. > > You may know all this. > > Dave Hi Dave, Welcome to the group! I find your explanation very clear and understandable, thank you. I do know of this explanation for anatta but reminders are always helpful. As Emerson wrote, "Nature is an endless combination and repetition of a very few laws. She hums the old well-known air through innumerable variations." It all comes back to the basics, repeated over and over again. However, at this point, I am looking past this view of anatta. I am looking at anatta in the ultimate sense, not the conventional sense. The reality that all is anatta. That the car door, the metal, everything, has no essence...is anatta. That one isn't so easy to explain rationally is it? :-) Take care and I look forward to more of your penetrating posts. Metta, James 17448 From: James Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 9:23am Subject: Re: Yuganaddha Sutta con'd: intellectual understanding and psychic experiences --- "chase8383 " wrote: > James > > "Seeing Mara isn't a result of ego. > The Buddha saw him frequently and he was void of ego." > > Mara is your ego. > > Remember, Buddha is mind. Mara is mind. Nirvana and samsara are mind. None exist anywhere but in your mind. And they are all of the same mind. There is only one mind. David, I hope you realize you have stumbled into a very traditionalist Theravada group; such talk of `everything mind' and `one mind' is heresy here! But I believe you have found a kindred spirit it me. I describe myself as a Zen Buddhist trapped in the body of a Theravada Buddhist—which means I adhere to the highest philosophies of Mahayana Buddhism, but don't agree with their `created suttas' advocating such things as `Pure Land' attainment, universal enlightenment, or Bodhisattva vows. I look toward the original words and focus of the Lord Buddha for the true path and its true focus—Nibbana as ultimate goal and individual enlightenment as only feasible path. Okay, with that said, I don't agree with your use of `ego' in this post. `Ego', as used in Buddhism, is not mind; `Ego' is a `false sense of self'. There is confusion because of Western theories of personality and consciousness formation that summarize the mind as `Ego'. The major Western theorists in this area have evolved such theories: Freud proposed: Id, Ego, Superego; Jung proposed: Consciousness, Collective Unconsciousness; and Modern Psychologists: Consciousness, Unconsciousness = Ego. There is a dichotomy between Western theories of Ego and Buddhist theories of Ego because the first presumes existence and the second presumes anatta existence. This dichotomy has ramifications to the application of such theories to the functioning of the mind that have yet to be ironed out. Perhaps in the future, the word `Ego' will have a more universal meaning and holistic approach that will incorporate its conventional meaning and ultimate anattaness. Metta, James 17449 From: James Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 9:53am Subject: Re: Yuganaddha Sutta con'd: intellectual understanding and psychic experiences --- "Mom Bongkojpriya \(Betty\) Yugala" wrote: > Dear James, > Please forgive the delay in replying to your very revealing letter. This > past week was H.M. the King's birthday here in Thailand, and for me it means > a lot of ceremonies to attend. > > As you rightly surmised I have had many of the same experiences that you > have had, especially the psychic ones, such as seeing black shapes that > incited fear. But I now find, after having studied with Achaan Sujin these > last 2 1/2 years, that such experiences were "just thinking" and that they > hindered rather than helped understanding to arise. They hinder the arising > of understanding because such experiences encourage the laying on of more > layers of "I-ness" to form over the already overloaded ego each of us > already thinks we have. > > When I studied with my first teacher years ago, such experiences were subtly > (and not so subtly) encouraged and his students liked to talk about them > quite a bit. It became a real ego thing because the more experiences one > had, the more one was "respected" by the group as being "advanced," etc. And > even if you never tell anyone about them, they are still manifestations of > the ego because it is always "I am experiencing such and such" and we tend > to get carried away by the experiences themselves, losing track of the real > reason for studying Dhamma. In such ways, the ego expands. If the ego, > atta, expands, can understanding of its true nature arise? Can understanding > of anatta arise? But think about it: was any understanding of the true > nature of "us," "the mind" and "the world," reality, ever revealed through > such experiences? Think about those last statements, check them out, that > is, contemplate about them, see if they are true or not, for yourself. > Contemplation on such questions is part of pariyati learning (see below). > Betty, Sorry I haven't written in a while but I wanted to ponder the questions I wanted to ask and where I wanted to go with this discussion. I was going to pursue this discussion off-line, but I don't think that would be fair to the members here. It was started on-line, it should be continued and finished on-line. I can really only think of a few questions: When you saw this black figure, did you think to yourself, "That was Mara." And do you still see this figure or have the visitations ceased? Did the others who saw this dark figure describe it, and instinctively know, that it was Mara? Did this dark figure interact with you? Did you 'feel' that is was visiting you specifically and for a purpose, or did you just 'see' it? Did you see it with your 'eyes' or with your 'mind'? I ask these questions just to know if our experiences are similiar. I don't want to encourage this vision further but I do want to be informed so that if it occurs again, I can take appropriate steps. Knowledge is the key. I am not sure if your current teacher gave you the best advice. I don't see or feel this figure as being 'just thoughts'. That approach presupposes an unreality, and I am positive that it was real and will not be convinced otherwise. I don't think you should convince yourself otherwise of your experiences either and what you feel for yourself to be true. It sounds like your two teachers took extreme positions and didn't follow a middle path. One encouraged the visitations and one denied the visitations, I am sure that there is an appropriate approach in the middle of those two extremes. The Lord Buddha didn't take either of those positions, according to the suttas. Metta, James 17450 From: chase8383 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 11:52am Subject: Re: Yuganaddha Sutta con'd: intellectual understanding and psychic experiences James "Ego', as used in Buddhism, is not mind; `Ego' is a `false sense of self'. There is confusion because of Western theories of personality and consciousness formation that summarize the mind as `Ego'. The major Western theorists in this area have evolved such theories: Freud proposed: Id, Ego, Superego; Jung proposed: Consciousness, Collective Unconsciousness; and Modern Psychologists: Consciousness, Unconsciousness = Ego. There is a dichotomy between Western theories of Ego and Buddhist theories of Ego because the first presumes existence and the second presumes anatta existence. This dichotomy has ramifications to the application of such theories to the functioning of the mind that have yet to be ironed out. Perhaps in the future, the word `Ego' will have a more universal meaning and holistic approach that will incorporate its conventional meaning and ultimate anattaness." No no. My use of the word mind doesn't mean that it is mind, it means it is of mind. I know all about Buddhist ego vs. Freuds ego. Forget about western ego, I never talk about that in connection wih Buddhism. Mara doesn't walk around talking to people. Therefore Mara is mind. The Buddha did one thing, he pointed to your mind. The teachings are all pointing to your mind and no where else. Whithout Mara there is no Buddha. Without samsara there is no nirvana. It is all one mind. 17451 From: chase8383 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 0:09pm Subject: Re: Emptiness? Jaes: "However, at this point, I am looking past this view of anatta. I am looking at anatta in the ultimate sense, not the conventional sense. The reality that all is anatta. That the car door, the metal, everything, has no essence...is anatta. That one isn't so easy to explain rationally is it?" Emptiness is the ultimate. How could it be any other way? How could the steel on the car door be anything but empty? How could you or I be anything but empty. How could the universe be anything but empty. Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. How could eye consciousness be anything but empty? How could ear consciousness be anything but empty? 17452 From: Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 7:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Fear of Rupas Hi, James - In a message dated 12/7/02 11:37:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Jon (and James) - > > > > Some thoughts. Yes, open your eyes and there's a lamp on a > table on > >top of a carpet and next to a chair in the room. What is all that? > It's as > >follows: > > Experience (by means of volition) the sequence of events we > call > >"opening our eyes", and there is activated the operation of > discernment > >[sankhara -> vi~n~nana]. Because the required discernment is > operative, there > >can arise a visual object (an image) [vi~n~nana -> namarupa]. > Because the > >required image is available the sight sense door can be activated > [namarupa -> > > salayatana]; actually, the coming together of discernment > (vi~n~nana), sense > >object (namarupa), and sense door *is* the contact. Contact is > followed by > >feeling. Then things seem to become personal - what one feels one > recognizes > >(and our concepts come into play, making us see "external objects" > such as > >lamps etc). This is my understanding. > > > >With metta, > >Howard > > > > Howard, > > I agree with this sequence of events until you get to this > part, "Because the required image is available the sight sense door > can be activated [namarupa -> salayatana]." This is a HUGE > assumption that what one sees is what actually exists. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm basically following the paticcasamuppada of the Buddha, James. Also, I am making NO assumption that an image is anything more than just an image. The activation of a sense door requires a sense object. (Seeing requires a seen.) They basically arise together. I am NOT assuming some externally existing "thing" here - just an image in interaction with the visual sense and discerned by visual consciousness. Incidentally, in one formulation of patticcasamuppada, the Buddha makes vi~n~nana and namarupa mutually dependent [vi~n~nana <-> namarupa]. This whole business simply indicates that certain conditions are among those required for other conditions. Ignorance (avijja) is required for (self-oriented) volition, intention, and other formative operations (sankhara) to be operative, these are required for subject-object discernment (vi~n~nana) to operate, that discernment is required for an object of discernment whether mental or material (namarupa) to be discerned, an object of discernment is required for a sensory gateway (salayatana) to operate, and the coming together of an act of discernment, an object being discerned, and a sense door activation is what the Buddha defined contact (phassa) to be. The namarupa is not some thing "out there", but is merely the objective pole of the subject-object contact event. --------------------------------------------------------- We `see' a > > permanent world, a samsara world but the world isn't permanent; our > perception lies to us because our minds are ignorant of reality. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: This seeing of identified (recognized), apparently lasting and self-existing "things out there" first arises in the mind only after feeling (vedana) arises. It is, of course, engendered by ignorance. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > When one begins the dharma path, and the closer that one looks at > something—through meditation, pondering, and scientific > investigation—the more that it is seen not to be what it first > appeared to be. That for all practical purposes and to our ignorant > mind that needs permanence, nothing really exists. Through the mind > of ignorance, it is seen that everything exists and yet doesn't > exist at the same time. When enlightened, this dichotomy is > eliminated. Then one sees (and knows) that all is anatta, a > category that is neither existence nor non-existence. > > Metta, James > > ============================ 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) 17453 From: chase8383 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 0:40pm Subject: Re: Yuganaddha Sutta con'd: intellectual understanding and psychic experiences One more than I think I'll shut up awhile. After all, who is this new guy chase8383? James "It sounds like your two teachers took extreme positions and didn't follow a middle path. One encouraged the visitations and one denied the visitations, I am sure that there is an appropriate approach in the middle of those two extremes." The secound teacher, I don't think, denied the experiences. The middle way is just to understand that they are experiences and nothing more. Don't attach to them. Let them go. They are empty after all. They should not be judged as real or not real. As good or bad. As profitable or not profitable. As important or unimportant. An experience is just an experience. 17454 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 1:03pm Subject: Re: Emptiness? Dear Dave, --- "chase8383 " Emptiness is the ultimate. How could it be any other way? How could the steel on the car door be anything but empty? How could you or I be anything but empty. How could the universe be anything but empty. Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. How could eye consciousness be anything but empty? How could ear consciousness be anything but empty? KKT: Yes, like you, I see emptiness as the ultimate. But emptiness is not nothingness. The difference is very subtle. Nothingness denotes annihilation. BTW, I am moved by your story about how you came to Buddhism. Thanks for sharing. Peace, KKT 17455 From: chase8383 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 1:12pm Subject: Re: Emptiness? Dear KTT You said "KKT: Yes, like you, I see emptiness as the ultimate. But emptiness is not nothingness. The difference is very subtle. Nothingness denotes annihilation." Absolutely, it is not nothingness. No birth, no death. No existence, no non-existence. "BTW, I am moved by your story about how you came to Buddhism. Thanks for sharing. Peace, KKT" Thank you KTT Peace, David 17456 From: Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 1:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hello Dave and KKT, As it happens I was thinking about this topic this morning and I disagree. The goal in buddhism is not the realization of anatta but the realization of egolessness. To my mind, what the Buddha meant by 'atta' is soul. Not believing in a soul is not the end of dukkha. By 'ego' I mean the kamma causing root cetasikas lust, hatred, bewilderment, _and_ their opposites. All beliefs and opinions (ditthi) arise with and because of desire so a belief in a soul is based on desire, but beliefs don't perpetuate suffering, desire does. The natures of wholeness and subjectivity are philosophical issues which can be exploited in such a way as to undermine desire but as philosophical issues they could also lead to endless conceptual proliferation (papanca). Larry 17457 From: James Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 1:57pm Subject: Re: Emptiness? --- "chase8383 " wrote: Emptiness is the ultimate. How could it be any other way? How could the steel on the car door be anything but empty? How could you or I be anything but empty. How could the universe be anything but empty. Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. How could eye consciousness be anything but empty? How could ear consciousness be anything but empty? Dave, Let me reply with a quote about the consequences of attaching to semantics (word usage) in determining meaning: If we call the world of "things" (of physical objects)—the first world, and the world of subjective experiences (such as thought processes) the second world, we may call the world of statements in themselves the third world. --Karl Popper Metta, James 17458 From: Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 9:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi, Larry, Dave, and KKT - In a message dated 12/7/02 4:54:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hello Dave and KKT, > > As it happens I was thinking about this topic this morning and I > disagree. The goal in buddhism is not the realization of anatta but the > realization of egolessness. To my mind, what the Buddha meant by 'atta' > is soul. Not believing in a soul is not the end of dukkha. By 'ego' I > mean the kamma causing root cetasikas lust, hatred, bewilderment, _and_ > their opposites. All beliefs and opinions (ditthi) arise with and > because of desire so a belief in a soul is based on desire, but beliefs > don't perpetuate suffering, desire does. > > The natures of wholeness and subjectivity are philosophical issues which > can be exploited in such a way as to undermine desire but as > philosophical issues they could also lead to endless conceptual > proliferation (papanca). > > Larry > > ========================= The goal, the ultimate goal (paramattha) is nibbana, the absence of the three poisons, the end of unsatisfactoriness. The realization of the tilakkhana, including impersonality/insubstantiality (anatta) is door way to that. This is my understanding. 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) 17459 From: Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 2:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi Howard, You wrote: "The realization of the tilakkhana, including impersonality/insubstantiality (anatta) is door way to that." I disagree that the realization of anatta is impersonality if by 'personal' you mean emotional reactions. Emotions are as real as reality gets so the absence of emotions couldn't be a mark of all realities. Larry 17460 From: chase8383 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 3:05pm Subject: Re: Emptiness? James And that has what to do with emptiness? Dave 17461 From: peterdac4298 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 3:48pm Subject: Re: Mara Hi James First, I am curious as to the 'alternative' definition of Anatta that you refer to. 'No-essence' seems to me to be essentially 'no- self' rather than an alternative expression, however, lets avoid falling into hair splitting if that seems to be the case from your pov. Skip this if it is trivial. I'd like to start by saying I think I have a similar problem of 'external' interference in my psychic (as opposed to physical or physiological) aspect. It affects me at any time in the twenty four hour, to the point where my very employment is at risk, in that it is quite debilitating. At one point I took a week of work, and consequently had to see a specialist, who promptly found nothing wrong with me. Between us we decided that the symptoms were 'stress related' and my employer was satisfied with that. I get both male and female entities, both benign and malevolent. Of the four types male, female, good or bad, it is the malevolent female that is the most awful - for this male yogi. The good ones are very good, very supportive and are thoroughly nice to know too. The bad guys just need a good hiding, they either respect you for it and become friends or they just disappear knowing that they can't bother you. The bad females on the other hand just get more defiant and self righteous the more you abuse them. They are the real teachers. The Tibetan concept of Dakini comes to mind, but I have never gone into this so am just guessing. However, in this epoch we have the blessings of the Triple Gem, still with us, not yet fallen or fragmented. I find that the practice of insight mediation works in controlling these entities, but I have much to learn. The Dhamma must be used with compassion and I am still inclined to use it as a weapon to get rid of these things so as to continue indulging my egotistical priorities. Like good teachers, they won't have any of this, but unlike good teachers, their motives are not rooted in compassion. I understand that true compassion is ruthless, but it does stop short of passionately motivated and deliberate harm. These beings are not especially intelligent or wise, and at times can be quite dumb. But the Dhamma being what it is, this is a perfect training predicament if ever there was one. In monastic life we have the expression, "You may not always get the training that you want, but you always get the training that you need." And these beings, being of the opposite gender, have a perfect talent for finding my weakest vulnerabilities. It is the most effective motivation I have yet encountered for putting consistent effort into my practice! There is a story in the Suttas, which I find particularly inspiring in this context. The Buddha is pointing out to a disciple, that a swirl of dust in the valley below them was non other than Mara, searching for a recently deceased Arahant, and is unable to find any trace of that fully realised parinibbana. I find that by seeing No- Self (or No-Essence) in any intrusive situation enables a disengagement from it and thus a removing of any passion from the encounter, resulting in either its cessation, or, highly significant attenuation. In both cases, either gradual or sudden. In the latter case some Samadhi practice will usually suppress any lingering interference. This can include submersing the mind totally into the task at hand, helped by seeing that there is no self (or essence) in any of this: i.e., nothing but changing and interdependent accumulating conditions. Unfortunately, sufficient clarity is not always at hand so this is not always possible. On such occasions faith alone sometimes gets me through. When all else fails, I assume they have found yet another blind spot and resign myself to looking for something else/new that needs to be learned. The people at work are very good about all this and can see why I am quite content with just being a porter. They encourage any worthwhile effort with various positive gestures, and compassionately come down heavy when they perceive any indolence and/or unawareness of any new turn of events. Unfortunately, it does put them off trying meditation for themselves! It is easy to see why Tibetans are into Guru devotion, but the Good Lord did tell us (in the Dhammapada?) that no person or being can do us as much harm as we can do to ourselves, and no person or being can do us as much good as we can do for ourselves. Hope this helps. It sure helps me getting it off my chest for the first time in the last dozen or so years that this has been going on. I never thought I'd ever find people who would take this seriously. Mind you my local GP was good. When I told her I thought I was going mad, she insisted that I carry on with my practice, she had more faith in that than anything she had seen on offer in the British Medical profession. The only problem with this is that I am quite convinced that I have never at any time told her I practiced meditation! Cheers Peter --- "James" wrote: > Hey Everyone: > > First, before I begin what most of you may be skeptical about, I > want to stress that everything in this post is the truth. It is > what I have experienced directly with no flourishes or > exaggeration. To post on such a subject, in even the most simple of > deceitful ways, would bring me unimaginably bad kamma. I would not > disrespect the Triple Gem in such a manner. > > Since no one is telling about any incidents with Mara, I am going to > tell mine. But a few things first, as I wrote in an earlier post to > this group, I have always been skeptical about Devas, Maras, etc. I > won't accept something on someone else's word alone. And I also > don't speak of things that I don't know for sure. Frankly, I didn't > believe that Mara existed. I thought, and have often read, that he > was just a metaphor for craving (and many other negative things). > Now I know that I am wrong for thinking that previously. Mara is a > real being—I have seen him, sensed him when unseen, and I have heard > his voice. And the experiences were quite real each time. > > Mara first visited me after I had begun to read the book "Reason's > Traces." I got through the forward and came across the alternative > definition for anatta, "no-essence". A light bulb came on because > this definition made so much more sense to me than `non-self'. > After reading, I laid back in a recliner, and I was thinking about > what this new definition meant in terms of the universe and myself. > My eyes were closed, kinda dozing but not asleep, just pondering, > when my thoughts were completely abducted. In an instant I saw in > my mind me lying on the recliner and a very short (4'7" or so), pale > skinned, humanoid appearing man (but with grotesque puffy eyes and > shedding hair), dressed in a black cloak, a black hat (Fedora > style), who walked past the right side of the recliner. I jumped up > immediately out of my rest and recoiled from that side of the > chair. I could sense that he was gone but I was extremely, > extremely, extremely scared! And I didn't think to myself, "What > was that?" I immediately, instinctively thought to myself, "Oh no, > that was Mara!" > > Since then, I have had a few more visits…at least once if not twice > per day. They occur when I am pondering anatta and its consequences > in a deep fashion. When they occur, I can feel him walk past me, I > don't see him during everyday awakefulness, and it makes me feel > fear every time (though less so now). > > This morning, I heard his voice in my head as I lay half-asleep and > half-awake. I was thinking about Anatta (yes I even think deeply > while half-asleep). And I was thinking, "Okay, everything is > impermanent. Everything is impermanent," when I head a second voice > say, "Permanent." My mind immediately disagreed, and it did a quick > search, and I realized that the thought wasn't mine. It had been > put there. After a bit of confusion, my mind drifted to a vision of > a classroom of kids, and I thought to myself, "They all have no > essence." And a second voice said, "Souls…souls." Again, it wasn't > my thought. The voice, which I could actually `hear', was a man's > voice and much deeper and more rich than my `thinking voice'. Then > I got out of bed. > > It seems that Mara works best during lucid dreaming, or perhaps > meditation. It is then that he can get inside the mind of the > person. Maybe everyday mind is not so easy for him and he can only > give impressions. > > I wanted to share this for those who need the information. Does > this entire happening to me mean I am enlightened? HA! I know that > I am far from that. But I must be heading in the right direction, > using the right method for me, or Mara wouldn't visit me. Does this > visitation make me happy? No. I just wanted reaching Nibbana to be > nice and easy; having an otherworldly stalker was not my goal or > hope…and something I didn't even imagine happening. > > Metta, James 17462 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 4:26pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Dear Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: Hello Dave and KKT, As it happens I was thinking about this topic this morning and I disagree. The goal in buddhism is not the realization of anatta but the realization of egolessness. To my mind, what the Buddha meant by 'atta' is soul. Not believing in a soul is not the end of dukkha. By 'ego' I mean the kamma causing root cetasikas lust, hatred, bewilderment, _and_their opposites. All beliefs and opinions (ditthi) arise with and because of desire so a belief in a soul is based on desire, but beliefs don't perpetuate suffering, desire does. The natures of wholeness and subjectivity are philosophical issues which can be exploited in such a way as to undermine desire but as philosophical issues they could also lead to endless conceptual proliferation (papanca). Larry KKT: The experience of emptiness (another way of expression for anatta/no-self/egolessness) is a real and lively experience and not merely a philosophical issue based on belief or pure speculation. