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