17600 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:21pm Subject: Re: Right livelihood - Samma-ajiva Hi Rob, Andrew and all, Glad to see Azita's and Jon's replies to the first post in this thread. On another tack, there is a note attached to the verse on Wrong Livelihood in MN 117 - note 1110 (Bodhi) says 'These are wrong means for bhikkhus to acquire their requisites; they are explained at Vsm I, 61-65. MA says that those mentioned in the sutta are not the only kinds of wrong livelihood, which included any mode of earning one's living that involves transgression of the precepts. At AN 5:177/iii.208 the Buddha mentions five kinds of wrong livelihood for lay people: dealing in arms, beings, meat, intoxicants, and poisons. So apart from the five kinds of wrong livelihood listed above, it is 'not transgressing the Precepts' that determines the mode of working within any other livelihood. Andrew - I don't know much about the profession of Law, but isn't there something in the Ethics of a Solicitor that if they *know* (perhaps by private confession) their client is guilty they can withdraw service? A bit like the 'First, Do no harm' of the Medical profession, except the lawyer themselves is included in the assessment of who can be harmed. Isn't the division into specialties e.g. property, litigation, criminal etc an attempt at controlling not only the quantity of work but also the type of case one deals with, usually for reasons of expertise? Couldn't this be used as a skilfull means not to deal with types of cases more likely to have ethical concerns for the individual solicitor/barrister? i.e. seek training and employment if an ethically safer specialty? In my own case, as a hospital social worker - it *seems* to be a profession of Right Livelihood. But there are daily dilemmas. I cannot refuse to see any patient at the hospital in need (and would not). I have had to work out (within the legal framework of the state, and the policies and work instructions of my employer) how I deal with, for example, women seeking abortions, in a way that does not leave the woman in distress, but considers kamma and vipaka including that of the little one, the woman, myself, and the clinicians who would perform the procedure. As well, I need to take care that I am not imposing my religious values on someone who does not hold the same view. I also cannot refuse (and would not) to see perpetrators of violent or sexual crimes against children who are distressed over that (or not) or over another matter. (And who am I to set myself apart from these persons anyway - that is just mana - perhaps somewhere in Samsara I, too, was such a one.) So would it be fair to say that a Buddhist should look at Word of the Buddha first in choosing a livelihood, but after that it is it is not the "who" or the "what", but the "how" of practising of the Dhamma in daily life. And this presupposes one is lucky enough to have a choice of livelihood. Sometimes in this world there is no choice other than of one particular type of work or starvation. metta, Christine --- "robmoult " wrote: > Hi All, > > What about somebody in marketing or sales (I am not talking about > the "used car salesperson" here). Is that wrong livelihood as well? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > 17601 From: James Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:26pm Subject: Re: A 'Funny' Question --- "robmoult " wrote: > Hi Swee Boon, > > I was answering from a layperson's perspective because I am pretty > sure that there is a Vinaya rule that prohibits monks or nuns from > discussing their attainments. > > I believe that during the Buddha's time, it was common for monks or > nuns to go to the Buddha (or the Buddha would go to them) to confirm > that they had attained a certain stage. Being able to see this type > of thing, the Buddha could tell the monk / nun if they were on the > right path. In other words, it was part of the way in which the > Buddha instructed the monks / nuns. I have the impression that it > wasn't a casual chat, but might even have been a structured ceremony. > > Perhaps someone closer to the Vinaya can help me out here. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Rob M, A monk or nun can disclose the attainment of a certain stage of insight to anyone, but to lie about such knowingly is one of the highest offenses, a Parajika offense, and is cause for permanent expulsion from the Sangha. The rule is as follows: "Should any bhikkhu, without direct knowledge, boast of a superior human state, a truly noble knowledge and vision as present in himself, saying, "Thus do I know; thus do I see," such that regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, he -- being remorseful and desirous of purification -- might say, "Friends, not knowing, I said I know; not seeing, I said I see -- vainly, falsely, idly," unless it was from over-estimation, he also is defeated and no longer in communion." Metta, James 17602 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:28pm Subject: Re: If volition is conditioned: what difference between kamma and vipaka? Hi Peter, I agree with you. Just ruefully wishing there was an easy certain method of gaining liberation, instead of having to find it for oneself through all the meandering paths and dead end streets of daily life. It seems so very difficult, so much at stake, and no guarantees that one won't slip backwards for many lives. Sometimes I'm torn between living the dhamma 'as if my hair was on fire' and 'just going with the flow'. metta, Christine --- "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Hi Christine > > I thought that was what the path was all about. Seeing the nature > of doubt, confusion and various other kinds of Dukkha: seeing them > just as they are. The quotes from K. Sujin in other recent posts > seem to me to be pointing at this too: well at least including this > possibility. > > Cheers > Peter 17603 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 3:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong speech in Jest Dear Kom and all, Thanks Kom. Most of us do find humour in embarrassing things happening to others. There is even a weekly T.V. program called 'Funniest Home Videos' which consists of unexpected, usually embarassing, things happening people which their families and friends send in. I wonder if anyone has ever done an analysis of exactly what humour is - often it shows up the incongruities in daily life, but, as well, laughter seems to be a 'symptom of relief' that whatever is happening is happening to someone else and not to me. Thanks for the great reminders of the Buddha's teaching on Right Speech, and the importance of kindness as a measuring stick. metta, Christine --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: <>> "I am sometimes inspired by the Buddha's teaching of good speeches. He said, he wouldn't himself speak unless 5 factors are met: 1) Truthful 2) Useful, inclining toward the dhamma 3) Appropriate for the time (Inappropriate speech renders the speech non-useful) 4) With well-spoken words 5) With kindness Do we speak with kindness all the time, even among friends in Dhamma? Sometimes we joke because it entertains us, sometimes because it entertains others, and sometimes it gives other happiness. Even if we cannot be like the Buddha, but that doesn't really prevent us from learning the benefit of good speeches, spoken with kindness." 