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Peace, KKT 17463 From: chase8383 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 5:07pm Subject: The "Perky effect" Hi All Perhaps those having trouble with images may find this interesting. The following is from "Zen and the Brain", by Dr. James H. Austin, Page 388, 389 "Many campuses have an apocryphal tale about some absent-minded professor. If it is a math professor, he will have become totally absorbed in visually imagining an equation. As a result, he will have walked far past the door to his own mathematics building, and will finally have come to, say, in front of the gym. The easy assumption: the don was simply "distracted". He hadn't paid enough attention to all those visual clues that were obviously out in plain sight, if not right under his very nose. Back in 1910, Perky asked his human subjects to generate the image of a banana. While they were describing it, he than placed a facsimile of a banana directly in front of their gaze. The dangling artificial banana was clearly in plain sight. Surprisingly, while Perky's subjects were imaging, they didn't register this facsimile, nor did they identify it. How could anyone overlook a banana? The " Perky effect" is more than a curious bit of trivia. The effect has since been confirmed and extended far beyond bananas. Indeed, subjects still neglect the external object in front of their line of sight. It doesn't have to be the same one as the one which they are actively imagining. Clearly, we share, with the professor, an ability to blot out other visual functions while in the act of pulling up images into the mental foreground. This is an active process of suppression, not one that merely overlooks an object that has received a slightly lower priority. Imagining in, blots out. " Peace, Daivd 17464 From: chase8383 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 5:33pm Subject: The "Perky effect" Hi All Perhaps those having trouble with images may find this interesting. The following is from "Zen and the Brain", by Dr. James H. Austin, Page 388, 389 "Many campuses have an apocryphal tale about some absent-minded professor. If it is a math professor, he will have become totally absorbed in visually imagining an equation. As a result, he will have walked far past the door to his own mathematics building, and will finally have come to, say, in front of the gym. The easy assumption: the don was simply "distracted". He hadn't paid enough attention to all those visual clues that were obviously out in plain sight, if not right under his very nose. Back in 1910, Perky asked his human subjects to generate the image of a banana. While they were describing it, he than placed a facsimile of a banana directly in front of their gaze. The dangling artificial banana was clearly in plain sight. Surprisingly, while Perky's subjects were imaging, they didn't register this facsimile, nor did they identify it. How could anyone overlook a banana? The " Perky effect" is more than a curious bit of trivia. The effect has since been confirmed and extended far beyond bananas. Indeed, subjects still neglect the external object in front of their line of sight. It doesn't have to be the same one as the one which they are actively imagining. Clearly, we share, with the professor, an ability to blot out other visual functions while in the act of pulling up images into the mental foreground. This is an active process of suppression, not one that merely overlooks an object that has received a slightly lower priority. Imagining in, blots out. " Peace, Daivd ADVERTISEMENT 17465 From: Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 0:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? In a message dated 12/7/2002 2:50:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > You wrote: "The realization of the tilakkhana, including > impersonality/insubstantiality (anatta) is door way to that." > > I disagree that the realization of anatta is impersonality if by > 'personal' you mean emotional reactions. Emotions are as real as reality > gets so the absence of emotions couldn't be a mark of all realities. > > Larry > Hi Larry Suffering is real also (as real as reality gets) and the ending of suffering is the goal of the Buddha's teaching. Probably what what Howard means by "impersonality" is that:-- experiences encountered are just conditions. They arise, persist while changing, and cease due to a cause, and they are not I, me, or mine. As for emotions, they are based on ignorance and will disappear in the presence of -- mindfulness of conditionality...much like darkness disappears in the presence of light. TG 17466 From: James Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 6:41pm Subject: Re: Emptiness? --- "chase8383 " wrote: > James > > And that has what to do with emptiness? > > Dave Hi Dave, That quote is about semantics and how some words, when used improperly, can create worlds not based on physical or mental accepted reality. They can create worlds unto themselves; semantic worlds composed of word houses, occupied by word people, walking word dogs...:-). I believe the word `emptiness' is meaningless and misleading when related to anatta. A cup is empty, a plate is empty, your belly is empty, but anatta is not `empty'. I believe that viewing anatta as `emptiness' is fruitless. Emptiness presupposes a thing/an object. The very nature of the word requires the existence of an object that is then `empty'. Anatta, or no-essence, doesn't presuppose an object. To say `this is empty' and `that is empty' sounds profound, but I believe it is false view. I was trying to be subtle with the quote so that you could conclude this for yourself. I don't like to tell people how they should think. Metta, James 17467 From: chase8383 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 7:16pm Subject: Re: Emptiness? Hi James You hang up up with the word empty is your hang up. It means it is empty of a self. It doesn't mean one minute is has a self, than you take it away from it. It never had a self in the first place. Use what ever WORD you want. What builds your house doesn't build mine. Your Mara is not mine. "We don't share so much as a fart" Zen Master Peace, David 17468 From: James Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 7:30pm Subject: Re: Mara --- "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Hi James > > I'd like to start by saying I think I have a similar problem > of 'external' interference in my psychic (as opposed to physical or > physiological) aspect. > I get both male and female entities, both benign and malevolent. Of > the four types male, female, good or bad, it is the malevolent > female that is the most awful - for this male yogi. The good ones > are very good, very supportive and are thoroughly nice to know too. > The bad guys just need a good hiding, they either respect you for it > and become friends or they just disappear knowing that they can't > bother you. Peter, First, concerning the trivial matter for you, the significant matter for me, I have always gotten hung up on the phrase `no self' because of my extensive education in psychology. I have seen the word `self' as something that could only belong to living entities, predominately humans, and could not be used in reference to inanimate objects. "No essence" breaks my mind free of that conditioning and I am able to see and understand much more. Words can be the key—to either let you out or lock you in. Thank you for sharing that information about yourself. And let me assure you, you are not crazy. However, you do have a significant problem, which I don't know if anyone has put it to you this way or not, but you have excess/heavy karma. Before I go into the explanation let me make a few things clear: this knowledge that I have about certain people is not based on sutta information, I have never read of it in a sutta but I still know it is real; I do have psychic ability in the areas of reading thoughts (especially hidden ones), knowing future events, knowing other people's psychic abilities, and knowing the age and weight of a people's karma stream. I have written previously about this on the Internet and I don't care what people think about it (which is usually skepticism, denial, irritation, and fear). I don't have to be near the person to do this; I can do it from a distance. But, unlike you, I have never had such personal encounters, or even visions, of otherworldly beings as I have had recently. With this said, I believe that you, Peter, have an extremely old karma stream. You are probably attracted to a great number of world religions, from the ancient Druids and Egyptians to Catholicism, but you know that Buddhism holds the most promise for you. Additionally, you have held positions of `seer' and `priests' in practically all of the earth's religions, religions of species from other planets, and in deva realms for an immeasurably long time. You now realize that your present life is one of profound significance for you. Your current manifestation is one where you can finally begin the process of ending this samsara existence, which weighs heavy on you. Unfortunately, you have dragged along the experiences and feelings from your previous lifetimes. Like thoughts that we say to ourselves, "Oh, I have to remember this…I may need it one day." You have dragged along experience after experience and associated feelings after feelings from one life to another. And the thought of letting all of that go terrifies you; you see it as your treasure chest of wisdom. Now that you feel this existence as so important, you have been rummaging through that chest and re-examining old karma. I bet that you even experience many vivid dreams about living in ancient times and seeing the passage of time through lives. I also bet that you don't think predominately in terms of days, months and years—you think predominately in terms of millennium, centuries, and eons. But this dragging up of your old karma looking for answers and wisdom is pulling entities out of your past, especially deva and higher realms, and most of them are none to pleased about it. They want you to break the ties you have with them. You also attach more strongly to people/entities than material objects or experiences. You are correct, Vipassana meditation is the way for you to eliminate this heavy karma. If you are doing it right, you should feel your body get very hot as the excess karma is burned away. You will also feel sadness and regret, which will translate into tears and physical pain where none should be. However, I sense that your meditation is predominately visualizations, against your will and with your will sometimes, and that type will only strengthen those ties, not eliminate them. You are in good company in this group because most everyone also has an old karma stream, but the oldest ones have lightened the weight of it through Vipassana meditation. I, however, have a relatively young karma stream for someone as spiritually focused as myself. Many in this group, with old karma streams, can sense this about me and it is puzzling and frustrating to them. I should not know the things I do, but I do. And my karma stream is very light. I am an upstart, a show-off, who hasn't paid my dues. My fortitude has been my ability to find and really listen to the best teachers. I don't try to learn something for myself all the time, I ask question, after question, after question. People with old karma streams have a hard time doing that. They feel that they must be teachers, not students. I have always been a student, really. I hope this helps you some. Don't worry if other people think you are crazy. What you know for yourself to be true is true. I won't tell you to trust me on this. If what I am telling you sounds like nonsense, ignore it. If it doesn't, listen to it and decide a course of action for you. I am just a young pup, but I can show an old dog a new trick or two. ;-) Metta, James 17469 From: Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 7:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi James, You are right that there is no emptiness in and of itself. In the suttas 'emptiness' always qualifies a container, like an empty cup. What is empty (of a self) is usually the khandhas; sometimes 'empty' qualifies a narrower object. If you have a "Wisdom" Majjhima Nikaya it is interesting to look up all the instances of 'empty' with the index. I don't think nibbana is called empty (could be wrong). Maybe because it isn't a container?? Larry 17470 From: Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 2:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 12/7/02 5:50:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > You wrote: "The realization of the tilakkhana, including > impersonality/insubstantiality (anatta) is door way to that." > > I disagree that the realization of anatta is impersonality if by > 'personal' you mean emotional reactions. Emotions are as real as reality > gets so the absence of emotions couldn't be a mark of all realities. > > Larry > ========================= By the impersonality of things I mean their being not-self: not an "I", nor belonging to or related to an "I". In particular, neither volition nor discernment is self or belongs to or is related to self. They are simply impersonal, conditioned phenomena. That's all. Emotions are also impersonal phenomena. All conditioned dhammas are impersonal and insubstantial. 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) 17471 From: Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 2:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] question Hello Jon, Now if I were to rant and call you all sorts of abusive names and such I might well receive a moderator cautioning, or somesuch. On the other hand if I were to effusively praise and laud you I should anticipate no such cautioning. Yet, in terms of the 8 worldly conditions the two cases are symmetrical; in fact, the latter is perhaps likely to cause you harm (e.g., build your ego a bit) than the former, which I rather doubt would have much effect. Consequently, do you consider my hypothesized moderator behavior inconsistent, even adhammic? ;-) metta, stephen 17472 From: Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 7:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi Howard, Thanks for that clarification. I agree, but what's an 'I'? Larry 17473 From: Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 2:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Thanks, TG. You have it just right. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/7/02 8:38:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > > In a message dated 12/7/2002 2:50:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, > LBIDD@w... writes: > > > >Hi Howard, > > > >You wrote: "The realization of the tilakkhana, including > >impersonality/insubstantiality (anatta) is door way to that." > > > >I disagree that the realization of anatta is impersonality if by > >'personal' you mean emotional reactions. Emotions are as real as reality > >gets so the absence of emotions couldn't be a mark of all realities. > > > >Larry > > > > Hi Larry > > Suffering is real also (as real as reality gets) and the ending of > suffering > is the goal of the Buddha's teaching. Probably what what Howard means by > "impersonality" is that:-- experiences encountered are just conditions. > They > arise, persist while changing, and cease due to a cause, and they are not > I, > me, or mine. > > As for emotions, they are based on ignorance and will disappear in the > presence of -- mindfulness of conditionality...much like darkness > disappears > in the presence of light. > > TG > > /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) 17474 From: chase8383 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 7:44pm Subject: Re: Mara Ok James I've had enough. This is NOT the Dharma. "With this said, I believe that you, Peter, have an extremely old karma stream. You are probably attracted to a great number of world religions, from the ancient Druids and Egyptians to Catholicism, but you know that Buddhism holds the most promise for you. Additionally, you have held positions of `seer´ and `priests´ in practically all of the earth's religions, religions of species from other planets, and in deva realms for an immeasurably long time. You now realize that your present life is one of profound significance for you. Your current manifestation is one where you can finally begin the process of ending this samsara existence, which weighs heavy on you. Unfortunately, you have dragged along the experiences and feelings from your previous lifetimes. Like thoughts that we say to ourselves, "Oh, I have to remember this…I may need it one day." You have dragged along experience after experience and associated feelings after feelings from one life to another. And the thought of letting all of that go terrifies you; you see it as your treasure chest of wisdom. Now that you feel this existence as so important, you have been rummaging through that chest and re-examining old karma. I bet that you even experience many vivid dreams about living in ancient times and seeing the passage of time through lives. I also bet that you don't think predominately in terms of days, months and years—you think predominately in terms of millennium, centuries, and eons. But this dragging up of your old karma looking for answers and wisdom is pulling entities out of your past, especially deva and higher realms, and most of them are none to pleased about it. They want you to break the ties you have with them. You also attach more strongly to people/entities than material objects or experiences." The rest of the members of this club can do as they wish, but I feel I owe = it to Buddhism to point that what James is pushing here has nothing to Buddh= is, or the Buddha, or the Dharma. Peace, David 17475 From: Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 2:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yuganaddha Sutta con'd: intellectual understanding and psychic experiences Hello "this new guy chase8383" >The second teacher, I don't think, denied the experiences. The middle >way is just to understand that they are experiences and nothing more. Don't >attach to them. Let them go. They are empty after all. They should not >be judged as real or not real. As good or bad. As profitable or not profitable. >As important or unimportant. An experience is just an experience. While I think that this is good advice in the situation at hand, and while this general position in hardly unique to yourself, I really have never gotten it. Let's take an instance of child abuse: Not bad? Not important? Not profitable or unprofitable? How do you reconcile "emptiness" with morality (sila)? (*If* you're going to say one's ultimate and one's conventional do relate the two, especially to something resembling reality, as in my example.) metta, stephen 17476 From: Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 2:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 12/7/02 10:42:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Thanks for that clarification. I agree, but what's an 'I'? > > Larry > ======================= Well, at least in part one could say that it is an alleged agent underlying and exercising control over phenomena. Generally it is considered an autonomous, isolated entity that is the center of "one's world". 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) 17477 From: chase8383 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 7:58pm Subject: Re: Yuganaddha Sutta con'd: intellectual understanding and psychic experiences Hi Stephen You said "While I think that this is good advice in the situation at hand, and while this general position in hardly unique to yourself, I really have never gotten it. Let's take an instance of child abuse: Not bad? Not important? Not profitable or unprofitable? How do you reconcile "emptiness" with morality (sila)? (*If* you're going to say one's ultimate and one's conventional do relate the two, especially to something resembling reality, as in my example.)" Stephen, I was talking about experiences of the mind. Meditative experiences. Visualizations etc. Not experiences such as child abuse. I think we all no the difference between an experience that takes place in the cinema of our mind and an expereince such as an adult abusing a child. Don't we? 17478 From: Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 8:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi Howard, Your definition of 'I' fits into my subjectivity theories category but in examining my experience I would say 'I' is purely a special kind of focused desire without much conceptual content. In other words, an emotion. However, it is very curious that I can't see this clearly. One would think one would know what one means by 'I', but apparently not. Larry 17479 From: James Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 8:02pm Subject: Re: Mara --- "chase8383 " wrote: > Ok James > > I've had enough. This is NOT the Dharma. > The rest of the members of this club can do as they wish, but I feel I owe = > it to Buddhism to point that what James is pushing here has nothing to Buddh= > is, or the Buddha, or the Dharma. > > Peace, David Dear David, LOL! Hmmmm...how could so much 'emptiness' push your buttons? :-) Dharma, translated, simply means 'the way' or 'truth'. The Vedics used the word long before the Buddha used it. See the big picture? Dharma is not simply the teaching of the Buddha, dharma is the truth. Einstein, Shakespeare, Hawking, Darwin...they all taught dharma. Very simple, very plain, not even a religion really. The Buddha said as much in sutta after sutta. You don't 'owe it to Buddhism' anything. Such a statement is absurd. You need to do what you keep preaching and 'let go'. Additionally, you do not know me, my history of posts to this group, or my backgroud. You should learn a bit more before you condemn a person for Buddhist Heresy...an oxymoron is there ever was one. Metta, James 17480 From: Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 3:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hello James, >I believe the word `emptiness' is meaningless and misleading when >related to anatta. A cup is empty, a plate is empty, your belly is >empty, but anatta is not `empty'. I believe that viewing anatta >as `emptiness' is fruitless. Emptiness presupposes a thing/an >object. Suppose there is no self: anatta. So in that case one is empty of self, void. In the seeing there is just the seen, etc. — the advice to Bahiya. Just the seen (heard, sensed) requires an object or thing (or thought). One just is the perception. In that sense of emptiness we are the union of emptiness (anatta) and object. [I just reread this and it already seems somewhat obscure; a lot of what' s written on this score is nonsense and illogical, but the above isn't, just poorly written ;-) On your claim of meaninglessness you might enjoy: Buddhist Illogic] >The very nature of the word requires the existence of an >object that is then `empty'. This is a Mahayana extension of anatta, I think. You are, I'm sure, correctly giving the meaning of the term as being empty of essence, or, it's equivalent, interrelatedness. Of all things, not just the person/self. I'm curious to what extent this is, in fact, a valid extrapolation; or even criticism of apparent abhidhammic realism concerning dhammas. Perhaps this is another issue. metta, stephen 17481 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 8:13pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Howard, > > Your definition of 'I' fits into my subjectivity theories category but > in examining my experience I would say 'I' is purely a special kind of > focused desire without much conceptual content. In other words, an > emotion. > > However, it is very curious that I can't see this clearly. One would > think one would know what one means by 'I', but apparently not. > > Larry Dear Larry, It's hard to know to what "I" refers, since in general when we use it, it refers to a concept of entity which we presume to exist within. I think the discovery that "I" does not refer to something definite is an inroad towards wisdom. Robert Ep. 17482 From: chase8383 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 8:25pm Subject: Re: Mara James I don't know who you think your fooling my friend, but your not fooling me. You can set up a tent and pull out your crystal ball at the local fair if you want, but your not a Buddhist. You hallucinations are just that. Your claims of seeing the future are just that, claims. Your claims of seeing into the past are just that, claims. But hay, you go right ahead. David 17483 From: Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 3:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yuganaddha Sutta con'd: intellectual understanding and psychic experiences Hello chase8383, I misunderstood your point. No, we do not all know the difference (between "cinema of mind" and reality). And there are many who advocate seeing everything as a dream, an illusion; just an experience. However, James has been, I believe, clear, that he doesn't believe he's talking about a mental manifestation or hallucination but an actual physical presence. I thought you were speaking from that premise; or from some variant of the mind-only position. metta, stephen 17484 From: chase8383 Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 8:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Yuganaddha Sutta con'd: intellectual understanding and psychic experiences Hi again Stephen You said "> I misunderstood your point. > No, we do not all know the difference (between "cinema of mind" and reality). > And there are many who advocate seeing everything as a dream, an illusion; > just an experience. > However, James has been, I believe, clear, that he doesn't believe he's > talking about a mental manifestation or hallucination but an actual physical > presence. I thought you were speaking from that premise; or from some variant > of the mind-only position." No, I don't belong to the mind only school. That may be important to state in here at the moment. I think your mind plays a key role in what you see, but I don't believe that if you turn your back on a tree it isn't there. Peace, David 17485 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 9:33pm Subject: Re: How I came to Buddism Dear David, Great introduction. Nice to meet you. I can only drop in from time to time, but nice to hear your story. Best, Robert Ep. ======= --- "chase8383 " < dcwcc@w...> wrote: > In June of 1968 I was at a Military Hospital, just outside of Boston Ma. USA. I was there to recover from wounds I had received in Vietnam. They were quite serious. I had been wounded on May 19th and by early June I had gone from 185lbs to under 100lbs. It would take one year and multiple surgical procedures for me to recover. > > As I lay on my bed, in early June, I thought of praying as a way of drawing enough strength to face my future. As I began to pray, I suddenly realized that no matter how much I prayed, it would still be me that had to face the operating table. It would still be me that would have to face the recovery. It would have to be me that was strong. It couldn't come from outside of me, from another being other than myself. No, it had to come from inside. And further more, it would have to come from my mind. After all, my body was damaged. > > Without knowing it, I was entering the Buddha's path. That turning of the mind on itself. That understanding of my impermanence. That taking of life, moment by moment. I had no place else to go. > > Fifteen years later I picked up a book on Buddhism in the library. As I read it I thought, I'll be damned. Here it is. Suffering, sickness, all of it and, the path out. The same path I had started all those years go, on my own. > > David 17486 From: Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 9:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi Robert, Nice to see you again. I agree when you say, "I think the discovery that "I" does not refer to something definite is an inroad towards wisdom." This would definitely cut down on the desire. I've sort of lost track of my point. I think it was something like _if_ 'I' is mostly an emotion then anatta doesn't mean 'I'-lessness because emotions are real and therefore 'I' is anatta. To put it another way, the understanding or even experience, as KKT suggested, of anatta could lead to 'I'-lessness (desirelessness). Both desire and desirelessness are anatta. The goal is desirelessness. Desirelessness could be considered the result of correct understanding of anatta or impermanence or dukkha or foulness. See Satipatthana Sutta Commentary for more info: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html Larry :) 17487 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 10:21pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta --- "James" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > > Hi James, (Ray, Rob M, Rob K & All), > > > > I have several of your anatta' posts in front of me and I'd like > to pick > > up on a few issues - many of which have probably been clarified > for you > > already by Ray, Rob M, Rob K and your own reflections. If you > don't mind, > > I'll use point form this time (more or less in the order you > raised them): > > > Sarah, > > Wow! These ambush posts of yours will be the death of me! :-) just > kidding. The question of anatta is not so cut and dry as you seem > to state here. From a purely historical perspective, there have > been four major schools of thought within Thera Buddhism concerning > anatta since the Buddha's death. Of the two largest schools, one > proposed a `synthetic self', a temporary self that receives the > result of karma and rebirth, etc.; the other proposed no self at > all, temporary or otherwise. I am undecided at this point. Dear James, I would like to suggest that the difference between the above schools may be a matter of semantics, dependent upon whether someone uses the word 'self' to refer to the kandhas, or to refer to the concept one has of being an entity. We can talk about a 'temporary self' formed by the kandhas, or a 'non- existent self' represented by a concept that is taken for real. In fact, either way, the 'self' only occurs within the kandhas. If we think of the whole system of the kandhas as the 'self', it is a shifting collection of temporary tendencies, actions, perceptions within which we develop the concept of an entity or being, which is actually non-existent. The important point about anatta is what it denies; it is after all a negative term, not a positive one; it points to the absence of a reality, not a 'thing' that is a 'non-self'. Anatta denies that anywhere within the kandhas - the mind, the personality, the body - is a permanent defineable entity that is one's true being. Whether one defines this as a psychological center, a soul or a person, this proposed 'thing' does not exist. So we can say there is a mechanical, temporary self that is not really a being or an entity. We can say that the concept of self arises in the mind giving the illusion of a being or entity. But the result is the same. There is no such being, there is no such concept. There are only various shifting psychophysical states and the consciousness that experiences them. When this consciousness is also viewed as an arising condition rather than a separate perceiver, then I would say the understanding of anatta would be complete. Best, Robert Ep. =========== 17488 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 10:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] bare mindfulness Thanks Sarah, for your reply and for your further reminders about anatta. It might be interesting to discuss the 20 kinds of self-view. If you have a little link for me, I'll take a look.... Best, Robert Ep. ========================= --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Rob Ep, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > It takes me too long to get back to posts and I apologize for the > > disruption. I am going on the theory that if I can post from time to > > time it is better than not posting at all. I at least am very glad to > > be able to drop in when I can. It feels at this point like visiting > > good friends -- not that there's any attachment there.... > ..... > No disruption and `from time to time' is definitely better than `not at > all'. > .....and for us it's like having `good friends' drop in, even if there is > attachment;-) don't be put off by the occasional bark - we all get them at > times, esp. if we're long-winded as I often am;-). There aren't any bites > and we're all very grateful to Larry for his tireless efforts with the > extracts and considerations they lead to. He's having a well-earned break > now from the Way commentary til Nina returns. > ..... > > The theme in several of your comments, that the idea of self and desire > > > for a result can easily creep in to one's concept of the path and the > > attempt to discern realities as well, is very well taken. It is easy > > to want to jump to the conclusion and feel the 'security' of a method > > that seems to guarantee enlightenment. All of this must be a denial of > > the current work of relaxing the clinging mind and submitting to the > > reality now, whether it seems like it's leading somewhere or not > ..... > Yes, I had a chat with Christine at the weekend about how there really are > no `sweeteners' in the path of detachment. Even when we talk about > `relaxing the clinging mind and submitting to reality now', attachment and > clinging to self or results can creep in. She may add more. > ..... > > A friend recently had the insight that all the things that occur in > > samsara really don't lead anywhere, all the causes and effects lead to > > just more causes and effects. i thought it was interesting. It > > removed the whole idea that one can 'get somewhere' by interacting with > > samsara in this or that way. > ..... > No `one' to get anywhere or interact in anyway. > ..... > >Only discernment and progress in relation > > to wisdom does anything, and this only comes by cultivating the right > > conditions. > ..... > Yes and no self to cultivate conditions either. > ..... > > Anyway, I'm rambling, but I'm happy to hear your reminders about the > > subtle idea of self. > ..... > I think it's useful for us all. There are 20 kinds of sakkaya-ditthi (self > view), i.e 4 types for each of the khandhas. K.Sujin was reminding us that > it's useful to know about these and to understand how they can arise at > any time, even whilst `practising' or discussing dhamma. > ..... > > And thanks for letting me take part in this interesting discussion. > .... > This is an open forum as you said. For my part, I always enjoy chatting to > you and miss your contributions when you disappear. I've always > appreciated your kind support for DSG too. > > Look f/w to anymore anatta discussion. As James says, it's the 'heart' of > the Teachings. > > Sarah > > p.s Did you see the following quote from TG? I thought it was very good: > > "The Suttas were delivered to all sorts of individuals or groups with all > sorts of different levels of understanding. I believe the best way to try > to > understand individual suttas is to read all of the suttas over and over. > If > that is done and they are seriously contemplated, the "puzzle" starts > fitting > together. > > As far as this particular sutta is concerned...emptiness does exactly mean > -- > "empty of self." Empty of self simply means that conditioned phenomena > (all > phenomena except for Nibbana) arise due to conditions, alter due to > conditions, and cease due to conditions. There is nothing that is "self > made" or "self generated." " > ======================================== 17489 From: James Date: Sat Dec 7, 2002 11:02pm Subject: Matter/AntiMatter Hey All, I have some ideas about the nature of anatta to share. I wrote to Sarah that I wouldn't post anymore since my ideas get everyone a little unsettled, but I think that was an overreaction. I am sure that most members can appreciate looking at questions of dharma from different angles rather than adhering to the customary banality. Further, Rob M has started a ball rolling on the question of anatta that is hard to stop...at least for me. I am not sure it should be stopped at this time. This hypothesis that I am proposing is simply a theory, improvable at the current time, but may point in the right direction for further thought and investigation. This post centers on a `scientific hypothesis' for the `anatta', no-essence, of our universe. I don't know if this hypothesis has been advanced previously, but I haven't run across it in my studies. According to one approach to the Big Bang theory, a particle of antimatter, called a Quark, and smaller than a sub-atomic particle, `slipped' through a hole in the space-time fabric separating alternate dimensions, and entered our present dimension. This Quark from an alternate dimension (different from `Buddhist Worlds; which exist in our dimension) evidently got trapped because the hole that it had slipped through closed back up again. Consequently, being in a dimension foreign to its own, it exploded and created all of the matter of our present universe. Thus, you have the phrase `Big Bang' to explain this theory. Okay, taking this theory as a given, which has the circumstantial evidence of a plainly expanding universe from a single point, that would mean that the energy of a Quark of `antimatter', a substance completely opposite the given nature of our dimension, created all of the `matter' that we currently know and see. However, I posit that maybe it didn't happen just that way. If anything, it would make more sense that the resulting matter from the Big Bang would have the substances or characteristics making it `fit' this dimension, but also the `antimatter' quality of an alternate dimension. Such a substance, the basic building block of our universe, would be forever off balance. It would phase in and out as the two characteristics of the matter jockeyed for dominance, one after the other. This would result in a very unstable universe, one that was forever existing and non-existing, and yet neither. Like a penny with one side black and the other glowing phosphorus, being flipped rapidly in a dark room, the penny would be visible then disappear, be visible again and then disappear again, forever. Something, in an ultimate and conventional sense, that would be neither existing nor not existing. Which could fit the understanding of the sages of `anatta'. The Buddha said that the beginning of our samsara existence was `untracable, unknowable, etc.', but I don't know if he SPECIFICALLY said that he didn't know it. Additionally, he also admitted that there were many things he knew that he didn't teach. Trying to explain `universe', `alternate dimensions', and the `Big Bang' to the people of ancient India, who even used a rudimentary lunar calendar, would have been very difficult. It wouldn't have been impossible, but his essential teachings would have been lost in the attempt. (I sincerely hope that this post doesn't have the same result). This hypothesis is shaky at best I know. The Big Bang isn't proven (and never could be with modern means) and alternate dimensions aren't a proven reality; it's all just theory at this point. But I feel, deep down, that if a person want to truly know anatta, he/she should look to themselves first and the stars second. Perhaps the everyday world is so mundane and habit-centered that it's very difficult to break free of the inherent illusion of permanence through that route. Metta, James 17490 From: James Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 0:36am Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta --- "Robert Epstein " wrote: The important point about anatta is what it > denies; it is after all a negative term, not a positive one; it points > to the absence of a reality, not a 'thing' that is a 'non-self'. Rob Epstein, Wow! This phrase is mind-blowing to me. You are quite correct, anatta is a position of negation and not a position of affirmation. The ramifications of this 'philosophical/analytical posturing' of the Buddha are numerous and extremely revealing. The ramifications in a historical and modern perspective are a negation of the historical atmosphere of Siddhartha's time period and a negation of the predominate view of existence which still exists. I am very thankful that you opened my eyes to this reality/insight! Thank you. Metta, James ps. I want to 'pull out my crystal ball' for a moment :-). I have looked at your pictures and the pictures of your children in the files section of this group and all I want to say in this public forum is: "Lord of the Rings". You should know what I mean. I look forward to future contact/assistance. 17491 From: Sarah Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 3:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello Dear Phra Piyadhamma, Thank you for taking the time to introduce yourself and to share all the interesting information. A couple of years ago exactly we were in Cambodia and really appreciated the keen interest in dhamma amongst both the bhikkhus and the lay people we met. I'm sure I speak on behalf of everyone here when I send our very best wishes for your life as a monk. I also hope you find the discussions on DSG helpful. We appreciate that you will only be able to participate from time to time. With respect, Sarah ====== --- "phrapiyadhammo " wrote: > Hello List, > > I am responding to Jonothan and Sarah's welcome to DSG note. Thought > I would take the time to introduce myself. 17492 From: Sarah Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 3:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] How I came to Buddism Dear David, Thank you also for kindly letting us know the unusual circumstances in which you 'came to Buddhism'. Who knows - maybe without the wounds and surgery we wouldn't be discussing dhamma with you now. Conditions are so very intricate. I'm glad to read all your reflections and sincerely hope you're able to continue to share and benefit from discussions here. Are you still in the Boston area, I wonder? Best wishes, Sarah ====== --- "chase8383 " wrote: > In June of 1968 I was at a Military Hospital, just outside of Boston Ma. > USA. 17493 From: chase8383 Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 3:28am Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Rob You said "it is after all a negative term, not a positive one; it points to the absence of a reality, not a 'thing' that is a 'non-self'." A simple example would be a sweater. If you look at a sweater it looks like it has a self. But it doesn't. It is made up of wool, and that wool was processed by humans who than made the sweater. But when we look at the sweater we can't see the sheep or the workers who produced the sweater. So Buddhist negate the selfness of a sweater in order to reduce the tendency to see the world as an us vs. them existence. To negate the false perception of duality. Peace, David 17494 From: chase8383 Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 3:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] How I came to Buddism Hi Sarah I am still in the Boston area. David 17495 From: chase8383 Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 4:12am Subject: No-self No-self is about peace of mind. It is about seeing the suchness of thing. It is about non-fear. And it is about compassion. I first came across no-self as a soldier. When you are fighting an enemy the concept of duality is in a heightened condition. War is after all the ultimate them vs. us state of mind. But as I looked down on the first dead enemy soldier I saw, I had the opposite reaction. I realized that he was just like me. Young, there not because he wanted to be but, because he was caught up in the karma of the times. As I looked through his personal belongings I found a picture of a family, his family, I'm sure. I was overwhelmed by compassion. I had killed their son, their brother. They became my family, the sadness they would feel when they learned of his death became the sadness of my family. The interconnectedness of this world suddenly came crashing down on me. I work very hard to make sure I never forget it. Peace, David 17496 From: peterdac4298 Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 4:35am Subject: Re: The "Perky effect" Hi David I really don't think the scientific approach helps much in managing the human predicament. It's a bit like boiling an egg, just to prove you don't have to take a five year apprenticeship to become a master chef. The Buddha taught that we have six senses, five physical and one mental. He also taught mindfulness of the body as part of the four foundations of mindfulness in his path to liberation. He taught very abstract approaches to understanding the Human predicament, also some very colourful cosmological approaches too. All this without having a clue as to the functions or purpose of the brain or indeed much of the rest of the body to which we direct mindfulness. From this it is clear to me that the only science needed, to see things as they really are, is little more than the Buddha's slant on the Vedic interpretation of the four elements and a Terrestrial centric view of the Cosmos. But let us not rubbish the experimental approach too much, it certainly has its place, and a centrally heated room in an English winter is definitely one of them. We have an advantage over previous generations due to the experiments on the Split Brain population, resulting in a fairly clear idea of the functions of the two halves of the brain. Of particular interest is the right hemisphere controlling the left hand side of the body. Having worked through all the exercises in that art book "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" by Betty Edwards, and achieving the advertised results, I have a lot of respect for Neural science theory, indeed find it quite fascinating. But science is still science. It needs reproducible and repeatable results so as to be independently verifiable. Even then we only _accept_ a consensus view rather than repeating the experiments for ourselves. Even if we could repeat such experiments, others would either have to believe us or repeat them themselves, and so on ad infinitum. It is much the same with the Dhamma, but in this case the Buddha tells us _not_ to believe anything but to find out everything for ourselves. Hence we all know the various phenomena that occur during practice. But in a Helio Centric society, cannot prove it to any non practitioners. Who all seem to have a paranoid obsession for cast iron proof, even though such standards are not needed for the acceptance of scientific phenomena. I don't really know where this is getting me, but sure felt a need to say something like it for quite some time. Cheers Peter --- "chase8383 " wrote: > Hi All > > Perhaps those having trouble with images may find this interesting. > > The following is from "Zen and the Brain", by Dr. James H. Austin, Page 388, 389 > > "Many campuses have an apocryphal tale about some absent-minded professor. If it is a math professor, he will have become totally absorbed in visually imagining an equation. As a result, he will have walked far past the door to his own mathematics building, and will finally have come to, say, in front of the gym. The easy assumption: the don was simply "distracted". He hadn't paid enough attention to all those visual clues that were obviously out in plain sight, if not right under his very nose. > > Back in 1910, Perky asked his human subjects to generate the image of a banana. While they were describing it, he than placed a facsimile of a banana directly in front of their gaze. The dangling artificial banana was clearly in plain sight. Surprisingly, while Perky's subjects were imaging, they didn't register this facsimile, nor did they identify it. How could anyone overlook a banana? > > The " Perky effect" is more than a curious bit of trivia. The effect has since been confirmed and extended far beyond bananas. Indeed, subjects still neglect the external object in front of their line of sight. It doesn't have to be the same one as the one which they are actively imagining. Clearly, we share, with the professor, an ability to blot out other visual functions while in the act of pulling up images into the mental foreground. This is an active process of suppression, not one that merely overlooks an object that has received a slightly lower priority. Imagining in, blots out. " > > Peace, Daivd 17497 From: nidive Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 7:09am Subject: Re: Matter/AntiMatter Hi James, I have this thought: If understanding the universe or the beginning of the universe is essential to gain insight into anatta, I am sure the Buddha would have taught it. If scientific reasonings are enough to gain insight into anatta, I am sure the Buddha would have taught science. But the Buddha took another path to gain insight into anatta. In essence, reasonings about anatta is not the same as insight into anatta. Reasonings about anatta does not equal to about the nature of anatta. It is like monkeys discussing about how the banana tastes like without having tasted it. I think it is futile to pursue the knowledge of the nature of anatta through scientific reasonings. Without the input of insight into anatta into the mind, the mind remains forever 'boxed up' in its own shell. The mind may think about, speculate about and reason about the nature of anatta, but it will never what the nature of anatta is. NEO Swee Boon Q: Am I the mind or is the mind me? What exactly is the mind? Does it exist in the ultimate sense? A: I am not the mind nor the mind me. There is only a citta and numerous cetasikas RIGHT NOW, but as for the mind - (I) know not of its existence. 17498 From: chase8383 Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 8:29am Subject: Re: The "Perky effect" Hi peter I posted that as an alternative explanation for visual hallucinations during meditation or contemplation. Not as a tool to live by. Peace, David "> Hi David > > I really don't think the scientific approach helps much in managing > the human predicament. It's a bit like boiling an egg, just to > prove you don't have to take a five year apprenticeship to become a > master chef. > > The Buddha taught that we have six senses, five physical and one > mental. He also taught mindfulness of the body as part of the four > foundations of mindfulness in his path to liberation. > > He taught very abstract approaches to understanding the Human > predicament, also some very colourful cosmological approaches too. > All this without having a clue as to the functions or purpose of the > brain or indeed much of the rest of the body to which we direct > mindfulness. > > From this it is clear to me that the only science needed, to see > things as they really are, is little more than the Buddha's slant on > the Vedic interpretation of the four elements and a Terrestrial > centric view of the Cosmos." 17499 From: Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 4:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? In a message dated 12/7/2002 7:32:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi James, > > You are right that there is no emptiness in and of itself. In the suttas > 'emptiness' always qualifies a container, like an empty cup. What is > empty (of a self) is usually the khandhas; sometimes 'empty' qualifies a > narrower object. If you have a "Wisdom" Majjhima Nikaya it is > interesting to look up all the instances of 'empty' with the index. I > don't think nibbana is called empty (could be wrong). Maybe because it > isn't a container?? > > Larry > Hi Larry. The famous passage in the suttas that goes ... "all conditioned things are impermanent, all conditioned things are suffering, ALL THINGS ARE NOT SELF. Sense the last of these three statements excludes the word "conditioned," it is usually considered that the Buddha meant for it to include Nibbana. If this is a correct interpretation, impermanence and suffering are not applicable to Nibbana but no-self is. TG 17500 From: phrapiyadhammo Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 10:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello Dear Sarah, Thank you for the warm welcome. Yes, Dhamma is the heart of the Khmer people from the convential beliefs all the way up to ultimate truth of the nature of the way things really are....liberating Dhamma. Good in the begining, good in the middle, and good in the end. There are now over twenty thousand Bhikkhu's in Cambodia. Up from zero twenty three years ago! There is still much work to do to insure the survival of Buddhasasana in Cambodia. The old monks with the knowledge, and Pali scholars are few and far between. The only ones who survived had to disrobe or die, or escape to America. So, many of the new Monks are lacking in knowledge, which fortuantly members of the Thai sangha are working to re-establish properly (like one of my Acariya's Phra Maha Somsak. There is no end to the amount of good one can do, and so little time to make a difference so that the path of liberation...cessation of suffering remains in the world for future generations. On another note. I do very much appreciate your welcome on this list. Many thanks for the best wishes for this new life as a monk. I hope to learn much here, and perhaps contribute over the years. My home Wat has the entire Tipitaka in English including all the important books of the Abhidhamma pitaka. I know a lot of the members from D- list. One thing I did at the ordination was asking the sangha to recoginize past good deeds and forgiveness for my past missdeeds. I also had to ask my mother for forgiveness for any way in which I treated her ill and with disrespect before asking her permission to ordain. There are many people on this list who are good caring and compassionate individuals like Robert K., Christine, Robert E., Stephen, and many more who I have been disrespectfull to by action, thought and deed because of silly trivial dissagreements on points of Dhamma. When in fact they are all good caring and kind people who are not deserving of the way that I treated them as a lay person on D- list. To them and all that I have offended in the past I am sorry for any way in which I have treated you ill by thought, deed or action. I ask you all for forgiveness. P.S. For James: Read carefully what Robert Edison and Howard wrote to you about Anatta they are spot on. Much Metta and Karuna, Phra Piyadhammo > Dear Phra Piyadhamma, > > Thank you for taking the time to introduce yourself and to share all the > interesting information. A couple of years ago exactly we were in Cambodia > and really appreciated the keen interest in dhamma amongst both the > bhikkhus and the lay people we met. > > I'm sure I speak on behalf of everyone here when I send our very best > wishes for your life as a monk. I also hope you find the discussions on > DSG helpful. We appreciate that you will only be able to participate from > time to time. > > With respect, > > Sarah 17501 From: James Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 10:38am Subject: Laters :-) (was: Re: Matter/AntiMatter) --- "nidive " wrote: > Hi James, > > I have this thought: If understanding the universe or the beginning > of the universe is essential to gain insight into anatta, I am sure > the Buddha would have taught it. If scientific reasonings are enough > to gain insight into anatta, I am sure the Buddha would have taught > science. > > But the Buddha took another path to gain insight into anatta. > > In essence, reasonings about anatta is not the same as insight into > anatta. Reasonings about anatta does not equal to about > the nature of anatta. It is like monkeys discussing about how the > banana tastes like without having tasted it. > > I think it is futile to pursue the knowledge of the nature of anatta > through scientific reasonings. Without the input of insight into > anatta into the mind, the mind remains forever 'boxed up' in its own > shell. The mind may think about, speculate about and reason about > the nature of anatta, but it will never what the nature of > anatta is. > > NEO Swee Boon > Q: Am I the mind or is the mind me? What exactly is the mind? Does > it exist in the ultimate sense? > A: I am not the mind nor the mind me. There is only a citta and > numerous cetasikas RIGHT NOW, but as for the mind - (I) know not of > its existence. Neo and All, I was not proposing that this theory was going to make anyone enlightened or that even pondering it was going to make anyone enlightened. We are all having a hard time determining the basis for reality when the concept of anatta is inserted into the picture. Much of this is due to our conditioning and knowledge of scientific laws of the universe. The person who says he can escape the influence of such laws on perception as he thinks about the nature of the universe or everyday reality is self-deluded. I was proposing that reality is quite real and that anatta is quite real. I was proposing that the two could be explained metaphysically and scientifically. That would not be the end of insight or the end of the big picture. In other words, there doesn't need to exist a dichotomy between Eastern and Western philosophy or religious and scientific views and one should not be limited to discuss either. The Buddha stressed the most strongly, before he died, that his monks were to be a `light unto themselves". Have you ever wondered why the Lord Buddha didn't teach uniformly; have his monks memorize his teachings; or why he personally didn't record his teachings? Before, I didn't understand why. Now I think I do. He didn't want his teachings to become trapped in the worlds of semantics and the rigidity of time. But it is too late now. They have been trapped and pieces lost, and he are all hovering over the incomplete puzzle… but not allowing ourselves to find the missing pieces in the here and now. If anyone believes that over a period of three thousand years that the Tipitaka has preserved, verbatim, the original teachings of the Buddha is again self-delusional. We all instinctively know this. We all know that we are missing something. But rather than searching for it in ourselves and in our culture, by our own volition, and with our own cognition…like the Buddha said we should, we keep going back to the Tipitaka in the vain hope that we have missed something. Nope, we haven't missed anything. It isn't there. The Tipitaka + yourself = wisdom; The Tipitaka + The Tipitaka = The Tipitaka. The moderators of this group informed me that my group posts need to focus on the Tipitaka and the Tipitaka only, as per the group description. That is understandable; I can respect that; but that is not what I need for me. I came here to get answers about the Abhidhamma, I feel satisfied that I have gotten my answers, and it is time for me to leave now. I have greatly enjoyed my time in this group and find the members very intelligent. I am on a journey and this has been a pleasant and rewarding stop. Good Luck to you all. Metta, James 17502 From: Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 0:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi TG, I agree nibbana is not self. What I meant was I don't think 'sunnata' qualifies 'nibbana' in the majjhima nikaya. But I haven't checked yet, so I could be wrong. 'Sunnata' isn't used very often, to my recollection. Maybe it wouldn't make sense to say nibbana is coreless or hollow. Is there a pali expert in the house? Larry 17503 From: Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 0:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi again TG, Here's one way of reasoning it. Sunnata seems to be a result of compounding so the uncompounded element couldn't be sunnata. I'm not sure if this is valid as nibbana is such a special case. What do you think? Larry 17504 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 1:09pm Subject: Out of Cooran - Metta is first "developed" towards oneself :) Dear All, Returned from the great weekend at Cooran (6 humans out-numbered by 'The Cats' - incl. the superb 'Smokey', size rules! just ignore the treadmill remarks.) reinvigorated and looking forward again to studying, sharing, living the Dhamma. Much to everyone's delight, Steve (Bodhi2500) was able to make the 'sleepover', though perhaps we should have asked for I.D. such was the difference in his appearance from last time after his trip to Thailand, the 'radical' haircut, and the beard and moustache :-) Wonderful to have his input on the Dhamma including the new knowledge of the Vinaya. Andrew and KenH - great companions as usual, non-stop stimulating discussions, rustling of pages to verify points, differing views 'heated' only to a comfortable level. And gratitude for KenH's invariable, insightful, (incessant?) reminders of non- self, nama and rupa. :-) Very glad to have Andrew's valuable contributions and companionship again after a hard slog at Uni. this semester. On ya! Just a further question Regarding Metta Towards Self. (Surely you didn't think the debate had gone away - no, no - it is just lying dormant under the ashes, but the coals are still glowing . I wonder what the Visuddhimagga means when this is written. (p.322 - 'The Divine Abidings' vs. 8 ff.) "8. First of all it should be developed only towards oneself, doing it repeatedly thus: 'May I be happy and free from suffering' or 'May I keep myself free from enmity, affliction and anxiety and live happily'. "9. If that is so, does it not conflict with what is said in the texts? For there is no mention of any development of it towards oneself in what is said in the Vibhanga, 'And how does a bhikkhu dwell pervading one direction with his heart 'filled with lovingkindness? Just as he would feel loving-kindness on seeing a dearly loved person, so he pervades all 'beings with lovingkindness' (Vibh. 272) and in what is said in the Patisambhida, 'In what five ways is the mind-deliverance of lovingkindness [practised] with unspecified pervasion? May all beings be free from enmity, affliction and anxiety and live happily. May all breathing things [297] ... all who are born ... all persons ... all those who have a personality be free from enmity, affliction and anxiety and live happily' (Ps. ii, 130), and in what is said in the Metta-sutta, 'In joy and safety may all beings buy joyful at heart' (Sn. 145). [Does it not conflict with those texts?] "10. It does not conflict. Why not? Because that refers to absorption. But this [initial development towards oneself] refers to [making oneself] an example. For even if he developed lovingkindness for a hundred or a thousand years in this way, 'I am happy' and so on, absorption would never arise. But if he develops it in this way 'I am happy. Just as I want to be happy and dread pain, as I want to live and not to die, so do other beings, too', making himself the example, then desire for other beings' welfare and happiness arises in him. And this method is indicated by the Blessed One's saying, 'I visited all quarters with my mind 'Nor found I any dearer than myself; 'Self is likewise to every other dear; 'Who loves himself will never harm another' (S. i, 75; Ud. 47) '11 So he should first, as example, pervade himself with lovingkindness.' Now, does That settle That? Metta is first "developed" towards oneself? ;) metta, Christine 17505 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 1:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello Phra Piyadhammo Sir, Please, it would be a kindness if you would think no more of the past - we are reborn each moment and are not the same selves as those who were so full of 'sound and fury' elsewhere. I am happy for you in your new life, wish you well and will follow your journey with interest. I, too, ask for forgiveness if my words or manner were the condition for the arising of dosa at any time. with respect and mudita, Christine --- "phrapiyadhammo " wrote: 17506 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 2:49pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Forgiveness Dear Chris and Jon, I very much appreciate Jon's reminder why it is beneficial to apologize for /acknowledge one's error. In doing so, we resolve not to repeat such mistakes. And in following thru (instead of just thinking about it), one may also reduce one's own conceit (mana) when one apologizes (don't we have the feeling sometimes that we should apologize, but our conceit prevents that?). This resolution is, in fact, done by both monks and laypeople. People report that they become less angry if they understand that they are hearing such unpleasant sound because they themselves must have done bad deeds in the past: one must reap what one sows. On the other hand, if one think that the person (doing the scolding / bad deeds) too, must reap what he/she sows, we must examine whether this thought is just a muted anger (wishing other people unpleasant result) under the guise of wisdom. I think there are benefits in forgiving others. By forgiving others, we give the person (and others) the gift of harmlessness (abhaya), we abstain from wrong words and wrong deeds, and we develop the beautiful states in our daily life (be it metta or loving-compassion [karuna]). Best of all, if one sees the anger as just a conditioned dhamma, not me, not my anger, then one is benefiting from the unparalleled wisdom of the Buddha, and starting to see a way out of this endless samsara. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonothan Abbott [mailto:jonoabb@y...] > As regards any wrong done by oneself, one is encouraged to > acknowledge the error and resolve not to repeat > it. In the order of > monks, this takes the form of a confession procedure. > 17507 From: bodhi2500 Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 4:26pm Subject: Re: Out of Cooran - Metta is first "developed" towards oneself :) Hi I've been "nudged" to come out of lurking, so here I am. I guess I'm to blame for the reemergence of the "do/do not direct Metta to wards oneself" thread as I heard another Dhamma talk on Metta where the speaker was saying that first "direct metta to oneself", which promted me to reread the Visuddhimagga on the Brahmavihara's and found the quote Christine quoted below, I then brought it up at the SEQDSG gathering. To my understanding the Sutta's on the subject aren't clear(and to all as to himself). What I would like to know is, are there any commentary quotes that specifically say "Do not direct Metta towards oneself". As to my "radical" new appearance, Christine you forgot to mention my lack of eye brows as well... Take care Steve --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear All, > > Returned from the great weekend at Cooran (6 humans out-numbered > by 'The Cats' - incl. the superb 'Smokey', size rules! just ignore > the treadmill remarks.) reinvigorated and looking forward again to > studying, sharing, living the Dhamma. > Much to everyone's delight, Steve (Bodhi2500) was able to make > the 'sleepover', though perhaps we should have asked for I.D. such > was the difference in his appearance from last time after his trip to > Thailand, the 'radical' haircut, and the beard and moustache :-) > Wonderful to have his input on the Dhamma including the new > knowledge of the Vinaya. Andrew and KenH - great companions as usual, > non-stop stimulating discussions, rustling of pages to verify points, > differing views 'heated' only to a comfortable level. And gratitude > for KenH's invariable, insightful, (incessant?) reminders of non- > self, nama and rupa. :-) Very glad to have Andrew's valuable > contributions and companionship again after a hard slog at Uni. this > semester. On ya! > > Just a further question Regarding Metta Towards Self. (Surely you > didn't think the debate had gone away - no, no - it is just lying > dormant under the ashes, but the coals are still glowing . > I wonder what the Visuddhimagga means when this is written. (p.322 - > 'The Divine Abidings' vs. 8 ff.) "8. First of all it should be > developed only towards oneself, doing it repeatedly thus: 'May I be > happy and free from suffering' or 'May I keep myself free from > enmity, affliction and anxiety and live happily'. > "9. If that is so, does it not conflict with what is said in the > texts? For there is no mention of any development of it towards > oneself in what is said in the Vibhanga, 'And how does a bhikkhu > dwell pervading one direction with his heart 'filled with > lovingkindness? Just as he would feel loving-kindness on seeing a > dearly loved person, so he pervades all 'beings with lovingkindness' > (Vibh. 272) and in what is said in the Patisambhida, 'In what five > ways is the mind-deliverance of lovingkindness [practised] with > unspecified pervasion? May all beings be free from enmity, > affliction and anxiety and live happily. May all breathing things > [297] ... all who are born ... all persons ... all those who have a > personality be free from enmity, affliction and anxiety and live > happily' (Ps. ii, 130), and in what is said in the Metta-sutta, 'In > joy and safety may all beings buy joyful at heart' (Sn. 145). [Does > it not conflict with those texts?] > "10. It does not conflict. Why not? Because that refers to > absorption. But this [initial development towards oneself] refers to > [making oneself] an example. For even if he developed lovingkindness > for a hundred or a thousand years in this way, 'I am happy' and so > on, absorption would never arise. But if he develops it in this > way 'I am happy. Just as I want to be happy and dread pain, as I > want to live and not to die, so do other beings, too', making himself > the example, then desire for other beings' welfare and happiness > arises in him. And this method is indicated by the Blessed One's > saying, > 'I visited all quarters with my mind > 'Nor found I any dearer than myself; > 'Self is likewise to every other dear; > 'Who loves himself will never harm another' (S. i, 75; Ud. 47) > '11 So he should first, as example, pervade himself with > lovingkindness.' > > Now, does That settle That? Metta is first "developed" towards > oneself? ;) > > metta, > Christine 17508 From: phrapiyadhammo Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 5:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello Dearest Christine, Many thanks for this post, and many Blessings to you. I have been reflecting on what to say in response to your kind post during Meditation after this evenings chant. Then when we ended with the Metta chant I smiled and all was well. I knew to convey this was the proper response to your post. I also would like to share from the Navakovada (instructions for newly ordained Bhikkhus and Samanera's compiled by Somdet Phra Maha Samana Chao Krom Phraya Vajirananavarorasa) page 59 Sattaka-Groups Of Seven #2 Seven Ariyan Treasures: These "Treasures" are the wealth of virtue that is found in the characters of those who are "excellent," and are called "Ariyan Treasures." 1. Saddha: They have faith in those things in which one should have faith. 2. Sila: They look after their bodily action and speech, so that they shall be right and proper. 3. Hiri: They are ashamed at the doing of evil and dishonest things. 4. Ottapa: They are shocked and afraid to do evil. 5. Bahusacca: They are people who have listened and heard much. In other words, they remember much Dhamma and have knowledge of many things. 6. Caga: They renounce, give away to and share with those whom it is right to do so. 7. Panna: They know all about what things have value and what things have no value. These Seven Ariyan Treasures are superior to external treasures like silver and gold. One should search for them so as to have them on one's own charachter. May we all strive diligently to drop the unwholesome, cultivate the wholesome, and purify the mind. I will try to keep in touch, at least if, and when at all possible. I will be staying in Thailand for a year or so (or longer). For awhile at Wat Suan Mokkh then perhaps a Wat where my Achaan stayed, before he spent many years at Wat Pho, which is in Surin Thailand near Cambodia, so that I might learn to speak Khmer. I will be able to get photos of our trip to Cambodia posted in the Photo section. So, thank you for the interest I will do my best to keep updates. Christine May you be well and happy Much Karuna and Mudita, in Dhamma Phra Piyadhammo > Phra Piyadhammo > Sir, > > Please, it would be a kindness if you would think no more of the > past - we are reborn each moment and are not the same selves as those > who were so full of 'sound and fury' elsewhere. I am happy for you in > your new life, wish you well and will follow your journey with > interest. I, too, ask for forgiveness if my words or manner were the > condition for the arising of dosa at any time. > > with respect and mudita, > Christine > 17509 From: bodhi2500 Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 6:20pm Subject: Maranasati Hi Another subject that came up at the SEQDSG was Maranasati. My first thought was that it may be Sati that arises taking the "death" or "dissolution" of momentary formations (citta/rupa?) as object. But reading the Vis. it says "this is not what is intended" It seems to be saying in Vis. and Sutta's that what is Maranasati is that the object of Maranasati is the concept(though as I understand it a concept can not be a object of sati?) "all beings are subject to death" and different reflections on death of beings. The Vis. also mentions "In the ultimate sense the life-moment of living beings is extreamly short, being only as much as the occurrence of a single citta", but this seems to be only one of 8 aspects of Maranasati, The other 7 being concepts as object? Thank-you Steve 17510 From: Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 7:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Maranasati Hi Steve, I'm just guessing on this but I think the idea is to look at a dead body and develop a sense of revulsion toward it and, by extension, one's own body. There does seem to be a mix of thinking and direct experience but there really isn't any theorizing or speculation. Revulsion goes along with the general theme of foulness of the body that characterizes kayanupassana. I don't know how foulness is applied to mindfulness of breathing or some of the other body practices but I'm sure it will come up for discussion when we get to it in the study group. Robert K. and Kom might have some thoughts on this as well. Larry 17511 From: peterdac4298 Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 8:26pm Subject: Re: Mara Hi James First of all, I'd like to apologize to all members of the dsg for introducing a thread that pulls the focus away from the study of the triple gem. My intention was to bring up an example from daily life that was at most a little extreme, but still recognisably typical. I should have made it more explicit in my previous post that the phenomena I am describing are nothing more than cases of common telepathy. Telepathy is one of the psychic powers common to meditators as described in various passages in the Suttas when a certain degree of Samadhi is developed. The danger of any of these powers is that they are very seductive to the ego as conceited attachments and thus become serious obstacles to progress. My current predicament is indeed heavy, but seems to be quite recent in origin. I would say that it is all due primarily to my own lack of wisdom. I should have done the same as everyone else with such things and just let these things go - as and when they arise. But somehow or other, greed, hatred and delusion got into the act, and I have been trying to extract myself ever since. A misguided sense of compassion if ever there was one, but such is the nature of confusion and conceit. Teachers have always stressed that meditation should be practiced with wise reflection and clear comprehension, and unwittingly this is exactly what has not been happening with my own practice. The way out is to cultivate insight, with progressively increasing clarity, that the right view of no-self is at the very heart of things as they are. I used to avoid or dilute this by saying that it is equivalent to the view that all arising things are interdependently and progressively conditioned. But this view does not quite cut out the tendency to identify with the detached observer, so much beloved in our modern scientific age. No-self hits the nail right on the head and is the only thing that has any worthwhile impact on my current self made predicament: thankfully with reasonably encouraging results, but conceit is insidious and the battle is far from over. My reason for 'coming out' was to share with others whom I thought had a similar problem, but it seems to have compounded the problem instead. Well you don't know if you don't try, but this must not be an excuse for recklessness and disruption. Hence this attempt to bring it all to a close. Part of the reason for my last disrobing was to go through this self made quagmire of confusion as a layman so as not to bring the robe into disrepute. I returned for a while to my previous teacher, Alan James, who thought the whole thing was hilariously funny, but had the kindness and compassion to advise me to "bring it all back down to basics". This is something that I took to heart and have been endeavouring to do ever since. It has dragged out for so long principally due to a lack of commitment and discipline in applying the practice, which in turn is due to weak wisdom. Slow learner, so who's perfect? Cheers Peter --- "James " wrote: > > Peter, > > First, concerning the trivial matter for you, the significant matter > for me, I have always gotten hung up on the phrase `no self' because > of my extensive education in psychology. I have seen the > word `self' as something that could only belong to living entities, > predominately humans, and could not be used in reference to > inanimate objects. "No essence" breaks my mind free of that > conditioning and I am able to see and understand much more. Words > can be the key—to either let you out or lock you in. > > Thank you for sharing that information about yourself. And let me > assure you, you are not crazy. However, you do have a significant > problem, which I don't know if anyone has put it to you this way or > not, but you have excess/heavy karma. Before I go into the > explanation let me make a few things clear: this knowledge that I > have about certain people is not based on sutta information, I have > never read of it in a sutta but I still know it is real; I do have > psychic ability in the areas of reading thoughts (especially hidden > ones), knowing future events, knowing other people's psychic > abilities, and knowing the age and weight of a people's karma > stream. I have written previously about this on the Internet and I > don't care what people think about it (which is usually skepticism, > denial, irritation, and fear). I don't have to be near the person > to do this; I can do it from a distance. But, unlike you, I have > never had such personal encounters, or even visions, of otherworldly > beings as I have had recently. > > With this said, I believe that you, Peter, have an extremely old > karma stream. You are probably attracted to a great number of world > religions, from the ancient Druids and Egyptians to Catholicism, but > you know that Buddhism holds the most promise for you. > Additionally, you have held positions of `seer' and `priests' in > practically all of the earth's religions, religions of species from > other planets, and in deva realms for an immeasurably long time. > You now realize that your present life is one of profound > significance for you. Your current manifestation is one where you > can finally begin the process of ending this samsara existence, > which weighs heavy on you. Unfortunately, you have dragged along > the experiences and feelings from your previous lifetimes. Like > thoughts that we say to ourselves, "Oh, I have to remember this…I > may need it one day." You have dragged along experience after > experience and associated feelings after feelings from one life to > another. And the thought of letting all of that go terrifies you; > you see it as your treasure chest of wisdom. Now that you feel this > existence as so important, you have been rummaging through that > chest and re-examining old karma. I bet that you even experience > many vivid dreams about living in ancient times and seeing the > passage of time through lives. I also bet that you don't think > predominately in terms of days, months and years—you think > predominately in terms of millennium, centuries, and eons. But this > dragging up of your old karma looking for answers and wisdom is > pulling entities out of your past, especially deva and higher > realms, and most of them are none to pleased about it. They want > you to break the ties you have with them. You also attach more > strongly to people/entities than material objects or experiences. > > You are correct, Vipassana meditation is the way for you to > eliminate this heavy karma. If you are doing it right, you should > feel your body get very hot as the excess karma is burned away. You > will also feel sadness and regret, which will translate into tears > and physical pain where none should be. However, I sense that your > meditation is predominately visualizations, against your will and > with your will sometimes, and that type will only strengthen those > ties, not eliminate them. > > You are in good company in this group because most everyone also has > an old karma stream, but the oldest ones have lightened the weight > of it through Vipassana meditation. I, however, have a relatively > young karma stream for someone as spiritually focused as myself. > Many in this group, with old karma streams, can sense this about me > and it is puzzling and frustrating to them. I should not know the > things I do, but I do. And my karma stream is very light. I am an > upstart, a show-off, who hasn't paid my dues. My fortitude has been > my ability to find and really listen to the best teachers. I don't > try to learn something for myself all the time, I ask question, > after question, after question. People with old karma streams have > a hard time doing that. They feel that they must be teachers, not > students. I have always been a student, really. > > I hope this helps you some. Don't worry if other people think you > are crazy. What you know for yourself to be true is true. I won't > tell you to trust me on this. If what I am telling you sounds like > nonsense, ignore it. If it doesn't, listen to it and decide a > course of action for you. I am just a young pup, but I can show an > old dog a new trick or two. ;-) > > Metta, James > --- "peterdac4298 > " wrote: > > Hi James > > > > I'd like to start by saying I think I have a similar problem > > of 'external' interference in my psychic (as opposed to physical > or > > physiological) aspect. > > I get both male and female entities, both benign and malevolent. > Of > > the four types male, female, good or bad, it is the malevolent > > female that is the most awful - for this male yogi. The good ones > > are very good, very supportive and are thoroughly nice to know > too. > > The bad guys just need a good hiding, they either respect you for > it > > and become friends or they just disappear knowing that they can't > > bother you. 17512 From: Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 4:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? In a message dated 12/8/2002 12:43:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi again TG, > > Here's one way of reasoning it. Sunnata seems to be a result of > compounding so the uncompounded element couldn't be sunnata. I'm not > sure if this is valid as nibbana is such a special case. What do you > think? > > Larry > Hi Larry I don't think its valid. Sunnata is not the result of compounding. It is not a "thing" that arises as a result. It is a lack of something. It is a lack of self. "Void is the world...because it is void of a self and anything belonging to a self." S.XXXV, 85. Nibbana is as selfless as samsara. The unconditioned and conditioned are both empty of self. TG 17513 From: Sarah Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 10:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Expressions of gratitude. Hi Peter, I’m finding all your posts very interesting and appreciate greatly that you’re able to share your experiences and difficulties. There’s no need to apologise at all and any responses have been very well intended too. When I read your background details, they were a condition for lots of stories and lobha on my part. Like you, I left from England for India in the early 70s (as one did in those days!!).Like you did at another time, I spent several months living in a Forest Monastery outside of Colombo. Like you (different dates), I lived in Hampstead and was there when A.Sumedho first came to be resident. I just visited occasionally and one time provided a dana when A.Cha was visiting as well. Cooking has always been an ordeal to be avoided if possible for me. That day, I prepared a curry, various condiments and an apple crumble w/custard to follow, with nervous anticipation. Well, A.Cha just just mixed the curry, rice, condiments, crumble and custard up together in his bowl and we all smiled and laughed. I was introduced by A.Sumedho as being a student of A.Sujin’s and there was a light and pleasant acceptance of different understandings of dhamma. No one tried to persuade or convince anyone of anything and there was no apparent conceit at stake. It was rather like our recent pleasant discussions and the friendly atmosphere with B.Bodhi, B.Anthony and the Chinese Master. I vistied Chithurst a few times, once with K.Sujin (when she stayed with me in Sussex) if I remember rightly - it could have been another time or with Nina. I always had demanding jobs in London - working with delinquent adolescents or in psychiatric centres - so visits to temples were occasional only. Pls give my rgds - Sarah Procter’s (the K.Sujin student;-)) from the 70s- to A.Sumedho if you visit him. Pls mention that I’ve been living overseas for the last 20 years. I’m especially glad to hear about the visit of Badanta Amamdametreya and the introduction of Abhidhamma at Amaravati. Prhaps others will continue their interest or study here as well. Peter, I sympathise and appreciate your sharing of your ‘interference’ experiences and understand how debilitating these can be. I think you make many good points and indeed I think that the key to all difficulties in life is the development of panna (rt understanding). It helps a lot, as you suggest, if we don’t attach especial importance or respond with conceit to any special experience. Anything can happen and to know it has to be the path of detachment is very important. Even those who had attained the highest jhanas and special powers in the time of the Buddha had to give up all attachment and see phenomena for what they were - merely namas and rupas. I was interested in your GP’s comments to ‘carry on with practice’. To you, practice means/meant ‘meditation’ in a particular manner. Perhaps to the GP or others of us, the word may be used in a more general manner to refer to the development of wholesome qualities and growth of wisdom at the present momentand in daily life. Once again I’d like to reiterate your comment relating to samadhi (which of course can be right or wrong samadhi): “The danger of any of these powers is that they are very seductive to the ego as conceited attachments and thus become serious obstacles to progress”. I think this is just the point that Betty and others were making in earlier posts. With the growth of wise reflection, panna and detachment from any idea of self, there will be fewer conditions to cling to and have fear of special experiences and thus fewer obstacles on the path. We’re all slow learners, Peter, no need to be discouraged or to apologize for your helpful and well-considered reflections. Please let us know if further wise reflection and understanding help with the disturbing experiences. Sarah p.s If you’d like to meet a friend to several of us here, Alan Weller, in London (who runs the Zolag website often mentioned), I’m sure he’d be glad to meet you and I find you might find the contact helpful. He’s a very close dhamma friend and we go back to school days in the 60s;-)Let me know off-list if so. I'm not sure if he's reading posts at present or not. ======================================================== 17514 From: Sarah Date: Sun Dec 8, 2002 11:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Out of Cooran - Metta is first "developed" towards oneself :) Hi Steve (& Christine). Thanks for the prompt updates from what was obviously a stimulating and enjoyable weekend. Steve, it may have taken some serious nudging so let me give it some quick reinfocement;-) As Chris will have indicated (and hopefully given you her set of links, but if not see under ‘metta’ in U.P. for a start), this seems to be an area where there are different understandings and as you suggest we can all read the passage from the Vis (ch 1X) she quoted according to these understandings which seem so very clear to us;-) Additional references you may like to check: 1. Commentary to the CariyaPitaka as translated by B.Bodhi at the back of his text on the Brahmajala Sutta and commentaries. 2. Commentary to the metta discourse as translated by B.Nanamoli in the Minor Readings (Khuddakapatha). References are all given to ‘their’ rather than ‘our’ welfare or welfare of others. Let me add a few brief quotes as many members won’t have the texts and they’re not on line. May the quotes be a condition for reflection on the qualities of metta and perhaps other qualities being discussed, such as forgiveness too, rather than the proving or otherwise of any views: From com. to Cariyapitaka, transl by B.Bodhi: “Loving-kindness has the characteristic of promoting the welfare(of living beings); its function is to provide for their welfare, or its function is to remove resentment; its manifestation is kindliness; seeing the agreeable side of beings is its proximate cause.” ***** From the com. to the Metta discourse, transl by B.Nanamoli: “And while maintaining this (thought )in this way, he would maintain it in being by ensuring the absence of any check, malice, or foe, so that it may be unchecked, no malice with or foe (asambaadha.m avera.m asapatta.m). Or else he would maintain, augment, for all the world, in the three divisions of above, below and all around, his thought of love (lovingkindness) unboundedly when it has reached excellence in maintenance-in-being and is unchecked since it finds opportunities everywhere, has no malice since his own annoyance with others has been removed, and has no foe since others’ annoyance with himself has been removed.” ..... “ ‘Let them not wish each other ill: naa~n~nama~n~nassa dukkham icceyya = a~n~nama~n~nassa dukkha.m na iccheyya’. What is meant? Lovingkindness should be maintained in being not only by attention given thus ‘joyful and safe’ etc, but it should also be maintained in being as follows: ‘Oh that no person at all might undo any other person at all in any place on the ground for conceit (maanavatthu)consisting in birth, (property) etc (see Miii 37), and that each might not wish another ill with provocation or resistive thought. “ ***** As I understand the quality of metta (and all the brahma viharas for that matter) as discussed in these references and those that Christine cited from the Vism, the lack of kindness and lack of wishing for pleasant and joyful experiences is not related to ourselves (for whom there is no such lack), but for others. As it explains in the Vism, by reflecting on what we like, i.e to be happy and free from suffering, we can know this is what all others would like too and such a reflection may be a condition for metta when we are with others or think about them. In this way, there is no conflict with the passages in the Vibhanga (from the Abhidhamma, Patisambhidamagga and metta discourse(both from the Suttapitaka)which relate to highly developed metta as explained, for all beings. As is indicated in the Udana sutta, there is indeed no one dearer than the self. The last line quoted from the text, suggesting metta to oneself, should therefore be read in the light of what precedes it, ie ‘making oneself an example’ and ‘nor found I any dearer than myself’. I think when one reads and considers the other brahma viharas in the Visuddhimagga it also becomes more apparent. ***** The abundance of self love may be very apparent when someone seems to show an excess of self-importance. I think it’s just as prevalent, however, when there seems to be an abundance of self loathing or despair. Clinging to self, attachment, which is the near enemy of metta and lack of consideration for others are still at the root of the problem. I think James wrote beautifully about this in a post to one of the Star kids: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m13076.html It’s the one about Patty and Dominique who are both obsessed with their self-importance in different ways. I found it really moving and so did some of the kids it was addressed to. I think that in the end, like the discussions about the authenticity of the Abhidhamma and so on, no amount of quote and requote will help; it depends on panna to understand the present reality and in the case of metta, to understand the difference between wholesome and unwholesome mind-states when they arise. This is the only way that qualities can be known. How does this sound to you, Steve and Chris? Sarah p.s Whilst I understand that by definition the brahma viharas must have other beings as object, this doesn’t preclude there being any other wholesome mental states whilst thinking of ‘oneself’ or ‘one’s’ good or bad deeds performed even though the attachment can jump in very quickly. .....oh and do we get an updated group photo without the eyebrows as well?? =================================== --- "bodhi2500 " wrote: > Hi > I've been "nudged" to come out of lurking, so here I am. I guess > I'm to blame for the reemergence of the "do/do not direct Metta to > wards oneself" thread 17515 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Dec 9, 2002 0:35am Subject: RE: [dsg] Maranasati Hi Steve & Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > Hi Steve, > > I'm just guessing on this but I think the idea is > to look at a dead body > and develop a sense of revulsion toward it and, > by extension, one's own > body. There does seem to be a mix of thinking and > direct experience but > there really isn't any theorizing or speculation. > Revulsion goes along > with the general theme of foulness of the body > that characterizes > kayanupassana. I don't know how foulness is > applied to mindfulness of > breathing or some of the other body practices but > I'm sure it will come > up for discussion when we get to it in the study > group. Robert K. and > Kom might have some thoughts on this as well. > I don't know much about the contents from Vism, but the objects of the rupa jhana cittas (and most samatha development) are always conceptual. A samatha object is good for a person if by contemplating on the object, the person achieves (and increases) tranquility of the mind, which is free from attachment, anger, and ignorance. I am not at all surprised that the majority of the aspects of Marananusati are conceptual. In reality, there is only one: all conditioned realities fall away --- this is the real death of anything, and this is the most important aspect of death that one should learn for oneself. Without seeing this aspect of reality, liberation is impossible. The conceptual death can only (directly) bring one temporary tranquility of mind. The common theme that I see in the different (samatha) contemplations taught in the tipitaka is the application to oneself. When we see the different deaths, we can see that we too, will (maybe soon) reach this state. We can also see that no matter how hard we try, we cannot escape this state. This reminds us to be diligent to do things we should do, and to be mindful. If you are like me, you will like some parts of your bodies (and maybe others' ;-) ). If you contemplate wisely, you will see that these body parts don't have anything that should be attached to. If you are attached to your hair, you can contemplate about all the things (like blood, puss, oil, etc.) that are the nourishment of a hair. If you are attached to your own skin, you can compare your own skin to the skin of a dead body: they are not that much different visibly. For anapanasati, you can compare your breath to the wind outside the body. You can see that even a big storm eventually comes to a stop: your little fragile breath also comes to a stop, and without this little breath, you will be dead. You can do this with the element of fire (inside fire, outside fire), and the element of earth. Sati is a cetasika that co-arises with all wholesome cittas, even if the citta (and cetacikas) has a concept as its object. When we abstain from bad words and bad deeds, there is sati being mindful (or remebering) to abstain. When we give, there is sati mindful of giving. When we think of the samatha object that brings tranquility, there is sati mindful of the conceptual object. When we directly learn the characteristic of nama and rupa, there is sati mindful of nama and rupa. kom 17516 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Dec 9, 2002 1:43am Subject: Re: Maranasati Hi Steve, Would the contemplation of an actual dead body over time (rupas as visible object, smell, sound) as in the Cemetery Contemplations, be different to the contemplation of the idea of death (one's own or another) or even briefly attending a cremation, in that there is the awareness of realities appearing through the eyes, ears, nose and mind-door when experiencing the continuing processes that a 'close by' dead body undergoes as time passes? Maranasati Mindfulness of Death: {from the Visuddhimagga p.247-259} refers to two kinds of death - timely death (that comes about with the exhaustion of merit or exhaustion of life span or with both) and untimely death(that comes about through kamma that interrupts [other, life-producing] kamma). p.249 vs. 8 " recollecting of death in eight ways, that is to say: 1. as having the appearance of a murderer 2. as the ruin of success 3. by comparison 4. as to sharing the body with many 5. as to frailty of life 6. as signless 7. as to the limitedness of the extent 8. as to the shortness of the moment. The eight ways are given more clarification at: http://www.baynet.net/~arcc/dhamma/death.html Vis. p257 "So while he does his recollecting by means of one or other of these eight ways, his consciousness acquires [the support of] repetition owing to the reiterated attention, mindfulness settles down with death as its object, the hindrances are suppressed, and the jhana factors make their appearance. But since the object is states with individual essences, and since it awakes a sense of urgency, the jhana does not reach absorption and is only access." <<>> And that access is known as 'mindfulness of death' too since it arises through its means. A bhikkhu devoted to mindfulness of death is constantly diligent. He acquires perception of disenchantment with all kinds of becoming (existence). He conquers attachment ot life. He condemns evil. He avoids much storing. He has no stain of avarice about requisites. Perception of impermanence grows in him, following upon which there appear the perceptions of pain and not-self. <<>> And if he does not attain the deathless here and now, he is at least headed for a happy destiny on the break-up of the body. metta, Christine --- "bodhi2500 " wrote: > Hi > Another subject that came up at the SEQDSG was Maranasati. My first > thought was that it may be Sati that arises taking the "death" > or "dissolution" of momentary formations (citta/rupa?) as object. But > reading the Vis. it says "this is not what is intended" It seems to > be saying in Vis. and Sutta's that what is Maranasati is that the > object of Maranasati is the concept(though as I understand it a > concept can not be a object of sati?) "all beings are subject to > death" and different reflections on death of beings. > The Vis. also mentions "In the ultimate sense the life-moment of > living beings is extreamly short, being only as much as the > occurrence of a single citta", but this seems to be only one of 8 > aspects of Maranasati, The other 7 being concepts as object? > > Thank-you > Steve 17517 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 9, 2002 2:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Freewill is out?!;-)?!:-) Hi Rob M, Glad you’re recovering....it’s been Jon’s turn to be down with flu this weekend;-( --- "robmoult " wrote: > I was still under the impression that yoniso manisakara / ayoniso > manasikara arose during the determining stage and thereby > conditioned either kusala or akusala at the javana stage. > > Did we discuss this before? .... Would you mind looking back at the following message from last August: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m11257.html In it, I explained, as I understand, how votthapanna (determining) consciousness is an ahetuka kiriya citta (rootless inoperative consciousness. The cetasikas (mental factors) accompanying it, including manasikara (attention) are therefore also rootless and inoperative and perform their functions accordingly. For example, the ekaggata (concentration) arising with this citta or with a moment of seeing or hearing will neither be right or wrong concentration, it will be ‘rootless’. The same applies to the sanna (perception) or cetana (intention). They perform their functions of ‘directing’, ‘perceiving’(sorry, Suan;-)) or ‘coordinating/willing’ the consciousness and other mental factors to the object. However they don’t direct or will kusala or akusala, for example, so their tasks are not quite the same when they arise with these different kinds of citta. Back to the determining consciousness. It is accompanied by equanimity only and the manaskikara can surely not be wise or unwise which I understand would only arise in the javana process with kusala and akusala cittas (or kiriya cittas for the arahat). Vis XIV (183) discusses cetasikas arising with functional indetrminate consciousness with and without root cause. Earlier in the same chapter (152) it discusses the controlling function of manasikara. It also mentions ‘controller of the cognitive series’ and ‘controller of impulsions’ as terms for the 2 kinds of adverting cosciousness, but makes it clear that they are ‘not included’ under the given sobhana manasikara. Rob, the only reason I’m pursuing this discussion is because I think you are giving this particular consciousness and the role of the accompanying manasikara undue importance in determining the nature of the following javana cittas (of course there couldn’t be the succeeding cittas without this crucial one). I would see the importance of wise and unwise attention as being when they accompany moments of consciousness with lobha or panna or dosa as they arise now and they can be experienced and known as such. What do you think? Sarah ======= 17518 From: bodhi2500 Date: Mon Dec 9, 2002 2:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Maranasati Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Sati is a cetasika that co-arises with all wholesome cittas, > even if the citta (and cetacikas) has a concept as its > object. When we abstain from bad words and bad deeds, there > is sati being mindful (or remebering) to abstain. When we > give, there is sati mindful of giving. When we think of the > samatha object that brings tranquility, there is sati > mindful of the conceptual object. When we directly learn > the characteristic of nama and rupa, there is sati mindful > of nama and rupa. Kom Thank-you. I was under the impression that sati could only take paramattha dhamma's as object, hense the sati/concept confusion. So it is a moment of Satipatthana that can only take parammattha dhamma's, not concepts as object? And does Samma Sati only arise in moments of Satipatthana and magga citta's? And Phala citta's?? Steve 17519 From: dragonwriter2 Date: Mon Dec 9, 2002 2:55am Subject: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Howard, > > Thanks for that clarification. I agree, but what's an 'I'? "I" or "i" am not really sure :) However here's a poem by Michael Sariban that may or may not be of benefit. Ego Trip So capital I profiles as girder, lines up as railway track; likes to think of itself as steeland able to take great pressure but small i really fancies itself, makes the ultimate understatement, when it's only a performing seal balancing ego on its nose 17520 From: chase8383 Date: Mon Dec 9, 2002 3:38am Subject: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi TG You said "Sunnata is not the result of compounding. It is not a "thing" that arises as a result. It is a lack of something. It is a lack of self." I agree. It is the negation of the false perception that compounded things are made up of a self. How could I be here if I wasn't compounded? I didn't manufacture myself. But we think we are a self, therefore the Buddha pointed to Sunnata. Sunnata is the great ego bomb. 17521 From: Date: Mon Dec 9, 2002 2:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi, Larry - I seem to recall nibbana being referred to as the "ultimate emptiness", though I don't have a ready citation for that. With metta. Howard In a message dated 12/8/02 3:16:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi TG, > > I agree nibbana is not self. What I meant was I don't think 'sunnata' > qualifies 'nibbana' in the majjhima nikaya. But I haven't checked yet, > so I could be wrong. 'Sunnata' isn't used very often, to my > recollection. Maybe it wouldn't make sense to say nibbana is coreless or > hollow. Is there a pali expert in the house? > > Larry > > /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) 17522 From: nidive Date: Mon Dec 9, 2002 8:49am Subject: A 'Funny' Question Hi ALL, Here's a 'funny' question. If let's say you attained the first stage of awakening of a sotapanna, would you confide your attainment with any close Dhamma friends? Or would you rather keep it to yourself? NEO Swee Boon 17523 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Dec 9, 2002 8:58am Subject: RE: [dsg] Maranasati Dear Steve, > -----Original Message----- > From: bodhi2500 > So it is a moment of Satipatthana that can only > take parammattha > dhamma's, not concepts as object? I think of it this way. If we look thru the list of vipassana-nana (wisdom clearly comprehending the true chracteristics of nature), you see that we start with: 1) Nama-rupa distinction 2) Conditionality of nama-rupa 3) Rapid rising & falling away of nama-rupa 4) Falling away of nama-rupa ... If concept doesn't truly exist (doesn't have a characteristic), how do you see it rising and falling away? I think the answer is you don't. To clearly see the impermanence of dhamma, the dhamma needs to exist in nature, and hence, only realities can be objects of vipassana-nana. Also, if we look thru the suttas. We can also see whenever the buddha talked about seeing impermanence, what should we see the impermanence of? Always kandhas, (some) ayatanas, (some) dhathus, etc., always real, and never conceptual. > > And does Samma Sati only arise in moments of > Satipatthana and magga > citta's? And Phala citta's?? > No, all sati, rising with sobhana states, is samma, although not all sati is part of the 8-fold path. When we talk about the paths (5-fold, 6-fold, and 8-fold [and 7-fold in some case]), it is always about satipatthana. 5-fold and 6-fold path is the lokiya (mundane) satipatthana, and 8-fold and 7-fold is the lokkutara (supra-mundane) satipathanna. There is also micha-sati, but micha-sati never arises with the sobhana states, but arises with attachment. If there is an attachment, for example, when "we" are trying to see the characteristics of nama or rupa (wanting to see, wanting results --- be it tranquility of mind, vipassana nana, wisdom, wanting to accomplish, etc), that is clearly micha-sati. When we have micha-sati (and all the other 7 micha factors), we can see how we can progress toward micha-liberation (vimutti). kom 17524 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Dec 9, 2002 0:41pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi Simon, Nice to see you here, and read the poem. How true that overt humility often hides a bigger conceit. :-) Are you still in Sulawesi? May you stay safe and free from harm, Christine --- "dragonwriter2 " wrote: > but small i > really fancies itself, > makes the ultimate > understatement, when it's only > a performing seal > balancing ego > on its nose ADVERTISEMENT 17525 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Dec 9, 2002 1:16pm Subject: Re: Forgiveness Dear Paul, Howard, James, Frank, Jon, Kom, and All, Paul, This is a good reminder that "mostly" the results of kamma, the vipaka, are certain. I wonder if they can be weakened or diluted or even if the seeds can be prevented from arising at all ... maybe I'm on the wrong track here, looking for a loop-hole. I still have trouble with the idea that ignorance attracts a more severe vipaka than knowingly doing something wrong. But I'll keep my eye out for the sutta you mention. --------------------------- Howard, Thanks for the link. However, I think the Kakacupana Sutta uses the Simile of the Saw as a training reminder to urge Monks to endure unpleasant aspects of speech. Not as the Buddha's expectation of how one should be able to behave under horrific physical violence. At ATI, it can be found at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn021.html and it ends with: --->Monks, if you attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw, do you see any aspects of speech, slight or gross, that you could not endure?"<--- I liked this other quote and will try to keep it in my mind, "This person is a fellow-being of mine. Intentionally or unintentionally I myself must have been the source of provocation, or it may be due to a past evil kamma of mine. As it is the outcome of my own action, why should I harbour ill-will towards him?" --------------------------- James, Thanks for this poem. In Bodhi's translation the word 'compassion' is used, instead of the word 'sympathy' - and the arrow that pierces the chest is 'craving'. -------------------------- Frank, What you say here is clear to me, 'The problem with most conventional religious teachings on "forgiveness" is it reinforces clinging to notions of "self", clinging to notions of "others", clinging to even the actions that require forgiveness. Trying to work through and relieve sufferings of complex emotions (with conventional teachings) creates much more sufferring and delusion in the process! The whole basis for the notion of forgiveness (as understood conventionally) is counter to anatta.' Thanks. --------------------------- Jon, Thanks for this reminder "As regards wrong done by others to oneself, the Buddha explained on many occasions the need to understand that people act the way they do because of their accumulated nature, that one is reaping the results of one's own previous deeds...'. Also please see my remarks above to Howard regarding the Kakacupana Sutta. I hope I'm not wrong. Having the expectation from the Buddha that his followers not feel aversion when under horrific physical torture would be 'setting the hurdle too high' for me and for most beings, I think. ----------------------------------- Kom, I agree that if one has done wrong, one should apologise and resolve not to repeat the error in speech or behaviour. I'm glad you pointed out that thinking of the fact that the person who has done wrong to me will reap what he/she sows needs to be examined to discern my own disguised anger. I hadn't considered this before. Seeing anger as a conditioned dhamma - not me, not my anger - anatta and no control again. :) ------------------------------------ metta, Christine --- "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello all, > > I was wondering what the Theravada teachings say > about 'forgiveness'. Christianity has a lot to say about this .. > about asking for one's own forgiveness from others and from the Lord, > about forgiving others, about forgiving oneself. Maybe I'm > still 'trailing clouds of glory' from that faith, but forgiveness > would seem to me to be quite an important thing to ask for and give, > and I wonder why I can't find any teachings. There seems to be some > teachings in Mahayana writings - e.g. Bodhicitta. I looked but I > couldn't find much in Theravada ... accesstoinsight doesn't even > have 'forgiveness' under the subject headings in the sutta > listings. Perhaps it's called something else? > If someone did a wrong to me, would my forgiving them affect the > kammic fruit of their act? Would my not forgiving them affect my > kammic fruit? Somehow I feel the answer is 'no' to the first > and 'yes' to the second. > The mechanism of forgiveness would seem to involve 'acceptance of > self and other', 'metta to both other and self (oops)', 'compassion > for both', 'equanimity', 'putting oneself in the position of the > other', and 'anatta'. Maybe that's why there is a 'forgiveness- > shaped' blank in Theravada - no simple one word topic? > > metta, > Christine 17526 From: James Date: Mon Dec 9, 2002 2:27pm Subject: Takin' a Break Hey All, A very sweet member sent me this e-mail I am going to quote at the end of this letter. And Sarah also wrote a very kind e-mail. Thanks to both. Tellingly, they both say the same thing: YOU'RE NUTS!!! :-) Just Kidding. I still believe that the visitations are real, though they have stopped for the time being, but I think the way I am viewing the world now is not so real. To put it in New Age terms: I have lost my center. First I bit off Howard's head, then Nina's head, and then everyone's head. I am obviously not myself. I am going to take a break for a week or two and find my center again. I will be reading but not responding. As the Phoenix who rises from the ashes of his own, self-generated cremation, I hope to rise renewed from this experience. Metta, James "Hi James, It was a pleasure reading your posts, your theories, and thoughts. Any time you are confused and would like to have someone to talk to, feel free to drop by dsg. I'm new to dsg myself, but have found this list quite supportive. Although you may think that I'm a skeptics, but I did notice a change of tone and manner in your posts following the one where you mention about your encounter with Mara. So I'm quite concerned about you like many members who have publicly wrote to you. Anyway, take care of yourself, study dhamma, keep your focus on what you were seeking for, and feel free to drop by dsg again!" 17527 From: Date: Mon Dec 9, 2002 3:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi TG, Howard, & David, After thinking about it again I agree with you guys. My only concern was with the grammar, not the dhamma, and I've decided calling nibbana empty is similar to calling space empty. There doesn't have to be a container. There is also an experience of emptiness but I don't know if that is relevant. One thing that occurred to me is when we say there is no self found in nibbana it could be because there is no more looking. Does anyone know what happens in the citta process when nibbana is experienced? Does the nibbana element arise and cease or is the bhavanga stream interrupted without an object arising? Is the nibbana element underlying? Larry 17528 From: Date: Mon Dec 9, 2002 3:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi Simon and Howard, As to what is an 'I', I was wondering what are the characteristics of a self (atta) as discussed by the Buddha. I can think of 4: wholeness, appropriation, subjectivity, and permanence. Permanence isn't necessarily for all of eternity; it could be as limited as continuing from one moment to the next. Subjectivity is a do-er and would incorporate control issues. Appropriation is the illusion of attachment, being connected to something, and I think would include identifying with a feeling etc. Wholeness is the appearance of a separate, individual, independent phenomenon. Can you think of any other characteristics of an 'atta'? Larry 17529 From: peterdac4298 Date: Mon Dec 9, 2002 5:38pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Expressions of gratitude. Hi Sarah Your highly skillful support is most appreciated. I could go into the details of your post in even more detail but have to sit on such projects for now. It was 04:00am last night when I finally got to bed after working on that last post. I can't keep this up, my shirts will never get ironed, etc! It's not as though my job is demanding, but the great British public soon start to notice if one's sleep deficit starts building up: so does one's employer! I will definitely follow up on your suggestion to make some sort of contact with the Zolag webmaster Alan Weller and let you know, off list, how it goes. As you so rightly say: "...With the growth of wise reflection, panna and detachment from any idea of self, there will be fewer conditions to cling to and have fear of special experiences and thus fewer obstacles on the path..." This very reduction in 'things to cling to' could be a problem in itself, in that those ever fewer remaining things take on ever greater significance simply because there is nothing else to occupy the energy of the defilements. Hah! there must be many times in the life of yer actual typical yogi, when s/he must wish s/he had never started on this path! I often think that that well known expression should be rendered as "...interesting in the beginning, interesting in the middle, and interesting in the end..." We always get the training we need! Cheers Peter 17531 From: Date: Mon Dec 9, 2002 2:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi, Larry (and Simon) - In a message dated 12/9/02 6:42:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Simon and Howard, > > As to what is an 'I', I was wondering what are the characteristics of a > self (atta) as discussed by the Buddha. I can think of 4: wholeness, > appropriation, subjectivity, and permanence. Permanence isn't > necessarily for all of eternity; it could be as limited as continuing > from one moment to the next. Subjectivity is a do-er and would > incorporate control issues. Appropriation is the illusion of attachment, > being connected to something, and I think would include identifying with > a feeling etc. Wholeness is the appearance of a separate, individual, > independent phenomenon. > > Can you think of any other characteristics of an 'atta'? > > Larry > > ===================== Hmm, not sure. But this is a good list. 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) 17532 From: Andrew Date: Mon Dec 9, 2002 9:02pm Subject: Right livelihood - Samma-ajiva Hello everyone This is my first question for a long time. It pertains to samma-ajiva. In Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation of the Maha-cattarisaka Sutta, a distinction is drawn between "right livelihood with fermentations, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]" and "noble right livelihood, without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path". I do not understand this distinction. I consulted a work by Bhikkhu Bodhi but he does not seem to deal with the distinction. Can anyone assist on this question? Many thanks Andrew 17533 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 9, 2002 10:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ignored.... Hi James the Ignored and Misunderstood;-), --- "James " wrote: > --- In > Oh my goodness! I thought I had answered every letter from Philip > and I don't remember one from little Sandy. Give me the numbers for > these posts and I will respond immediately. > > Since not replying is okay, I won't reply to the rest of this post > ;-) (So There! :-P) Me childish!? HA! :-) > > Metta, James the Ignored :-( ..... ;-) Nothing like a little bit of Kids' Play to bring us to our senses;-) I've just done a little research on the kids posts on list and the their reactions. Finding: Those who compain about being ignored (AKA Philip) are the least ignored and those who don't say a word in protest (AKA little Sandy and Janet) would have good cause;-) Familiar?? (Actually, Philip's protest was only after his first letter which didn't receive an immediate, that day, response;-)) I'll give you numbers for the little girls, partly because I enjoy your letters to the children so much too. There is absolutely NO HURRY ever. Janet: 17128, 17150 (note: her brother Philip was told NOT to reply to her) Sandy: 17149, 17223 I took a few pix. Sometime I'll try to get them to the album to make it easier for anyone replying, though the novelty for the kids may soon wear off anyway, now they're all experts in Buddhism;-). Enjoy your holiday meanwhile, Sarah the Busybody =================== 17534 From: James Date: Mon Dec 9, 2002 11:48pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Ignored.... --- Sarah wrote: > Hi James the Ignored and Misunderstood;-), Finding: Those who compain about being ignored (AKA Philip) are > the least ignored and those who don't say a word in protest (AKA little > Sandy and Janet) would have good cause;-) Familiar?? (Actually, Philip's > protest was only after his first letter which didn't receive an immediate, > that day, response;-)) (I have no clue what you mean here! ;-) Oh well, as they say, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease.") > I'll give you numbers for the little girls, partly because I enjoy your > letters to the children so much too. There is absolutely NO HURRY ever. > Janet: 17128, 17150 (note: her brother Philip was told NOT to reply to > her) > Sandy: 17149, 17223 (Thank you. I am glad you enjoy the letters. I was thinking of including them in a book if I ever publish one. I will leisurely respond to these letters and post the responses. I didn't usually respond to a letter from the kids unless it was addressed to me. I had no idea they were all looking for a response from me.) > > I took a few pix. Sometime I'll try to get them to the album to make it > easier for anyone replying, though the novelty for the kids may soon wear > off anyway, now they're all experts in Buddhism;-). (LOL! Kids are so cute! I was thinking of adopting an Asian child one day. I was showing the movie "White Fang", about sled dogs and wolves in Alaska during the Gold Rush, and I heard a couple of funny comments from the kids. One exclaimed, during a death scene with a mother wolf and her cub, "Gosh, these dogs are really good actors! They should get an award." And during a scene where a miner goes running after his sled dog being attacked by a pack of wolves and ends up being attacked himself, a different student explaims, "Man, people do some really stupid things for their pets!" > > Enjoy your holiday meanwhile, > > Sarah the Busybody > =================== > Thanks, I will try. Metta, James the Transient ps. I declair that this e-mail is 'Buddhism Certified': This e-mail presents, in a non-direct way, the Buddhist theme of conceit: From: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-207.html Yavakalapi Sutta The Sheaf of Barley "'I am' is an act of conceit. 'I am this' is an act of conceit. 'I shall be' is an act of conceit. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is an act of conceit. An act of conceit is a disease, an act of conceit is a cancer, an act of conceit is an arrow. Therefore, monks, you should train yourselves: 'We will dwell with an awareness free of acts of conceit.'" Note: The Lord Buddha clarifies, "...you should train yourselves.." not "...you should naturally and automatically be..." 17535 From: chase8383 Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 3:39am Subject: Re: Emptiness? Hi Larry You said "One thing that occurred to me is when we say there is no self found in nibbana it could be because there is no more looking. Does anyone know what happens in the citta process when nibbana is experienced? Does the nibbana element arise and cease or is the bhavanga stream interrupted without an object arising? Is the nibbana element underlying?" It is hard for me to understand some of the words being used here. I am from the Dzogchen path. But I would say that Nibbana itself is empty. So of course there would be no self found there. Nibbana can't be attained because there is no attainment. Nibbana can't arise because there is no arising. Nibana is without self, without arising, and without attainment. That's how the Dzogchen path sees it. 17536 From: azita gill Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 3:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right livelihood - Samma-ajiva --- "Andrew " wrote: > Hello everyone > This is my first question for a long time. It > pertains to > samma-ajiva. In Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation of > the > Maha-cattarisaka Sutta, a distinction is drawn > between "right > livelihood with fermentations, siding with merit, > resulting in the > acquisitions [of becoming]" and "noble right > livelihood, without > fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path". > I do not > understand this distinction. I consulted a work by > Bhikkhu Bodhi but > he does not seem to deal with the distinction. Can > anyone assist on > this question? Many thanks > Andrew > > Hello Andrew, Nice to hear from you - I understand your w/e at Cooran went well. My guess, about your question, is that the first one is a path factor of one who is not yet arahant and the second one is arahant. I'm unable to elaborate on this, maybe one of the more eloquent writers can. I don't seem to have the accumulations for 'wordiness', but no doubt someone will. Maybe when I return to Oz. I'll be able to attend an occasional SEQ.dsg. Cheers, Azita 17538 From: chase8383 Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 3:54am Subject: Re: Emptiness? Sorry Larry, I forgot to sign off. BTW, as to the signing off. In Dzogchen we use "good in the begining, good in the middle, good in the end" as a way to make our meditation pratice more beneficial. So in here, saying Hi would be "good in the begining", your post would be "good in the middle" (hopefully), and the signing off would be "good in the end". Also if my being from the Dzogchen path bothers anyone, I wil stop posting. Peace, David 17539 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 5:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right livelihood - Samma-ajiva Andrew Nice to see you back. I do not find this an easy sutta to understand, but it is a very important one. The sutta deals with the factors that are the supports and requisites of supramundane right concentration (i.e., the right concentration that accompanies a moment of experiencing nibbana). Elsewhere in the sutta, the same two-fold distinction is drawn as regards other factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, including right view. I have set out below the passage from the sutta dealing with right view (the translation and notes are from the Bhikkhu Bodhi/BPS/Wisdom publication) The distinction relates to the difference between the mundane and the supramundane versions of the path factor. In brief, both the mundane and the supramundane path factors mentioned are a support for supramundane right concentration, but in different ways. The mundane path factors are a support in that they lead eventually to the supramundane; the supramundane ones are a support in that they accompany each other at supramundane moments. But in each case, right view is the leader ('comes first'). I hope this helps clarify a little. Please feel free to follow-up. I find it helpful to discuss. Jon Mahacattarisaka Sutta 'The Great Forty' (M. 117) 2. "Bhikkhus, I shall teach you noble right concentration with its supports and its requisites. ... 3 "What, Bhikkhus, is noble right concentration with its supports and its requisites, that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, and right mindfulness? Unification of mind equipped with these seven factors is called noble right concentration with its supports and its requisites. 4. "Therein, bhikkhus, right view comes first. ... 6. "And what, bhikkhus, is right view? Right view, I say, is twofold: there is right view that is affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening on the side of attachment; and there is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path. 9. ... "Mindfully one abandons wrong view, mindfully one enters upon and abides in right view: this is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three states run and circle around right view, that is, right view, right effort, and right mindfulness. ------------------------------- According to the footnotes, the commentary explains as follows: In par. 3, "noble" in "noble right concentration" means supramundane, that is, the concentration pertaining to the supramundane path. Its "supports and requisites" are the other seven path factors. In par. 4, there are two kinds of right view that are forerunners: the right view of insight, which investigates formations as impermanent, suffering, and non-self; and the right view of the path, which arises as a consequence of insight and effects the radical destruction of defilements. In par. 9, the three states mentioned accompany right view in the sense of being either co-existents or precursors. Right effort and right mindfulness are co-existent with supramundane right view; while the right view of insight is the precursor of supramundane right view. --- "Andrew " wrote: > Hello everyone > This is my first question for a long time. It pertains to > samma-ajiva. In Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation of the > Maha-cattarisaka Sutta, a distinction is drawn between "right > livelihood with fermentations, siding with merit, resulting in the > acquisitions [of becoming]" and "noble right livelihood, without > fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path". I do not > understand this distinction. I consulted a work by Bhikkhu Bodhi > but > he does not seem to deal with the distinction. Can anyone assist > on > this question? Many thanks > Andrew 17540 From: Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 7:42am Subject: Patisambhidamagga # 6: Gotarabhu-, and magga~nana Ptsm6 Dear Nina, and all. I’d like to say that the discussion at Kang Krajan is very inspiring. I always feel that it’s much better to see someone in person than to talk over the net and e-mail. I think it’s my kusala (both kamma and vipaka) that made me meet a very nice group of very enthusiastic students. Esp. Nina, who is very energetic and seemed to be tireless in studying dhamma. A.Sujin also always reminds us that dhamma is here and now. I always get lost a story, concept, or books. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PTSM # 6 gotarabhu~nana, and magga~nana. Matika: 10) Panna that leads out and away from outer sankara-nimitta is gotarabhunana 11) Panna that leads out and away from kilesa, khandha, and the two outer sankaras is magganana. Atthakatha gotarabhunana: Bahiddha vut.th.anavivat.t.ane panna gotarabhunanam: Panna that leads out and away from outer sankara-nimitta is gotarabhunana “Bahiddha” refers to sankaranimitta (conditional appearance)<>. Also called “bahiddha” because it depends on akusala-khandha along in citta <>. Gotarabhunana leads out, which means leading out from an outer sankaranimitta (sankatadhamma and/or samudaya). Gotarabhu then called vut.th.ana (leading out). Gotarabhu also called vivat.t.ana(turning one’s back against) because it turns one away from a sankatadhamma to nibbaba or from a worldly stage to a non-worldly stage). The books refers to Visuddhimagga: Gotarabhunana is still not out from the circle of khandha (pavattikhandha) because it cannot eradicate the causes (samudaya), but it can step out from an appearance (nimitta, sankaranimitta). Because it has nibbana as its object. So, gotarabhu is called ekatovutthana because it steps out only from a sankara-nimitta. (Ekato means one) It called “gotarabhu” because it can overcome a worldly stage (puthujana), and it is stepping into a non-worldly stage (ariya). Because gotarabhu has nibbana, animitta, as its object. << in my own word, gotarabhu is still a lokiya-citta (mahakusala nanasampayutta), but it has lokuttara-dhamma(nibbana) as its object.>> Gotarabhu conditions maggacitta by 6 conditions: anantara (proximity)-, samanantara (contiguity)-, asevana (repetition)-, upanissaya (decisive support)-, natthi (absence)-, and vigata (disappearance, used to be there but gone)- paccaya. Gotarabhu is the peak of vipassana, lokiyapanna. Once enter the magga citta stage, one can no longer turns back to the worldly stage. Atthakatha magganana: Dubhato vutthaavivattane panna magge nanam: Panna that leads out and away from kilesa, khandha, and the two outer sankaras is magganana. Dubhato means both or two. First, maggananas lead away from nimitta because they have nibbana (animitta, signless, no appearance) as theirs object. Second, maggananas lead away from circles of khandha because they can eradicate samudaya. So they are called dubhatovutthana. Magganana dries the vast ocean of dukkha, closes all doors of hell (apaya), presents 7 ariya assets, leads one out of a wrong way (miccamagga), subdues all dangers, and leads one to become the son of the Buddha. “ If one wants to cross a river and stand on the other side of the river. He grasps a rope, which tied to a tree, then he jumps and takes off fast. He then stands on the other side of the river. He is no longer frightened. One, who wants to overcome defilement, sees the dangers of sakayaditthi on this side of the river. He crosses the river and stands on the other side of the river, nibbana, which has no danger. He first grasps rupakhandha or namakhandha with udayabbayanupassana. Then he jumps with avajjana-citta, and takes off with anuloma-nana. He is then close to the other side of the river, he sees nibbaba, and lets go of the rope with gotarabhunana. He then lands on ground, which is nibbana, with magganana.” “One wants to see the moon in a cloudy night. When the wind blows the thick cloud away little by little, one then can see the moon. Anulomanana is the wind that blows avijja away, but the wind does not see the moon. A man, gotarabhunana, sees the moon, but he himself cannot eradicate the darkness from the cloud. Magganana, which gets a signal from gotarabhu, absorbs into nibbaba, so it can eradicate lobha. Like an archer gets a signal from others, he then lets go of his arrow. His arrow is able to pierce through 100 layers of targets. Magganana dries up the vast ocean of sankaradukkha, closes all doors of bad direction, fulfills one with 7 ariya assets, lets go of miccamagga, subdues all dangers, and 100 times more of other benefit” Next time: palanana, vimuttinana, and paccavekkhananana. With appreciation, Num ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through MU-Webmail: webmail.mahidol 17541 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 7:49am Subject: Re: Out of Cooran - Metta is first "developed" towards oneself :) --- "bodhi2500 " wrote: > Hi > > To my understanding the Sutta's on the subject aren't clear(and to > all as to himself). What I would like to know is, are there any > commentary quotes that specifically say "Do not direct Metta towards > oneself". > > ________________ Dear Steve, Good to hear of the meeting in Cooran. I just tried to get a stopover in Brisbane later in the month to see if I could meet with the crew; but the plane only stops for an hour with no overnight allowed on my ticket. I think this dilemma can only be solved by really knowing the characteristic of metta (as Sarah and others suggested). Personally whenever I take myself as a concept object- which is very often - there is attachment, not metta. In the Cariya-pitaka- athakatha (see bodhi net of views p323) it says "The destruction of self-love and the development of love for others are the means for the accomplishing of the paramis". Robert 17542 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:02am Subject: [determing stage" --- Dear Rob and Sarah, A. Sujin explained a little about the votthapanna citta last Sunday . It is simply a citta that invariably arises before the javana cittas. As Sarah said it is ahetuka, rootless. What conditions it is upanissaya paccaya and anatara paccaya. It is accumulations that 'decide' whether the javana process will be kuala or akusala. One of the similes given in the commentaries is to call the votthapana citta a fool (because it is simply ahetuka); it doesn't know right from wrong. It is like a fool who will insult even a King. There is no panna arising at the moment of votthapana. It is possible(perhaps) to suggest the votthapana that preceeds kusala javana process as 'yoniso' or the one preceeding akusala as 'ayoniso' but I think not really helpful to do so as this might cause someone to overestimate the importance of this citta. Rrobert Sarah > > --- "robmoult " wrote: > > I was still under the impression that yoniso manisakara / ayoniso > > manasikara arose during the determining stage and thereby > > conditioned either kusala or akusala at the javana stage. > > > > Did we discuss this before? > .... > Would you mind looking back at the following message from last August: > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m11257.html > > In it, I explained, as I understand, how votthapanna (determining) > consciousness is an ahetuka kiriya citta (rootless inoperative > consciousness. The cetasikas (mental factors) accompanying it, including > manasikara (attention) are therefore also rootless and inoperative and > perform their functions accordingly. For example, the ekaggata > (concentration) arising with this citta or with a moment of seeing or > hearing will neither be right or wrong concentration, it will be > `rootless'. The same applies to the sanna (perception) or cetana > (intention). They perform their functions of `directing', > `perceiving'(sorry, Suan;-)) or `coordinating/willing' the consciousness > and other mental factors to the object. However they don't direct or will > kusala or akusala, for example, so their tasks are not quite the same when > they arise with these different kinds of citta. > > Back to the determining consciousness. It is accompanied by equanimity > only and the manaskikara can surely not be wise or unwise which I > understand would only arise in the javana process with kusala and akusala > cittas (or kiriya cittas for the arahat). Vis XIV (183) discusses > cetasikas arising with functional indetrminate consciousness with and > without root cause. Earlier in the same chapter (152) it discusses the > controlling function of manasikara. It also mentions `controller of the > cognitive series' and `controller of impulsions' as terms for the 2 kinds > of adverting cosciousness, but makes it clear that they are `not included' > under the given sobhana manasikara. > > Rob, the only reason I'm pursuing this discussion is because I think you > are giving this particular consciousness and the role of the accompanying > manasikara undue importance in determining the nature of the following > javana cittas (of course there couldn't be the succeeding cittas without > this crucial one). > > I would see the importance of wise and unwise attention as being when they > accompany moments of consciousness with lobha or panna or dosa as they > arise now and they can be experienced and known as such. > > What do you think? > > Sarah > ======= 17543 From: robmoult Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:23am Subject: Re: [determing stage" Hi Rob K and Sarah, I sincerely appreciate you putting me straight on this issue. I need to review my materials and "tone down" my handling of this citta. I would be very grateful if you could both download my "Class Notes" and review them for other misinterpretations. In 2002, my Class Notes were distributed one section per class. In a couple of weeks, I plan to print the compliled version and distribute it as a draft to the entire class (I will make 100 copies). Now is the criticial time that I need to have misinterpretations identified before I print out the book and it takes a life of its own, potentially leading to wrong views among my students. Metta, Rob M :-) 17544 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 0:12pm Subject: Re: Emptiness? Hi David, Oh, no! the Dzogchen path! :) I'm enjoying your posts whichever tradition you come from. List membership is international, multi-cultural, with members from all traditions. (Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana) The list rules only state that content of posts should be "relating to the Buddha's teachings as found in the texts of the Theravada tradition (including the Suttanta, Abhidhamma, Vinaya and the ancient commentaries)." No stipulation about where the post-ers need to be based. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/DSG_Guide_Lines If you start to develop Pali-allergy, just skip over those bits. Familiarity sneaks up on you, and before you know it you'll be throwing maggamagga-nanadassana-visuddhi's around with the best of them. :) metta, (and peace) Christine --- "chase8383 " wrote: > Sorry Larry, I forgot to sign off. > > BTW, as to the signing off. In Dzogchen we use "good in the begining, good in > the middle, good in the end" as a way to make our meditation pratice more > beneficial. So in here, saying Hi would be "good in the begining", your post > would be "good in the middle" (hopefully), and the signing off would be "good in the end". > > Also if my being from the Dzogchen path bothers anyone, I wil stop posting. > Peace, David 17545 From: James Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 0:42pm Subject: A Letter to Nina Dear Nina, I want to address a line of questioning to you. I know that you are currently traveling so it may take you some time to respond. Additionally you may not have the inclination to respond depending on the conditions of cittas, consciousness states, and feeling perceptions in play at the `kshanikavada' moments (atomic times) such arises due to contacts with this 'rupa' letter . I want to question your approach to the collection of works known as the Abhidhamma `special dhamma' Pitaka and the approach of many modern, and some ancient, experts of this collection. I will be using your book `Abhidhamma in Daily Life' as a reference point and as a symbol/reference point for the current methodology of approach. In `ADL', each chapter gives the vocabulary, analysis, and exposition in regards to the Abhidhamma ontology and the ancient commentaries on such and then concludes with how Abhidhamma ontology relates to the teachings of the Buddha with the comparison to various sutta quotes and subsequent analysis. I reached the conclusion that this final part of each chapter was demonstration of how the Abhidhamma thus applies to daily life, as stated in the title. I don't see this connection as proof that the Abhidhamma applies to daily life or even should be applied to daily life in such a literal manner; I only see it as proof that the suttas apply to daily life. To say that the Abhidhamma applies to the Sutta Pitaka, and the Sutta Pitaka applies to daily life, therefore the Abhidhamma applies to daily life is an error in deductive logic, i.e. if Jack knows Mary and Mary knows Bill, that doesn't mean that Jack knows Bill; or because a plant needs water and a human needs water, that doesn't mean a human is a plant; or because in the summertime people eat more ice cream, that doesn't mean increased ice cream sales increase the daily temperature, etc. The point I want to make, and the question I have for you, is that perhaps the Abhidhamma is being approached with a methodology contrary to its intended purpose. Perhaps the Abhidhamma is not supposed to be taken literally, but symbolically. I see it as a special vocablulary and symbolism for discussing and determining the dhamma, but it is not the dhamma itself. After all, as you explain throughout your book, the concepts of the Abhidhamma cannot be truly known in the present moment. In other words, there is no way we can know if the classifications are real or not. The categories were created through deductive thought (since the Buddha didn't teach it) with the purpose of knowing the nature of anatta; therefore they should not be seen as reality but as a tool to know reality. If approached in this way, I see great value in the Abhidhamma and would become one of its biggest supporters. Of course it needs to be re-approached with the goal of using it as a tool to discover reality, not as a true description of reality itself. Along these lines, I am thinking of Herman Hesse's book `The Glass Bead Game'. I don't know if you have read this book, but I have, so allow me to give a brief summary. `The Glass Bead Game', created in the book by the same title, is a game where the players use symbols derived from the worlds great schools of endeavor: art, music, history, math, science, metaphysics, philosophy, etc., and these symbols are put forth in a game in the pursuit of establishing an ontology for the universe. How this game is actually played in the book is not important and details aren't given. The point Hesse wanted to make is that symbolism, be that the symbolism of thought or words or music or art, is the means by which humans can know ultimate reality. That actually, symbols are the only means we have to know ultimate reality. The ramifications of this type of approach to the Abhidhamma are vast and could open its use in all matters of human fields of endeavor. But, the way it is being approached now, as classifications of ultimate reality, I see it as lying motionless and limited. Do you have any thoughts on this matter? Do you know of sources that approach the Abhidhamma Pitaka as symbolism rather than a description of ultimate reality? Thank you for considering my questions. Metta, James 17546 From: chase8383 Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 1:06pm Subject: Re: Emptiness? Hello Christine "Oh, no! the Dzogchen path! :) " LOL. Yes, the dreaded Dzogchen path, sweeping out of the high Tibetan plains, bringing forth Ground, Path and Fruition, its winds stirring the pure awareness of RIGPA. I'm trying to get over it. :) Thanks Christine Peace, David 17547 From: chase8383 Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 1:31pm Subject: Re: A Letter to Nina Hi James When walking a path through the woods, you might need to go over a fallen log. The method you use to scale that log is good for only scaling logs. When you've continued on the path, and come across a swamp, can you use the log scaling method? Or do you need a different method? All methods are just methods. Means are means. But the more methods/means you know, the easier the path will become. And that's good, because the path is the goal. Peace, David 17548 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:07pm Subject: Wrong speech in Jest Dear Group, Is it necessarily akusala (unwholesome) to have wrong speech in jest? With five Aussie blokes present last weekend this was of great interest, i.e. I sensed that no-one wanted to see it as akusala - because it was seen as a valued part of male bonding/communication in the Australian culture. Gentle irony and satire are also predominant ways that this SEQdsg group relates to one another. An inconsistency was that they could all tell stories of all-male schools and the emotional damage inflicted on some fellow students. With joking remarks or stories, if it is felt that all people present know that what is being said is not truth, and the speaker knows that everyone knows it is not truth, is it the untruthfulness or the jest that makes it akusala? metta, Christine 17549 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:05pm Subject: Dana with things that are precious to us Dear Group, There was discussion on the weekend about giving and generosity, but differing opinions about giving away things that are precious to us. If the gift is still being seen as precious (with lobha, attachment) how can the giving of it be kusala (wholesome) if we know there will be moments of regret (dosa) later. Should we give away something to which we are attached? But others of us thought that giving something like old clothes to a charity is merely disposing of things no longer needed. I wonder if is it true giving if we aren't attached to it? ... if you didn't want it anyway. And even if giving results in regret, wouldn't that still create stronger conditions for future giving? metta, Christine 17550 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:13pm Subject: The Power of Kusula Dear Robert K and Group, Is it the case that one kusala moment overcomes countles akusala moments? According to Ken H, 'long ago and far away' in a dsg post, Robert K told him that kusala was derived from the same word as kusa grass - the significance being that kusala 'cuts two ways'. Ken H said last weekend that he had been meaning to ask Robert K what this meant but just 'hadn't got around to it'. (howls of derision from assembled puthujjana's). metta, Christine 17551 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:35pm Subject: If volition is conditioned: what difference between kamma and vipaka? Dear Group, A fair amount of time last weekend was spent in trying to move from deep misunderstanding towards slightly shallower misunderstanding of what kamma is, what vipaka is, what part conditionality and anatta had in the mix, what, if any, choice we had. From this came the question of just how fair was vipaka if we are just choiceless robots and automata (the word puppet wasn't mentioned...:-)). Some in the group were still at a stage where they found the very idea of nama and rupa rather novel. The main difficulty seemed to centre on conditionality, choice and, particularly, the creation of new kamma. If there is no choice, no control - if "everything is by conditions", how is it that "the everchanging process conveniently called Reg or Christine" with no control of kamma creating action, then inherits certain miserable kammic fruits, and another everchanging process (conveniently called "Andrew, KenH or Steve") also with no choice, no control of kamma creating action then inherits delightful results? how can one "improve" (setting aside that there is 'no-self' to improve) or, alternatively, can we really 'choose' to alter behaviour? And back in a circle to the perceived lack of fairness in inheriting vipaka at all when there is no real choice in action ...'; this led to "won't we all get to Nibanna (or not, as the case may be) eventually, so why bother with 'seeking' deliverance?", and 'can one, anyway'? As Ken H reminded me, the answer to the usual agonising over predeterminism and randomness would have to be found in our knowledge of the realities of the present moment. We tried to clarify with regard to cetana (volition, will)? i.e. 'who' has cetana, 'who' flicks the yes/no switch? I think Steve suggested Present Conditions (hope I'm not misrepresenting you Steve) - which led us to decide that Right Understanding of realities was the Middle Way's alternative to a Self. Any comments? I thought of RobM and wondered if he may be willing to loan his "Ah- Ha!" moment, (I'm not entirely sure that it wasn't really MY "Ah- ha!" moment that jumped the paddock fence and strayed up his way ... I wonder if there is a name for a moment when you suddenly realise that something that once seemed so clear is now becoming covered by clouds of ignorance? The "Uh-Oh! moment? Should we write The New Adze Handle Sutta?). metta, Christine 17552 From: peterdac4298 Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:57pm Subject: Re: Dana with things that are precious to us Hi Christine Good question. Here's my take on it. Giving old cloths etc, is ok. The Vinaya makes it an offence for a Bhikkhu to receive a robe of cloth that is perfectly new. They would have to work into a new robe some old stuff in order to make it allowable. However, they can make a robe themselves, from new cloth that is given, as in the annual Katina ceremony: but even then the robe cannot be of one piece of cloth, there having to be at least one join. Giving away something precious to oneself sets up a situation in which the practice of abandonment is possible, i.e. the overcoming of attachment, which is what this path is all about. I am sure I have seen somewhere in the Suttas a story about the Buddha preferring to take a meal from a more humble man than from a richer one. There may even be a verse or two in the Dhammapada on this. The receiver only has to receive skillfully: i.e. with mindfulness and reflective appreciation and gratitude, and use the gift responsibly. He can also take joy in the donors opportunity for practicing the overcoming of greed, hatred and delusion in this act of generosity. However, the Vinaya requires Bhikkhus to ensure that a donor is not jeopardising their ability to meet their family and social responsibilities, i.e. the gift is something that they can afford, irrespective of personal attachment. Cheers Peter --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > There was discussion on the weekend about giving and generosity, but > differing opinions about giving away things that are precious to us. > If the gift is still being seen as precious (with lobha, attachment) > how can the giving of it be kusala (wholesome) if we know there will > be moments of regret (dosa) later. Should we give away something to > which we are attached? > But others of us thought that giving something like old clothes to a > charity is merely disposing of things no longer needed. I wonder if > is it true giving if we aren't attached to it? ... if you didn't want > it anyway. > And even if giving results in regret, wouldn't that still create > stronger conditions for future giving? > > metta, > Christine 17553 From: peterdac4298 Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 3:13pm Subject: Re: Wrong speech in Jest Hi Christine Maybe humour can be quite skillful as a way to make the recipient see some point that they might otherwise be reluctant to see, especially if they end up laughing at themselves and their own shortcomings. Maybe humour goes wrong when it leads to heedlessness. Wrong speech includes harsh language, divisory language as well as porkies. All could be used to either good or bad effect. I guess it's the intention that counts. Anything can backfire and blow up in one's face, but if one's conscience is clear then there is no regret beyond the need to assure the offended person that no offence was intended. Peter --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > Is it necessarily akusala (unwholesome) to have wrong speech in > jest? With five Aussie blokes present last weekend this was of great > interest, i.e. I sensed that no-one wanted to see it as akusala - > because it was seen as a valued part of male bonding/communication in > the Australian culture. Gentle irony and satire are also > predominant ways that this SEQdsg group relates to one another. An > inconsistency was that they could all tell stories of all-male > schools and the emotional damage inflicted on some fellow students. > > With joking remarks or stories, if it is felt that all people present > know that what is being said is not truth, and the speaker knows that > everyone knows it is not truth, is it the untruthfulness or the jest > that makes it akusala? > > metta, > Christine 17555 From: chase8383 Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 3:25pm Subject: Re: If volition is conditioned: what difference between kamma and vipaka? Hi again Christine Boy your giving me a lot of "Uh-Oh!" moments here. I know when I get them I= = try and remember "If you open your mouth, you are wrong. If you give rise t= = o a single thought, you are in error.", and than sit with it, quietly, for = a= while. Most of the teachings are common sense. The confusion comes from wit= = hin our own minds. It comes from our trying to grasp onto these thoughts, i= n= stead of just letting them find their own place. Poem by Nyoshul Khenpo: >>Rest in natural great peace This exhausted mind Beaten helpless by karma and neurotic thought, Like the relentless fury of the pounding waves In the infinite ocean of samsara << I know this didn't answer any of your questions, but I'm not a big fan of a= nswers. Peace, David 17556 From: peterdac4298 Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 3:28pm Subject: Re: If volition is conditioned: what difference between kamma and vipaka? --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > > I think Steve suggested Present > Conditions (hope I'm not misrepresenting you Steve) - which led us > to decide that Right Understanding of realities was the Middle > Way's alternative to a Self. Any comments? > > > metta, > Christine Hi Christine Every time I have put this kind of question to a teacher at some time or other I have invariably had the same response. Namely to be urged to see for oneself. Cheers Peter 17557 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 3:48pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Wrong speech in Jest Dear Christine, It is said that each (javana) consciousness not related to dana, sila, and bhavana is akusala. The interesting part to me is if the jest is an akusala kamma-patha (of which I have no answer). I was watching this video, "Guaranteed for Laugh," this morning for lack of sleep. They were showing practical jokes done on people (like people running half-nude across the golf courses while the golfers are teeing, or people who walked into the restaurant's bathroom and after they came out, found everybody to be half naked). I was laughing my heart out (almost choked on my food), but at the same time, I saw that some of these people experienced quite unpleasant feelings having to endure thru it (even if they also laughed at the end). Although I was enjoying myself, I personally wouldn't think of doing such pranks myself (but who knows?). I think jest, even when it is not intentional to harm other people, sometimes does, even if temporarily. And because we think it is a joke, we sometimes fail to recognize that this can do harm to some people. We may even think such persons harbor no sense of humor, or just don't get it. How could anybody not laugh at "our" light-hearted, (and even well-told), joke? I am sometimes inspired by the Buddha's teaching of good speeches. He said, he wouldn't himself speak unless 5 factors are met: 1) Truthful 2) Useful, inclining toward the dhamma 3) Appropriate for the time (Inappropriate speech renders the speech non-useful) 4) With well-spoken words 5) With kindness Do we speak with kindness all the time, even among friends in Dhamma? Sometimes we joke because it entertains us, sometimes because it entertains others, and sometimes it gives other happiness. Even if we cannot be like the Buddha, but that doesn't really prevent us from learning the benefit of good speeches, spoken with kindness. I think there is great bonding among the Buddha and his disciples, even if they don't jest to entertain themselves or others. They greatly respect one another, because people and the teeachings such as the Buddha, the dhamma, and the Sangha are truly rare in the world. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: christine_forsyth > [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 2:07 PM > Subject: [dsg] Wrong speech in Jest > > > Dear Group, > > Is it necessarily akusala (unwholesome) to have > wrong speech in > jest? With five Aussie blokes present last > weekend this was of great > interest, i.e. I sensed that no-one wanted to see > it as akusala - 17558 From: Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 11:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? In a message dated 12/9/2002 7:24:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Hi, Larry - > > I seem to recall nibbana being referred to as the "ultimate > emptiness", though I don't have a ready citation for that. > > With metta. > Howard > The Patisambhidamagga treatise XXIX, # 8 ... lists about 37 metaphors expressing what Nibbana is. Among these are:-- The Ultimate Voidness; and, The Ultimate Meaning of Not Self. If we consider the Patisambhidamagga an authoritative text, then according to such, emptiness and no-self are probably both synonyms as well as meanings of Nibbana. TG 17559 From: Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 5:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [determing stage" Hi Robert, Rob, & Sarah, Would it be correct to say kamma is always just? Good intentions always produce good results, eventually. When a good intention seems to produce a bad result, the result is actually the result of some other bad intention? Kamma result is rootless (causes no further kamma), does that mean it is desireless? Is rootlessness a good thing? Do you like it? Is it correct that all experience is accumulated by sanna (memory)? Are accumulations memories? Are they rootless? Does kamma result (vipaka) condition the arising of accumulations and then those accumulations condition javana cittas which are the root (kamma causing) consciousnesses (cittas) lust, hatred, bewilderment and their opposites? How does intention come into the picture here? Does intention arise only with a javana citta? Does intention always produce kamma? Does lust, hatred, bewilderment etc. only arise with javana cittas? Why aren't accumulations included in citta process? thanks, Larry 17560 From: Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 1:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi TG,Larry and Howard I looked up the Patisambhidamagga quote you posted below TG and found something interesting >Patisambhidamagga XXIX8 > Seeing the 5 aggregates as empty,he chooses in conformity:seeing how the cessation of the 5 aggregates is Nibbana, which is not empty*,he enters into the certainty of rightness. Seeing the 5 aggregates as void,he chooses in conformity: seeing how the cessation of the 5 aggregates is Nibbana, which is the ultimate voidness, he enters into the certainty of rightness... Seeing the 5 aggregates as not-self, he choses in conformity:seeing how the cessation of the 5 aggregates is Nibbana, which is the ultimate meaning(aim), he enters into the certainty of rightness. PatisambhidamaggaXXIX9> As empty is contemplation of not self. As void is contemplation of not self. As not self is contemplation of not self Both voidness and empty are contemplation on not self. Nibbana is both the ultimate voidness but it is not empty? Steve TGrand458@a... writes: > > Hi, Larry - > > > > I seem to recall nibbana being referred to as the "ultimate > > emptiness", though I don't have a ready citation for that. > > > > With metta. > > Howard > > > > The Patisambhidamagga treatise XXIX, # 8 ... lists about 37 metaphors > expressing what Nibbana is. Among these are:-- The Ultimate Voidness; and, > > The Ultimate Meaning of Not Self. > > If we consider the Patisambhidamagga an authoritative text, then according > to > such, emptiness and no-self are probably both synonyms as well as meanings > of > Nibbana. > > TG > 17561 From: Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi David, Here is what I was refering to: from "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" IX #34 When he thus practices contemplation, owing to the ripening of insight (he feels), "now the absorption (of the path) will arise." Thereupon, arresting the life-continuum [bhavanga consciousness], there arises mind-door adverting, followed by two or three (moments of) insight consciousness having for their object any of the chacteristics such as impermanence etc. [impermanence, suffering, no self]. They are termed preparation, access, and conformity (moments). That knowledge of equanimity towards formations together with knowledge that conforms (to the truths), when perfected, is also termed "insight leading to emergence." Thereupon, the change-of-lineage consciousness, having Nibbana as its object, occurs, overcoming the lineage of the worldlings and evolving the lineage of the noble ones. Immediately after this, the path (of stream-entry), fully understanding the truth of suffering, abandoning the truth of its origin, realizing the truth of its cessation, and developing the truth of the path to its cessation, enters upon the (supramundane) [lokuttara] cognitive process of absorption. After that, two or three moments of fruition consciousness arise and cease. Then there is subsidence into the life-continuum. Then, arresting the life-continuum, reviewing knowledge occurs. The wise person reviews the path, fruit, Nibbana, and he either reviews or does not review the defilements destroyed and the remaining defilements. L: I couldn't find the answer to my question concerning how does Nibbana interact with the bhavanga (life-continuum consciousness) and citta but Nina says it definitely doesn't arise and cease. There is something called cessation attainment which is a meditative attainment only once-returners or arahants can practice in which the bhavanga is temporarily stopped without an object arising. This is apparently not nibbana. Larry 17562 From: Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi Steve, I don't understand any of your quote from Ptsm. What's the context? Aren't 'empty' and 'void' both translations of 'sunna'? Larry 17563 From: Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? H TG, I found several instances of nibbana called void in CMA, meaning void of self and void of khandhas. Larry 17564 From: Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 4:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi Larry The part of the quote I was interested in was "Nibbana which is not empty (aritta.m)". The context is insight. Seeing the 5 aggregates as empty,he chooses in conformity:seeing how the cessation of the 5 aggregates is Nibbana, which is not empty*,he enters into the certainty of rightness. "When a Bhikkhu sees all formations as impermanent it is possible that he shall make a choice in conformity(with actuality), and making a choice in confomity(with actuallity) it is possible that he shall enter upon the certainty of rightness" The Pali for empty in the quote is "rittato" and not empty is "arittata.m" The Pali for void in the quote is "su~n~nato" and ultimate voidness is "paramasu~n~na.m" The PTS dictonary has "Ritta = devoid, empty, free, rid (of) " Steve LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Steve, > > I don't understand any of your quote from Ptsm. What's the context? > Aren't 'empty' and 'void' both translations of 'sunna'? > > Larry > 17565 From: bodhi2500 Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 9:21pm Subject: Re: Out of Cooran - Metta is first "developed" towards oneself :) Dear Robert and Sarah Thank-you for your replies. I tried to find other occurances of the word "sabbattataaya"(to others as to oneself) in the Tipitaka and it seems it only occurs in referance to the Brahmavihara's. A.K. Warders intro to Pali has > Sabbattataa - non-discrimination (all-self-ness) considering all beings as like oneself, putting oneself in the place of others. Thank-you for the quotes. Steve 17566 From: Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 9:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Thanks Steve, Ritta and sunna seem like synonyms. Any ideas on in what sense nibbana is not empty? Larry 17567 From: Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 10:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi David and all, Concerning Dzogchen, many mahayana schools assert that realizing emptiness is the highest realization. So for them there is no attainment because everything is already empty. Theravada holds that nibbana is the highest realization. Nibbana is a reality that is distinguishable from other kinds of reality. So in that sense it can be attained, but not by khandhas. It can, however, be experienced by khandhas. This happens in conjunction with life-changing insights. That change due to insight is also called nibbana. Is this right? There are two nibbanas? One that is the object of consciousness during a path moment and one (really 4) that is the permanent cessation of defilements as a result of the 4 path moments: stream enterer, once returner, non-returner, arahat? Larry ps: mahayana is off topic. No one knows what you are talking about and it difuses the focus of the group. However, I know that Tibetan schools are very fastidious about including the entire tipitaka, including abhidhamma, in their teachings. So anything you learn here should be applicable. And as K. Sujin said, the dhamma is this experience. Insight into experience is the common ground. Larry 17568 From: Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 5:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi, Steve (and Larry) - In a message dated 12/11/02 12:15:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, you quote the following: > > Seeing the 5 aggregates as empty,he chooses in conformity:seeing how the > cessation of the 5 aggregates is Nibbana, which is not empty*,he enters > into > the certainty of rightness. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: A bit later you provide the following: > > > The PTS dictonary has "Ritta = devoid, empty, free, rid (of) " > > It seems to me that if one adopts the last definition, "rid (of)" or "ceased", the the first quote makes noncontradictory sense. It would read as follows: "Seeing the 5 aggregates as empty, he chooses in conformity: seeing how the cessation of the 5 aggregates is Nibbana, which is not ceased, he enters into the certainty of rightness." Nibbana is not ceased for it neither arises nor ceases. =============================== 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) 17569 From: Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 10:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Good one Howard. I'll buy it. Larry 17570 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 10:33pm Subject: Re: If volition is conditioned: what difference between kamma and vipaka? Hi David, You say: "I'm not a big fan of answers." Well, that certainly got my attention. :) So different are you and I - I tried to imagine not seeking answers but found I would need to become a different person ... I could agree they were a hindrance if by 'answers' you meant merely the proliferation of thought. But I tend to see 'looking for answers' as 'looking for truth' (in the Dhamma). Thank you for this poem by Nyoshul Khenpo. It seems to speak to exactly how I feel at times, particularly when I'm at work. [Still on holidays for another 11 days, but who's counting?:-)] "This exhausted mind Beaten helpless by karma and neurotic thought" metta, Christine --- "chase8383 " wrote: > Hi again Christine > > Boy your giving me a lot of "Uh-Oh!" moments here. I know when I get them I= 17571 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 10:43pm Subject: Re: If volition is conditioned: what difference between kamma and vipaka? Hi Peter, 'One should find out for oneself' is almost a mantra on this List also. Have you ever found out for yourself? If so, a hint would be appreciated. :) Let's advocate for the Rights of those who require (or is that desire) spoon feeding! :) metta, Christine --- "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Hi Christine > Every time I have put this kind of question to a teacher at some > time or other I have invariably had the same response. Namely to be > urged to see for oneself. > Cheers > Peter 17572 From: Sarah Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 11:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Out of Cooran - Metta is first "developed" towards oneself :) Dear Steve (& Rob K), --- "bodhi2500 " wrote: > Dear Robert and Sarah > Thank-you for your replies. I tried to find other > occurances of the word "sabbattataaya"(to others as to oneself) in > the Tipitaka and it seems it only occurs in referance to the > Brahmavihara's. .... Would you kindly in turn give me some refs as to where it occurs w/r to the brahmaviharas? I’d also be glad for the Pali (and yr literal translation) for key phrases in the Visud. which are so often quoted. In fact when you’ve collected all the relevant terms, perhaps you may add them with expanatory comments we can refer to as needed. ..... A.K. Warders intro to Pali has > Sabbattataa - > non-discrimination (all-self-ness) considering all beings as like > oneself, putting oneself in the place of others. ..... ..or treating others as we would like to be treated?? I just went to an earlier post I wrote to look at whether this term in used in the Udana verse (quoted in the Vism) and commentary notes and would like to give a link to this post as some of the comments may be useful to consider for other relevant threads such as conceit and discouragement and self-attachment too: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m5476.html This is the extract with the actual commentary notes: ***** After King Pasenadi and Queen Mallika concluded that indeed there was no one dearer than themselves, the Buddha spoke these lines in Udana, 5-1, ‘Dear’ (Masefield trans): ‘Having explored all quarters with the mind, one would simply not attain that dearer than the self in any place; thus is the self dear separately to others - therefore one desiring self should not harm another.’ The commentary adds: ‘.....One would simply not attain that dearer than the self in any place (n’ev’ajjhagaapiyataram attanaa kvaci): whatever man, seeking out with every endeavour someone else (more) excessively dear than the self, would neither attain nor behold (such) in any place, anywhere in the (ten) quarters.Thus is the self dear separately to others (evam piyo puthu attaa paresa.m): thus is the self alone dear separately, severally, to this and that being, by way of the non-discovery of anyone dearer than the self. Therefore one desiring self should not harm another (tasmaa na hi.mse param attakaama): since each being holds the self dear in that way, is one desiring happiness for that self, one for whom dukkha is repulsive, therefore one desiring self, in wanting well-being and happiness for that self, should not harm, should not kill, should not even antagonise with the hand....and so on, another being, upwards from and including even a mere ant or (other) samll insect. for when dukkha is caused by oneself to some other, that (dukkha) is, after an interval of time, observed in one’s (own) self, as though it were passing over therefrom. for this is the law of karma.’ ****** Steve, really appreciating your participation. As Christine said, this is a thread that never dies (or sth like that), so will appreciate anything you find or quote too. Sarah ====== 17573 From: Sarah Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 11:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] bare mindfulness (Rob Ep & Goglerr) Hi Rob Ep (& Goglerr), --- "Robert Epstein " wrote: > Thanks Sarah, for your reply and for your further reminders about > anatta. > > It might be interesting to discuss the 20 kinds of self-view. If you > have a little link for me, I'll take a look.... .... This is most encouraging, Rob (that you follow links these days;-))I always find our discussions on anatta helpful: 1. From Nyantiloka’s dictionary (brief, so in full): sakkáya-ditthi: 'personality-belief', is the first of the 10 fetters (samyojana). It is entirely abandoned only on reaching the path of Stream-winning (sotápatti-magga; s. ariya-puggala). There are 20 kinds of personality-belief, which are obtained by applying 4 types of that belief to each of the 5 groups of existence (khandha, q.v.): (1-5) the belief to be identical with corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations or consciousness; (6-10) to be contained in them; (11-15) to be independent of them; (16-20) to be the owner of them (M. 44; S. XXII. 1). See prec., ditthi, upádána 4. 2. A very interesting and detailed post from Goglerr: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/12778 Here’s an extract: “How does one or many self-view/s arises? In Cullavedalla Sutta (MN 44), it is mentioned there 20 types of personality view which connected to the 5 agg. And we divide each agg in 4 types, therefore we have 20 types. For e.g in the material agg. 1) one regards material form is self, i.e. the body isthe self or the self is the body. 2) one regards the self as the possessor of the material form– here the non-material which is the mind (the other 4 agg)regarded as self. This non-material self (`I') is one thing and material form is another thing. Therefore the self (`I') is the owner of the material form. 3) one regards material form as in a self - The concept of self here is also maintained in the relation to the other four non-material agg. The holder of this view will maintained that material form is one thing, the non-material self is the other; that material form exist `in' this non-material self. [This will be more clear if you see it see it from the mind basis, for e.g. the feeling: feeling is one thing, the non-feeling self – the other 4 agg - is another.The feeling exists `in' this non-feeling self]. Illustration - imagine of a fried egg with sunny side up, the material form is the yolk and the egg white is the self. 4) one regard the self as in material form - material form is one thing, the non-material self is the other; that self exist `in' this material form. The self is the yolk and the egg white is the material form.”,end quote> ***** During our weekend trip in Thailand, a friend was talking about her particular meditative experiences and K.Sujin asked her to consider whether any of the sakkaya ditthi were present. The friend realized (intellectually anyway) as she spoke, that there was the idea of phenomena in the self and the self was just these 5 khandhas.K.sujin then reminded us to consider and know the various kinds of sakkaya ditthi when they arise at anytime. Any more thoughts? Sarah ===== 17574 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Tue Dec 10, 2002 11:49pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Dana with things that are precious to us Dear Peter, as many of you in the list, you people follow the books but very little you guys know about the really life of Bikkhus. This year I was invited to 9 kathina's ceremonies, from different traditions, and I received 9 different robes, I accepted because otherwise will be ofending the people. I have a room full of robes. This is not the first year, so imagine how many robes I have. I only use two, one in the wash and the other one I wear. Metta. Ven. Yanatharo -----Mensaje original----- De: peterdac4298 [mailto:peterd@w...] Enviado el: Miércoles, Diciembre 11, 2002 09:57 a.m. Asunto: [dsg] Re: Dana with things that are precious to us Hi Christine Good question. Here's my take on it. Giving old cloths etc, is ok. The Vinaya makes it an offence for a Bhikkhu to receive a robe of cloth that is perfectly new. They would have to work into a new robe some old stuff in order to make it allowable. However, they can make a robe themselves, from new cloth that is given, as in the annual Katina ceremony: but even then the robe cannot be of one piece of cloth, there having to be at least one join. Giving away something precious to oneself sets up a situation in which the practice of abandonment is possible, i.e. the overcoming of attachment, which is what this path is all about. I am sure I have seen somewhere in the Suttas a story about the Buddha preferring to take a meal from a more humble man than from a richer one. There may even be a verse or two in the Dhammapada on this. The receiver only has to receive skillfully: i.e. with mindfulness and reflective appreciation and gratitude, and use the gift responsibly. He can also take joy in the donors opportunity for practicing the overcoming of greed, hatred and delusion in this act of generosity. However, the Vinaya requires Bhikkhus to ensure that a donor is not jeopardising their ability to meet their family and social responsibilities, i.e. the gift is something that they can afford, irrespective of personal attachment. Cheers Peter --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > There was discussion on the weekend about giving and generosity, but > differing opinions about giving away things that are precious to us. > If the gift is still being seen as precious (with lobha, attachment) > how can the giving of it be kusala (wholesome) if we know there will > be moments of regret (dosa) later. Should we give away something to > which we are attached? > But others of us thought that giving something like old clothes to a > charity is merely disposing of things no longer needed. I wonder if > is it true giving if we aren't attached to it? ... if you didn't want > it anyway. > And even if giving results in regret, wouldn't that still create > stronger conditions for future giving? > > metta, > Christine 17575 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 0:04am Subject: Re: Hello(Venerable PiyaDhammo) --- "phrapiyadhammo Dear Venerable, Thanks for joining the list. I'm sure any contibutions you make will be much appreciated. There is actually a conversation between you (when you were a layman) and Dan ,that I forwarded from D-l, in the useful posts under "light relief". Robert " wrote: > Hello List, > > I am responding to Jonothan and Sarah's welcome to DSG note. Thought > I would take the time to introduce myself. Most of you already know > me from D-list as David Koenes. I am a recently ordained Bhikkhu (two > weeks ago...a babe). I will be able to read this list for a little > 17576 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 0:08am Subject: RE: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga # 6: Gotarabhu-, and magga~nana Dear Num, I very much appreciate the translation you have done to be posted. It just happened to coincide with Larry's discussion of the path moments. With appreciation, kom > -----Original Message----- > From: sinsk@m... > [mailto:sinsk@m...] > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 7:42 AM > To: dsg > Subject: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga # 6: Gotarabhu-, > and magga~nana > 17577 From: Sarah Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 0:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Letter to Nina Hi James & All, --- "James " wrote: > Dear Nina, > > I want to address a line of questioning to you. I know that you are > currently traveling so it may take you some time to respond. > Additionally you may not have the inclination to respond depending > on the conditions of cittas, consciousness states, and feeling > perceptions in play at the `kshanikavada' moments (atomic times) > such arises due to contacts with this 'rupa' letter . ..... I'm smiling and appreciating your nice letter;-) I'm forwarding letters related to KK discussions to Nina as requested (for her return) and will also f/w any addressed to her like yours. It might be better to address further letters to her when she returns on list as it always takes time to catch up after an overseas trip. We received a newsy hand-written fax from her yesterday (from her last couple of days in Bkk) and it reminded me of when we considered it to be so quick and efficient to be able to send faxes after all the years of snail mail. She and her husband seem to have had a wonderful trip in Cambodia and action-packed dhamma in Thai and English and Pali (as Num described) in Bkk. She asked us to send her regards to DSG members. Sarah ======= 17578 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 0:24am Subject: Re: Wrong speech in Jest Hi Peter, Thanks for your reply - mostly I agree - but when you said "Anything can backfire and blow up in one's face, but if one's conscience is clear then there is no regret beyond the need to assure the offended person that no offence was intended", I wondered if we ever really know our own intentions fully? Realities are such fleeting paramattha dhammas and are beyond control. An example of brushing away an ant was given on the w/e - that it was not clearly kusala or akusala because of mixed motives - kindness in wishing to be gentle with another tiny being, annoyance at the physical feel and surprise of little crawling feet, and conceit at 'Oh what a good Buddhist I am in not killing an ant'. It is hard enough in everyday life when guided by the Precepts to know our true motives - how much harder, at least for me, when there is the overlay of humour. metta, Christine --- "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Hi Christine > > Maybe humour can be quite skillful as a way to make the recipient > see some point that they might otherwise be reluctant to see, > especially if they end up laughing at themselves and their own > shortcomings. 17579 From: Sarah Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] A 'Funny' Question Hi Swee boon, --- "nidive " wrote: > > Here's a 'funny' question. > > If let's say you attained the first stage of awakening of a > sotapanna, would you confide your attainment with any close Dhamma > friends? Or would you rather keep it to yourself? ..... 'funny' answer - maybe I'd rather worry about it when I have that problem;-) less funny answer - no one, no person that has any attainment - just another process of cittas. If there is any wisdom now, is there any clinging to it as self? Is there any purpose or benefit in telling others about these particular cittas or experiences? Curious.... ***** I also read your "'contradiction' resolve" post with interest. It was beautifully written. Just a couple of comments: When you mention 'drenched by the rain' being the condition that 'allows vipaka to come into force', we all understand what you mean conventionally and this is correct. Of course, more accurately still, there is no 'drenched by the rain' as it is a concept (or many concepts)as you realize. What is experienced are the various rupas through the bodysense (results of kamma and assisted by other conditions). And so with the 'disorders of the bile'. I would suggest that past kamma along with other conditions combined together at that instant cause the various rupas to be experienced through the body sense (with mind-door proceses in between 'responding' to these phenomena) which are categorised as 'disorders'. Apart from the namas and rupas, there are no other phenomena experiencing/experienced or existing. Even when we talk about viruses and bacteria, as you suggest, they cannot be experienced as realities through the 5 senses. They are concepts again. This doesn't mean that there aren't particular combinations of rupa which are experienced by vipaka cittas through the body-sense as a result of kamma, temperature, nutrition or consciousness (the 4 conditions for rupas to arise). According to the particular conditions at any given instant, the phenomena experienced could not be any different. Thus we see that every reality arises as a result of the 24 paccaya (conditions)and there are no 'selves' or 'things'. Useful and difficult points to ponder....Thanks. Sarah ======= 17580 From: Sarah Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dependent origination question (Ranjit) Dear Ranjit, You wrote some very interesting posts just as I had to break for a while. May I belatedly welcome you to DSG too and perhaps encourage you to share a little more about your background and obviously extensive research of both the dhamma and psychology. Where do you live? ..... --- rjchacko wrote: > > When I compare satipatthana and psychology I see a lot of overlap. A > student of satipatthana meditates to observe the relationship between > mentality and materiality. A student of psychology also studies the > relationship between mentality and materiality. The difference lies in > the approach. A yogi takes advantage of his sentience to note the > dynamics of his mind. A psychologist applies tests, surveys, PET > scans, etc. to his experimental subjects. One approaches the mind from > the inside, and the other approaches it from the outside. ..... May I suggest the difference also lies in the theoretical framework of study and approach. A student of satipatthana appreciates there is primarily no self, no being behind the mental and physical phenomena. Just as there are mere ‘bare phenomena rolling on’ now, so that have there always been, through countless aeons of lifetimes. Sati (mindfulness) and panna (understanding) can never be developed or known by using external tests which doesn’t mean they are not useful for many other purposes as you suggest. ..... > When a psychologist throws out a hypothesis it should be possible to > recast it in a way that we can think about it from an internal point > of view and see if that makes sense. ..... My own experience and study suggests that any explanations (eg your example of ‘what makes certain feelings pleasant or unpleasant’)will always be simplistic or limited to a conventional understanding of contributing factors. As we have discussed many times here, only a Buddha can really know all the intricacies of kamma and other conditions working at any given moment. This doesn’t mean other generalisations, such as XYZ leads to aggression and so on, are not useful and important. .... > The external approach could also help to refine teaching methods in > Buddhism. Also Buddhism doesn't seem to have anything to offer to > people who have organic defects like schizophrenia. ..... I’m not sure that I agree. While various short-term solutions may be helpful/essential (and not to be underestimated in value), in the end, the only way for any of us to understand and overcome our mental disorders is through the development of panna. I think you might find it useful to look at a discussion I was having with Num (who also shares many of your interests). There should be links at the end which help you find his posts too. http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m8683.html ..... > Well, I'm actually skeptical about different lifetimes myself, but > even if I were to grant that, it I think it would still be more > important to understand dependent arising in terms of succesive mind > moments, because this is how one would comprehend anatta. Dependent > origination is the middle way of rejecting both an inherently existing > self, and nihilism. .... You may wish to review the posts (mostly written by Rob K)on D.O. in Useful Posts: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts .... Ranjit, I agree with many of your other comments and hope you’ll contribute further to discussions. I think that the more appreciation there is of anatta (no ‘one’ to progress or eliminate hindrances, for example), the less scepticism there is about ‘different lifetimes’, but I appreciate others may not share this view. Sarah ====== 17581 From: Andrew Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:21am Subject: Right livelihood - Samma-ajiva Hi Azita, Jon & all Thanks for your replies which I did find most useful. As an ex-lawyer, I was actually considering whether the practice of law is right livelihood. Over the last year, I've lost count of the number of articles I've read on legal professional ethics. Of interest is the strong "representational" view that a lawyer must do everything to advantage the client short of misleading the court or breaking the law. This usually leads to disadvantaging the client's adversary. Bhikkhu Bodhi writes of samma-ajiva that we should earn a living "in ways which do not entail harm or suffering for others". Is the lawyer acting on instructions from a malicious client practising wrong livelihood because of the harm done to the client's adversary? Bhikkhu Bodhi also says that if your work violates Right Speech, it is wrong livelihood. How does this relate to the lawyer seeking to discredit a witness on cross-examination? I know Jon has a legal background like me and I'm not expecting anyone to answer these questions. They came to mind during my reading. Whereas initially, I thought "of course being a lawyer is right livelihood", I am now more of the view that it is one of those occupations that may or may not be right livelihood depending upon how it is practiced. Andrew 17582 From: robmoult Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:47am Subject: Re: Wrong speech in Jest Hi Christine, The Buddha advised his son Rahula, "Of anyone for whom there is no shame at intentional lying; of him I say that there is no evil he cannot do. 'I will not speak a lie, even for fun' - this is how you must train yourself, Rahula." (i.e. there is no room for "white lies"). Here is what Bhikkhu Bodhi says about telling jokes in "Going for Refuge Taking the Precepts": http://www.buddhistinformation.com/going_for_refuge_taking_the_prec.h tm Four factors enter into the offense of false speech: (1) an untrue state of affairs; (2) the intention of deceiving another; (3) the effort to express that, either verbally or bodily; and (4) the conveying of a false impression to another. Since intention is required, if one speaks falsely without aiming at deceiving another, as when one speaks what is false believing it to be true, there is no breach of the precept. Actual deception, however, is not needed for the precept to be broken. It is enough if the false impression is communicated to another. Even though he does not believe the false statement, if one expresses what is false to him and he understands what is being said, the transgression of speaking falsehood has been committed. The motivation for false speech can be any of the three unwholesome roots. These yield three principal kinds of falsehood: (1) false speech motivated by greed, intended to increase one's gains or promote one's status or that of those dear to oneself; (2) false speech motivated by hatred, intended to destroy the welfare of others or to bring them harm and suffering; and (3) false speech of a less serious kind, motivated principally by delusion in association with less noxious degrees of greed or hatred, intended neither to bring special benefits to oneself nor to harm others. Some examples would be lying for the sake of a joke, exaggerating an account to make it more interesting, speaking flattery to gratify others, etc. In other words, it is always akusala to have wrong speech, even in jest. It is also akusala to crave for continued existence, but we all do it anyways. There can be kusala cittas of wanting to share the Dhamma followed by akusala cittas of inserting a joke into a post to make it more interesting. Huge kusala, extremely small akusala; I'll take that combination any day! Metta, Rob M :-) --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > Is it necessarily akusala (unwholesome) to have wrong speech in > jest? With five Aussie blokes present last weekend this was of great > interest, i.e. I sensed that no-one wanted to see it as akusala - > because it was seen as a valued part of male bonding/communication in > the Australian culture. Gentle irony and satire are also > predominant ways that this SEQdsg group relates to one another. An > inconsistency was that they could all tell stories of all-male > schools and the emotional damage inflicted on some fellow students. > > With joking remarks or stories, if it is felt that all people present > know that what is being said is not truth, and the speaker knows that > everyone knows it is not truth, is it the untruthfulness or the jest > that makes it akusala? > > metta, > Christine 17583 From: robmoult Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 3:38am Subject: Re: If volition is conditioned: what difference between kamma and vipaka? Hi Christine, Let me try and share my "Ah-ha" moment. --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > A fair amount of time last weekend was spent in trying to move from > deep misunderstanding towards slightly shallower misunderstanding of > what kamma is, what vipaka is, what part conditionality and anatta > had in the mix, what, if any, choice we had. From this came the > question of just how fair was vipaka if we are just choiceless robots > and automata (the word puppet wasn't mentioned...:-)). Some in the > group were still at a stage where they found the very idea of nama > and rupa rather novel. > ======= There are a gazillion vipakas waiting to happen at any moment. Each of the vipakas were "created" by a past action. Which vipaka arises at each moment depends on current conditions. After the vipaka, javana cittas arise. These javana cittas can be lobha-mula, dosa- mula, moha-mula or kusala. "Input" to the thought process [what happens to us] is fixed by past kamma and current conditions. "Output" of the thought process [kamma created by javana cittas] can one of many, many options. When expressed this way, it certainly appears as though there is a "choice" going on. Let's look a bit closer at what happens. The javana cittas arise conditioned by the input and our accumulations, limited by carita. ========= > The main difficulty seemed to centre on conditionality, choice and, > particularly, the creation of new kamma. If there is no choice, no > control - if "everything is by conditions", how is it that "the > everchanging process conveniently called Reg or Christine" with no > control of kamma creating action, then inherits certain miserable > kammic fruits, and another everchanging process (conveniently > called "Andrew, KenH or Steve") also with no choice, no control of > kamma creating action then inherits delightful results? how can > one "improve" (setting aside that there is 'no-self' to improve) or, > alternatively, can we really 'choose' to alter behaviour? And back in > a circle to the perceived lack of fairness in inheriting vipaka at > all when there is no real choice in action ...'; this led to "won't > we all get to Nibanna (or not, as the case may be) eventually, so why > bother with 'seeking' deliverance?", and 'can one, anyway'? ================= What is your current situation right now and how did it arise? You are reading this message because you have access to a computer (conditions) and you have an interest in this subject (accumulations). Looking backward, it seems intuitive that the current situation did not arise randomly; there were conditions and accumulations which caused it to arise. Looking backward, we can probably put together a very rough sketch of what led to the current situation. Does it not therefore make sense that future "current situations" will also be a result of conditions and accumulations? Does this make the future pre-destined? Our vision of the past is hazy at best; our vision of the future is even less clear. How can we say that the future is pre-destined if we accept that there is no way that we could forsee or anticipate it? One year ago, I was attending my weekly Abhidhamma class when the teacher asked for a volunteer to teach the beginner's class in 2002. These were the conditions. Because of my good and bad accumulations (love of the Dhamma, desire to improve my understanding of the Dhamma, pride, etc.), I volunteered. Before the class, there is no way that I could have anticipated that he would ask for volunteers. Was it "pre-destined" that I would be start being an Abhidhamma teacher in 2002? My answer is, "the question should not arise". Reading this message may be a condition for one person to "decide to sit back and wait for Nibbana". For another person, this message may be a condition to think, "Rob is an arrogant @$#%&*!" Yet another person may have the following thought arise, "Now I understand why the concepts of free-will, choice and predeterminism are based on wrong-view of self." It all depends on accumulations. Does this help at all? Extreme Metta, Rob M :-) 17584 From: robmoult Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 4:05am Subject: [dsg] Re: [determing stage" Hi Larry, Rob K and Sarah can correct any of my mistakes. --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Robert, Rob, & Sarah, > > Would it be correct to say kamma is always just? Good intentions always > produce good results, eventually. When a good intention seems to produce > a bad result, the result is actually the result of some other bad > intention? I would not apply an ethical term such as "always just" to kamma. Kamma is a natural law, like gravity. Is gravity "always just"? Gravity applies to all things with mass all of the time. Does this "non-partiality" of gravity make it "always just"? The law of kamma applies to all beings all of the time. Does this "non- partiality" make it "always just"? > > Kamma result is rootless (causes no further kamma), does that mean it is > desireless? Is rootlessness a good thing? Do you like it? Kamma result (vipaka) is rootless and therefore does not contain lobha (desire). I guess that this makes vipaka desireless. You ask, "Is rootless a good thing?" What do you mean by good? If you mean "kusala" then the answer is that rootless is not "good" because it has no roots (positive or negative roots). You ask, "Do you like it?" If you mean "Do you like vipaka?", then I must confess that usually I do like it and this is what keeps me bound to samsara. :-( > > Is it correct that all experience is accumulated by sanna (memory)? Are > accumulations memories? Are they rootless? Sanna doesn't accumulate anything. Sanna marks an object and recognizes a previous mark on an object. The marking of sanna is extremely superficial; seeing things as they truly are is conditioned by panna. Memory is the macro-scale description of gazillions of sanna working together. Accumulations are not memories. Accumulations are created by cetana, memories are created by sanna. I think of accumulations as a mixture of latent tendencies and my character, quite distinct from my memories. Accumulations are not cittas and therefore the question of "rootless" is not valid. Accumulations condition (together with current conditions) the arising of javana cittas which is where the issue of "roots" arise. > > Does kamma result (vipaka) condition the arising of accumulations and > then those accumulations condition javana cittas which are the root > (kamma causing) consciousnesses (cittas) lust, hatred, bewilderment and > their opposites? Bingo! That is my understanding. > How does intention come into the picture here? Does > intention arise only with a javana citta? Does intention always produce > kamma? Does lust, hatred, bewilderment etc. only arise with javana > cittas? The cetasika cetana has two functions, in cittas without roots, it plays the role of coordinating / organizing the other cetasikas to do their function. In cittas with roots (only javana cittas have roots), the cetasika has the additional function of intention / volition / creating kamma. The commentary describes the role of cetana in a javana citta as, "Like a boss who directs workers and also does his share of the work as well; it is exceedingly energetic" > > Why aren't accumulations included in citta process? > I assume that "citta process" means "thought process". The description of the thought process is a listing of the order of cittas which arise. The description of the thought process does not go into the issue of why each citta arises (at least, not that I have read, if one of the commentaries has this information, I would be really keen to read it). Accumulations are not cittas, they are part of the "why" issue. Metta, Rob M :-) 17585 From: robmoult Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 4:10am Subject: Re: Right livelihood - Samma-ajiva Hi All, What about somebody in marketing or sales (I am not talking about the "used car salesperson" here). Is that wrong livelihood as well? Metta, Rob M :-) --- "Andrew " wrote: > Hi Azita, Jon & all > Thanks for your replies which I did find most useful. As an > ex-lawyer, I was actually considering whether the practice of law is > right livelihood. Over the last year, I've lost count of the number > of articles I've read on legal professional ethics. Of interest is > the strong "representational" view that a lawyer must do everything to > advantage the client short of misleading the court or breaking the > law. This usually leads to disadvantaging the client's adversary. > Bhikkhu Bodhi writes of samma-ajiva that we should earn a living "in > ways which do not entail harm or suffering for others". Is the lawyer > acting on instructions from a malicious client practising wrong > livelihood because of the harm done to the client's adversary? > Bhikkhu Bodhi also says that if your work violates Right Speech, it is > wrong livelihood. How does this relate to the lawyer seeking to > discredit a witness on cross-examination? I know Jon has a legal > background like me and I'm not expecting anyone to answer these > questions. They came to mind during my reading. Whereas initially, I > thought "of course being a lawyer is right livelihood", I am now more > of the view that it is one of those occupations that may or may not be > right livelihood depending upon how it is practiced. > Andrew 17586 From: robmoult Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 4:16am Subject: Re: A 'Funny' Question Hi Swee Boon, What would motivate me to tell my friend about my attainment? The Buddha was certainly not "shy" about mentioning his own attainment. I suspect that the Buddha's motivation was to use this as a teaching aid. Very interesting question. Metta, Rob M :-) --- "nidive " wrote: > Hi ALL, > > Here's a 'funny' question. > > If let's say you attained the first stage of awakening of a > sotapanna, would you confide your attainment with any close Dhamma > friends? Or would you rather keep it to yourself? > > NEO Swee Boon 17587 From: chase8383 Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 4:34am Subject: Re: If volition is conditioned: what difference between kamma and vipaka? Hi Christine Christine: "I tried to imagine not seeking answers but found I would need to become a different person ... I could agree they were a hindrance if by 'answers' you meant merely the proliferation of thought. But I tend to see 'looking for answers' as 'looking for truth' (in the Dhamma)." Well, let me ask you. Is it what you learn that's important, or is it what falls away? Is it the addition, or is it the subtraction that counts? If we get involved in something new, something we have a preconceived notion about. In understanding it, our notions of it have to fall away. So are we looking for "answers", or are we just allowing our concepts to fall away so we can perceive the truth of it? That's what I meant. Peace, David 17588 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Fear of Rupas Howard You explain in a later post that you are basically following the paticca-samuppada (dependent origination) here. However, it may be more helpful to consider paticca-samuppada separately from the series in which moments of consciousness a (citta-vitthi) arise, which is the sequence of events you are describing. Citta-vitthi explains the sequence of moments of consciousness that occur when, say, a sense-object impinges on a sense-door and is experienced by the sense-door consciousness. In paticca-samuppada (which explains the forces at work that keep us in the round of births and deaths), the various links are not each successive moments of consciousness. I'd like to suggest that, from the point of view of the development of the path, the important thing to know in relation to the 'seeing experience' is that it comprises 2 separate and distinct dhammas, one (seeing consciousness) that experiences an object and another (visible object) that does not. I believe that we don't know visible object for what it really is – just that which is experienced through the eye-door – despite the fact that it is with us for virtually the whole of our waking life. So here's an alternative reflection to yours below ;-)). Open your eyes, and consider what's there that's not there when your eyes are closed. That's one way of describing visible object. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and James) - > Some thoughts. Yes, open your eyes and there's a lamp on a table on > top of a carpet and next to a chair in the room. What is all that? It's as follows: > Experience (by means of volition) the sequence of events we call > "opening our eyes", and there is activated the operation of discernment > [sankhara -> vi~n~nana]. Because the required discernment is operative, there > can arise a visual object (an image) [vi~n~nana -> namarupa]. Because the > required image is available the sight sense door can be activated [namarupa -> > salayatana]; actually, the coming together of discernment (vi~n~nana), sense > object (namarupa), and sense door *is* the contact. Contact is followed by > feeling. Then things seem to become personal - what one feels one recognizes > (and our concepts come into play, making us see "external objects" such as > lamps etc). This is my understanding. > > With metta, > Howard 17589 From: phrapiyadhammo Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:22am Subject: Re: Hello(Venerable PiyaDhammo) Hello Robert, Thank you for the welcome. I hope to continue to share and contribute when possible. As you probably know I will be in Thailand for some time. Perhaps, we might actually have the oppurtunity to meet at some point in time if you still travel there much? I revisited the post I wrote that you forwarded from D-l.. Actually, in hindsight if I cut through the humor, and that it is situationally fiction, all the reasons for my going forth are in that piece. Have you heard from Dan? Is he well? Good to here from you Robert. May you take care of yourself happily. May we all keep up the practice....Drop the unwholesome, cultivate the wholesome, and purify the mind. Your friend in Dhamma Phra Piyadhammo > Dear Venerable, > Thanks for joining the list. I'm sure any contibutions you make will be > much appreciated. There is actually a conversation between you (when > you were a layman) and Dan ,that I forwarded from D-l, in the useful > posts under "light relief". > Robert 17590 From: nidive Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 7:07am Subject: Re: A 'Funny' Question Hi robmoult, > What would motivate me to tell my friend about my attainment? Encouragement... that there indeed is a way out of samsara. That I know there is that WAY. That that WAY is attainable by those who practise the Dhamma diligently. Not to give up. Sharing... as a form of dana, sharing of merit. > The Buddha was certainly not "shy" about mentioning his own > attainment. I suspect that the Buddha's motivation was to use this > as a teaching aid. I don't think that confiding about one's attainment with those close to the Dhamma is anything wrong. There were Bikkhus and Bikkhunis who declared their attainment to the Buddha, isn't it? Since there is no Buddha now, the closest is our Dhamma friends and Bikkhus. NEO Swee Boon 17591 From: nidive Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 7:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] A 'Funny' Question Hi Sarah, > Is there any purpose or benefit in telling others about these > particular cittas or experiences? Curious.... As a form of encouragement that there is a way out of samsara. That I know that WAY. That anybody who practises the Dhamma diligently will attain that WAY too someday. Not to give up. As a 'living' example. As a form of sharing of merit, performing Dhamma dana. Lately, I developed this theory of why the Buddha said the beginning is beginningless, meaning that there is no beginning to samsara. It goes like this: (1) Condition C1 exists for Vipaka V1 to arise which then results in Condition C2. (2) Condition C2 then exists for Vipaka V2 to arise which then results in Condition C3. (3) Condition C3 then exists for Vipaka V3 to arise which then results in Condition C4. As we can see, we can continue forwards into the future on and on and it would never end. Supposing now that we are in Condition C9999999, can we assume Condition C1 to be the beginning of samsara? The answer is no, because Condition C1 requires a previous vipaka to arise. Now, supposing that this previous vipaka is present (Vipaka V0), can we assume Vipaka V0 to be the beginning of samsara? The answer is again no, because Vipaka V0 requires a previous condition to arise (or to be created, i.e. kamma to be created). As we can see, we can continue backwards into the past on and on and it would never end (or rather 'begin'). I thought this was very interesting. NEO Swee Boon 17592 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 8:41am Subject: Re: The Power of Kusula --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Robert K and Group, > Is it the case that one kusala moment overcomes countles akusala > moments? According to Ken H, 'long ago and far away' in a dsg post, > Robert K told him that kusala was derived from the same word as kusa > grass - the significance being that kusala 'cuts two ways'. Ken H > said last weekend that he had been meaning to ask Robert K what this > meant but just 'hadn't got around to it'. (howls of derision from > assembled puthujjana's). ___________________________ Ken H has a good memory and thanks for bringing this up Christine, The quote: "Kusa grass cuts a part of the hand with both edges. Even so kusala cuts off both sections of passions - those that have arisen and those that have not arisen" (abhidhammathasangaha). It can seem discouraging once we realise that the moments of akusala in a day far outnumber the moments of kusala. If it was simpoly a matter of each being of equal power then it would be impossible to ever end samsara. However the moments with right view have an extraordinary strength to be able to eliminate akusala. For example one might have some type of clinging to ritual. An extreme case: one thinks that by washing in the river and chanting or praying one is purifying oneself. This is a strong delusion but if one hears the right Dhamma one will give up such practice like dropping a hot rock. It won't be practiced again (at least in this life). In the same way insight can understand that all that arises is anatta and by that wrong views are increasingly subliminated until maggacitta permenently eradicates wrongview. I think it should be understaod that the sense desire cannot be eliminated at all before all wrong view and silabataparamasa (clinging to sila and wrong pratice) is gone. Hence the most important type of kusala is that associated with the insight into the conditioned nature of dhammas. I think one may still be mired in sense desire, still have greatly more akusala cittas arising than kusala but be lessening the clinging to self and that will lead gradually toward freedom. Robert 17593 From: Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 4:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: If volition is conditioned: what difference between kamma and v... Hi, Rob (and Christine) - Here are some thoughts on this matter. They are not Dhamma, but just my own thoughts which are hopefully not in contradiction to the Dhamma. There are *many* namarupic streams of experience, each of which we can think of, conventionally, as either a person or a world. (Actually, even the notion of a single such stream is conventional.) These experiential streams are not isololated, self-existent things, but are aspects or parts of an interacting, interconnected whole. The acts of volition arising in any mindstream have primary effect within that mindstream itself, but also ultimately influence all the others. The determination of the realm of experience into which a namarupic stream is "born" is vipaka of kamma previously ocurring in that stream. Others with similar kammic history are born into "the same" realm (although the realms of experience of two different streams are never identical). A given realm of experience is the joint-creation of the kamma of a multitude of beings, with the specifics of one's own experiences the result largely of one's own kamma, but also of the kamma of others. It is a vast, extraordinarily complex, interactive network. From the perspective of the network as a whole, if there were such such a perspective, perhaps events proceed deterministically. But from the limited perspective of a single mindstream, that is not so. What occurs in "one's world" is multiply conditioned but most directly by one's own volitional actions. Those actions are, of course, constrained by what is possible, and what is possible is determined by conditions, conditions brought into being by oneself and by others in varying degrees and strengths. The main condition directly influencing one's volition is desire, and the fact that we can will and act based on our desire is generally what we mean by the ability to exercise "free will". Even though our volition doesn't arise randomly (and what sort of "prize" would random volition be?), volition does occur, it is most strongly based on our own wishes, and it is the primary but not exclusive determiner of the events that will befall us. For example, when A does something to B, it is a direct consequence of factors within A (mainly volition) and within "the shared world" of A and B, plus the kamma that put B into the circumstances making it possible for A to do to B what A does. This kamma of B is among the conditions leading to the event, but, all told, it is a minor factor. The action of A is "owned" by A, and while B's kamma played some role in the event, B can neither be praised nor blamed, at least in any primary sense, for A's action. In a sense, every event is an occurrence within a vast, interactive kammic network, centering on one namarupic stream, or a few, or many, but ultimately going way beyond any of these. This, in part, is perhaps one reason why full individual "control" is an illusion. But also, because there are so *many* influences on any event, most with small impact, volition looms large, and there *is* choosing. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/11/02 6:39:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi Christine, > > Let me try and share my "Ah-ha" moment. > > --- "christine_forsyth > " wrote: > >Dear Group, > > > >A fair amount of time last weekend was spent in trying to move > from > >deep misunderstanding towards slightly shallower misunderstanding > of > >what kamma is, what vipaka is, what part conditionality and > anatta > >had in the mix, what, if any, choice we had. From this came the > >question of just how fair was vipaka if we are just choiceless > robots > >and automata (the word puppet wasn't mentioned...:-)). Some in > the > >group were still at a stage where they found the very idea of nama > >and rupa rather novel. > > > > ======= > > There are a gazillion vipakas waiting to happen at any moment. Each > of the vipakas were "created" by a past action. Which vipaka arises > at each moment depends on current conditions. After the vipaka, > javana cittas arise. These javana cittas can be lobha-mula, dosa- > mula, moha-mula or kusala. > > "Input" to the thought process [what happens to us] is fixed by past > kamma and current conditions. "Output" of the thought process [kamma > created by javana cittas] can one of many, many options. When > expressed this way, it certainly appears as though there is > a "choice" going on. Let's look a bit closer at what happens. The > javana cittas arise conditioned by the input and our accumulations, > limited by carita. > > ========= > > >The main difficulty seemed to centre on conditionality, choice > and, > >particularly, the creation of new kamma. If there is no choice, > no > >control - if "everything is by conditions", how is it that "the > >everchanging process conveniently called Reg or Christine" with no > >control of kamma creating action, then inherits certain miserable > >kammic fruits, and another everchanging process (conveniently > >called "Andrew, KenH or Steve") also with no choice, no control of > >kamma creating action then inherits delightful results? how can > >one "improve" (setting aside that there is 'no-self' to improve) > or, > >alternatively, can we really 'choose' to alter behaviour? And back > in > >a circle to the perceived lack of fairness in inheriting vipaka at > >all when there is no real choice in action ...'; this led > to "won't > >we all get to Nibanna (or not, as the case may be) eventually, so > why > >bother with 'seeking' deliverance?", and 'can one, anyway'? > > ================= > > What is your current situation right now and how did it arise? You > are reading this message because you have access to a computer > (conditions) and you have an interest in this subject > (accumulations). Looking backward, it seems intuitive that the > current situation did not arise randomly; there were conditions and > accumulations which caused it to arise. Looking backward, we can > probably put together a very rough sketch of what led to the current > situation. > > Does it not therefore make sense that future "current situations" > will also be a result of conditions and accumulations? Does this > make the future pre-destined? Our vision of the past is hazy at > best; our vision of the future is even less clear. How can we say > that the future is pre-destined if we accept that there is no way > that we could forsee or anticipate it? > > One year ago, I was attending my weekly Abhidhamma class when the > teacher asked for a volunteer to teach the beginner's class in 2002. > These were the conditions. Because of my good and bad accumulations > (love of the Dhamma, desire to improve my understanding of the > Dhamma, pride, etc.), I volunteered. Before the class, there is no > way that I could have anticipated that he would ask for volunteers. > Was it "pre-destined" that I would be start being an Abhidhamma > teacher in 2002? My answer is, "the question should not arise". > > Reading this message may be a condition for one person to "decide to > sit back and wait for Nibbana". For another person, this message may > be a condition to think, "Rob is an arrogant @$#%&*!" Yet another > person may have the following thought arise, "Now I understand why > the concepts of free-will, choice and predeterminism are based on > wrong-view of self." It all depends on accumulations. > > Does this help at all? > > Extreme Metta, > Rob M :-) > > /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) 17594 From: Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 4:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Fear of Rupas Hi, Jon - In a message dated 12/11/02 9:09:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > You explain in a later post that you are basically following the > paticca-samuppada (dependent origination) here. However, it may be > more helpful to consider paticca-samuppada separately from the series > in which moments of consciousness a (citta-vitthi) arise, which is > the sequence of events you are describing. > > Citta-vitthi explains the sequence of moments of consciousness that > occur when, say, a sense-object impinges on a sense-door and is > experienced by the sense-door consciousness. In paticca-samuppada > (which explains the forces at work that keep us in the round of > births and deaths), the various links are not each successive moments > of consciousness. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: That's quite possibly so. Do you have a sutta (ot other) reference for that? (I do think there is a temporal, predecessor relation implied, but not necessarily that of immediate predecessor. The relationship among vi~n~nana, namarupa, and salayatana, however, might be more of a logical-dependency realtion than a temporal one. I'm not very sure about that. ----------------------------------------------------- > > I'd like to suggest that, from the point of view of the development > of the path, the important thing to know in relation to the 'seeing > experience' is that it comprises 2 separate and distinct dhammas, one > (seeing consciousness) that experiences an object and another > (visible object) that does not. I believe that we don't know visible > object for what it really is – just that which is experienced through > the eye-door – despite the fact that it is with us for virtually the > whole of our waking life. > > So here's an alternative reflection to yours below ;-)). Open your > eyes, and consider what's there that's not there when your eyes are > closed. That's one way of describing visible object. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't see that as an alternative view. It is my position as well. We open our eyes and what appears is visual object. As it is, there is no lamp or table or anything else. These "things" arise later and are mind-constructed. --------------------------------------------- > > Jon > > ====================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 17595 From: James Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 9:38am Subject: Re: Show Off --- Star Kid wrote: > Hi Philip > > I am your sister Janet! I have read your first letter > and I think it's very bad, you can do it better > because your such a show off! Anyway, I am going to > tell Mum about your letter! (Ha! Ha!) > > Work well soon! > > Janet Chui: 8 years old. > My hobbies are: playing table tennis and reading. > > What is Buddhism? What help us? Please write to me. > > > Janet. Hi Star Kid Janet! How are you doing? I hope you are doing fine. Are you getting excited about Christmas? I hope you are trying to get along with your brother Philip. Though he may not say it all the time or show it all the time, I am sure he cares about you very much. I had a little sister and when we were growing up together I used to like to make her mad at me. It was very easy to do and I liked to see her reaction. I thought it was very funny. :-) Once she got so mad at me she threw a pair of scissors at me! :-) But now she is dead, she died pretty young (23), and I never got to tell her how much she meant to me. I think she knew, but I should have been a little nicer to her to show her more. Janet, please don't take your brother Philip for granted. He could be gone before you know it. And I bet you are really proud that he is your brother; I know that my sister was proud of me. Try to get along this Christmas and shoot for all year long. You ask, "What is Buddhism?" and "What can help us?" Gosh, these seem like simple questions, easy to answer, but they aren't. Buddhism is different to different people depending on what they need at the time. Buddhism is about kindness, generosity, honesty, goodness, truth, compassion; and Buddhism is also about wisdom, tranquility, and ultimate truth. Some people think that all of these things are different, but the Buddha knew better. He taught all of them because they are really all about the same thing. Put simply, Buddhism is about people. Buddhism is about you and me and your brother and all of us. It is about how we can live the best way possible without hurting each other and ourselves. What can help us? Well, Janet, think about all of the bad things that have ever happened to you in your life. I bet when you think about them, really hard, you will see that they were all caused because someone wasn't acting or thinking in the right way. Some people think that it is impossible to know what is the `right way' and what is the `wrong way' to act or think. That is silly talk. The Buddha told everyone exactly the right way they should act and think. It is called the Eightfold Path and the lessons are: 1.See things the right way 2.`Want to do things' in the right way 3.Talk to others in the right way 4.`Do things' in the right way 5.Work or go to school in the right way 6.Make your actions `balanced in the middle' in the right way 7.Pay attention to yourself, others, and the world in the right way 8.Make your mind `sharp' in the right way If we all do these eight things, at all times, it will help us. We will know the joy of having a happy family all the way up to the joy of knowing the ultimate truth. But, like your questions, these things are not so simple. Most people cannot do most of these things and so the world can be awfully unhappy at times. You ask the question `What can help us?' because we all do need help. I know that I am thankful that the Lord Buddha spent his life answering this question for us all. But now you, Philip, I, and everyone must take the responsibility to follow his lessons. It is a path that is taken step by step. Janet, I hope one of your steps this Christmas is to let Philip know how important he is to you. And if he does the same for you or not, that doesn't matter. We all walk the path by ourselves. Have a Happy Holidays. Love, James 17596 From: peterdac4298 Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 0:50pm Subject: Re: Wrong speech in Jest Hi Christine I mentioned this kind of humour because it was exactly what Ajahn Cha used to do with devastating effect. But then he was an exponent of keeping the Dhamma simple, '...just so...', or, '...just that much...', etc. He was such a brilliant mimic, the victim never knew what was the more embarrassing - the truth of what he had just heard about himself, or his temporary inability to control his ludicrously headless response! He almost never, as far as I knew, ever needed to apologize to anyone. Certainly not to me! For the rest of us, we can merely look at the arising of confusion when confronted by all the different factors that come into play. Seeing the characteristics of that doubt, that is where the Dhamma is, that's it's true nature: when seen with sufficient clarity, when seen often enough, is what ultimately liberates us from it. Cheers Peter --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Thanks for your reply - mostly I agree - but when you said "Anything > can backfire and blow up > in one's face, but if one's conscience is clear then there is no > regret beyond the need to assure the offended person that no offence > was intended", I wondered if we ever really know our own intentions > fully? Realities are such fleeting paramattha dhammas and are beyond > control. An example of brushing away an ant was given on the w/e - > that it was not clearly kusala or akusala because of mixed motives - > kindness in wishing to be gentle with another tiny being, annoyance > at the physical feel and surprise of little crawling feet, and > conceit at 'Oh what a good Buddhist I am in not killing an ant'. > It is hard enough in everyday life when guided by the Precepts to > know our true motives - how much harder, at least for me, when there > is the overlay of humour. > > metta, > Christine > --- "peterdac4298 > " wrote: > > Hi Christine > > > > Maybe humour can be quite skillful as a way to make the recipient > > see some point that they might otherwise be reluctant to see, > > especially if they end up laughing at themselves and their own > > shortcomings. 17597 From: peterdac4298 Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:15pm Subject: Re: If volition is conditioned: what difference between kamma and vipaka? Hi Christine I thought that was what the path was all about. Seeing the nature of doubt, confusion and various other kinds of Dukkha: seeing them just as they are. The quotes from K. Sujin in other recent posts seem to me to be pointing at this too: well at least including this possibility. Cheers Peter --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Peter, > 'One should find out for oneself' is almost a mantra on this List > also. Have you ever found out for yourself? If so, a hint would be > appreciated. :) > Let's advocate for the Rights of those who require (or is that > desire) spoon feeding! :) > > metta, > Christine > > --- "peterdac4298 " > wrote: > > Hi Christine > > Every time I have put this kind of question to a teacher at some > > time or other I have invariably had the same response. Namely to > be > > urged to see for oneself. > > Cheers > > Peter 17598 From: robmoult Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:38pm Subject: [dsg] Re: If volition is conditioned: what difference between kamma and v... Hi Howard, I really like what you have written. I have inserted some questions. --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Rob (and Christine) - > > Here are some thoughts on this matter. They are not Dhamma, but just > my own thoughts which are hopefully not in contradiction to the Dhamma. > There are *many* namarupic streams of experience, each of which we can > think of, conventionally, as either a person or a world. (Actually, even the > notion of a single such stream is conventional.) These experiential streams > are not isololated, self-existent things, but are aspects or parts of an > interacting, interconnected whole. ======= My first impression is that a "namarupic stream of experience" might be a fancy way of saying "self". Then I noticed that you wrote, "person or a world"; interesting, do you mean that "the world" has nama (mind)? Have you run across the concept of "an interacting, interconnected whole" in the Dhamma? ====== > The acts of volition arising in any > mindstream have primary effect within that mindstream itself, but also > ultimately influence all the others. ======= I think that what you are saying is that kamma is what interconnects everything. I can see how my actions impact those with whom I have immediate contact (conditions are created), but are you suggesting, "I influence 'Howard' and because I influence 'Howard', the way in which 'Howard' influences his wife (with whom I have no direct contact, promise :-) ) will be impacted... therefore I have an indirect influence on 'Howard's wife' and an even more indirect influence on 'the friend of Howard's wife"? =========== > The determination of the realm of > experience into which a namarupic stream is "born" is vipaka of kamma > previously ocurring in that stream. Others with similar kammic history are > born into "the same" realm (although the realms of experience of two > different streams are never identical). A given realm of experience is the > joint-creation of the kamma of a multitude of beings, with the specifics of > one's own experiences the result largely of one's own kamma, but also of the > kamma of others. It is a vast, extraordinarily complex, interactive network. ========== Are you saying that the world arises because of collective kamma? Does this imply that rocks and trees arise because of collective kamma? BTW, the Abhidhamma says that rocks and trees arise because of utu, not kamma (I am not trying to shoot down your argument, I am trying to understand it better... it sounds interesting). =========== > From the perspective of the network as a whole, if there were such such a > perspective, perhaps events proceed deterministically. But from the limited > perspective of a single mindstream, that is not so. =========== I think that we are saying the same thing here; that the concept of predeterminism doesn't apply from our own frame of reference. =========== > What occurs in "one's world" is multiply conditioned but most > directly by one's own volitional actions. Those actions are, of course, > constrained by what is possible, and what is possible is determined by > conditions, conditions brought into being by oneself and by others in varying > degrees and strengths. The main condition directly influencing one's volition > is desire, and the fact that we can will and act based on our desire is > generally what we mean by the ability to exercise "free will". ========== I think that our volition is conditioned by our accumulations and desire is certainly a major accumulation in each of us. However, there are many moments when other accumulations take centre stage. Please explain how acting based on desire means exercising "free will". I am confused here. ========== > Even though > our volition doesn't arise randomly (and what sort of "prize" would random > volition be?), volition does occur, it is most strongly based on our own > wishes, and it is the primary but not exclusive determiner of the events that > will befall us. For example, when A does something to B, it is a direct > consequence of factors within A (mainly volition) and within "the shared > world" of A and B, plus the kamma that put B into the circumstances making it > possible for A to do to B what A does. This kamma of B is among the > conditions leading to the event, but, all told, it is a minor factor. The > action of A is "owned" by A, and while B's kamma played some role in the > event, B can neither be praised nor blamed, at least in any primary sense, > for A's action. =========== Could we say that volition plays the "active role" in determining what happens to us, while conditions have a "passive role"? Let us expand on your example of A doing something to B, let us say for example that A hits B. From the perspective of A ------------------------- The hitting arose because of conditions (the presence of B is one of the conditions) and accumulations (in this case probably anger). The impersonal law of kamma ensures that a seed of future akusala vipaka is sown and it may impact A in the future (all beings are the owners of their own kamma). From the perspective of B ------------------------- Being hit arose because of conditions (the presence of A is one of the conditions) that allowed a past akusala kammic effort to develop into a vipaka at that moment. The impersonal law of kamma has played its part when the vipaka arose. ============ > In a sense, every event is an occurrence within a vast, interactive > kammic network, centering on one namarupic stream, or a few, or many, but > ultimately going way beyond any of these. This, in part, is perhaps one > reason why full individual "control" is an illusion. But also, because there > are so *many* influences on any event, most with small impact, volition looms > large, and there *is* choosing. ============== Howard, I am enjoying your post. Metta, Rob M :-) 17599 From: robmoult Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:47pm Subject: Re: A 'Funny' Question Hi Swee Boon, I was answering from a layperson's perspective because I am pretty sure that there is a Vinaya rule that prohibits monks or nuns from discussing their attainments. I believe that during the Buddha's time, it was common for monks or nuns to go to the Buddha (or the Buddha would go to them) to confirm that they had attained a certain stage. Being able to see this type of thing, the Buddha could tell the monk / nun if they were on the right path. In other words, it was part of the way in which the Buddha instructed the monks / nuns. I have the impression that it wasn't a casual chat, but might even have been a structured ceremony. Perhaps someone closer to the Vinaya can help me out here. Metta, Rob M :-) --- "nidive " wrote: > Hi robmoult, > > > What would motivate me to tell my friend about my attainment? > Encouragement... that there indeed is a way out of samsara. That I > know there is that WAY. That that WAY is attainable by those who > practise the Dhamma diligently. Not to give up. > Sharing... as a form of dana, sharing of merit. > > > The Buddha was certainly not "shy" about mentioning his own > > attainment. I suspect that the Buddha's motivation was to use this > > as a teaching aid. > I don't think that confiding about one's attainment with those close > to the Dhamma is anything wrong. There were Bikkhus and Bikkhunis > who declared their attainment to the Buddha, isn't it? > Since there is no Buddha now, the closest is our Dhamma friends and > Bikkhus. > > NEO Swee Boon