17604 From: peterdac4298 Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 3:29pm Subject: Re: If volition is conditioned: what difference between kamma and vipaka? Hi Christine --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Peter, > > I agree with you. Just ruefully wishing there was an easy certain > method of gaining liberation, instead of having to find it for > oneself through all the meandering paths and dead end streets of > daily life. My wish too. > It seems so very difficult, so much at stake, and no > guarantees that one won't slip backwards for many lives. Yep, with you there too. > Sometimes I'm torn between living the dhamma 'as if my hair was on > fire' and 'just going with the flow'. > A bit like swings and roundabouts! What ever it takes to get back to the balance. Or as James would say, finding our centre. > metta, > Christine > Cheers Peter > 17605 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 3:32pm Subject: [dsg] Re: If volition is conditioned: what difference between kamma and v... > There are *many* namarupic streams of experience, each of which we can > think of, conventionally, as either a person or a world. (Actually, even the > notion of a single such stream is conventional.) To think of namarupic streams of experience (whatever that is) as a person, as what you are is to fall into self-view. Metta, Victor 17606 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 3:49pm Subject: The Three Abstinences Dear Group, (especially those in the Right Livelihood, and Wrong Speech corners) Just another thought after browsing the notes that KenH sent me of the w/e SEQ.dsg meeting. There was some discussion about the three abstinences (virati- cetasikas). These are not often mentioned on dsg. (?) Actually I couldn't find anything on a search of the archives - abstinence from wrong speech, abstinence from wrong action, abstinence from wrong livelihood. Would it be fair to say that Abstinence means more than just 'not doing', it means 'choosing not 'to do' when the opportunity 'to do' has arisen.' e.g. 'biting one's tongue' and defeating a desire to reply to an insult by using scintillatingly devastating Wrong Speech, or, 'catching and transporting the cane toad to where it can't poison the dog's water rather than clobbering it with a cricket bat' (abstinence from wrong action)? metta, Christine 17607 From: peterdac4298 Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 3:58pm Subject: Re: A 'Funny' Question Hi Rob, James and all Due to the severity of the Parajika offence outlined by James above, most Bhikkhus won't even discuss the subject of their attainments in any manner with lay people, though they will quite happily let a lay person talk about their own. Amongst themselves monks often talk about it in general terms using anecdotes as well as their own experiences for reference where it would be relevant, and some of these stories can be very funny. But as regards path stages and attainments, it is almost always usual for a more junior monk to seek out the Abbott on such matters. "... unless it was from over-estimation,..." This is an escape clause that the Buddha allowed, but most Bhikkhus are so keen to avoid any doubt at all in the minds of their supporting communities that it is almost never invoked, in that they just don't say anything at all about any kind of attainment whatsoever. Cheers Peter --- "James " wrote: > --- "robmoult " > wrote: > > Hi Swee Boon, > > > > I was answering from a layperson's perspective because I am pretty > > sure that there is a Vinaya rule that prohibits monks or nuns from > > discussing their attainments. > > > > I believe that during the Buddha's time, it was common for monks > or > > nuns to go to the Buddha (or the Buddha would go to them) to > confirm > > that they had attained a certain stage. Being able to see this > type > > of thing, the Buddha could tell the monk / nun if they were on the > > right path. In other words, it was part of the way in which the > > Buddha instructed the monks / nuns. I have the impression that it > > wasn't a casual chat, but might even have been a structured > ceremony. > > > > Perhaps someone closer to the Vinaya can help me out here. > > > > Metta, > > Rob M :-) > > Rob M, > > A monk or nun can disclose the attainment of a certain stage of > insight to anyone, but to lie about such knowingly is one of the > highest offenses, a Parajika offense, and is cause for permanent > expulsion from the Sangha. The rule is as follows: > > "Should any bhikkhu, without direct knowledge, boast of a superior > human state, a truly noble knowledge and vision as present in > himself, saying, "Thus do I know; thus do I see," such that > regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later > occasion, he -- being remorseful and desirous of purification -- > might say, "Friends, not knowing, I said I know; not seeing, I said > I see -- vainly, falsely, idly," unless it was from over- estimation, > he also is defeated and no longer in communion." > > Metta, James 17608 From: bodhi2500 Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 3:47pm Subject: Re: Out of Cooran - Metta is first "developed" towards oneself :) Hi Sarah --- Sarah wrote: ..... Sarah: Would you kindly in turn give me some refs as to where it (Sabbattataaya) occurs w/r to the brahmaviharas? .... Steve: As far as I can tell "Sabbattataaya" only occurs with reference to the Brahmavihara's, usally in the stock discription (and a few slight variants,(Mahagovinda Sutta D.19) of the development of the Brahmavihara's. > "He abides pervading one quarter with a mind imbued with loving- kindness(compassion,mudita,upekkha),likewise the 2nd,likewise the 3rd,likewise the 4th;so above,below,around,and everywhere, and "to all as to himself"(Sabbattataaya) he abides pervading the all encompassing world with a mind imbued with loving-kindness (compassion,mudita,upekkha),abundant,exalted,immeasurable,without hostility and without ill will." Equally(saabattataaya):to all classed as inferior,medium,superior,friendly,hostile,neutral, etc. just as to oneself (attataa); equality with oneself(atta-samataa) without making the distinction "This is another being" in what is meant. or alternatively equally (sabbattataaya) is with the whole state of ones mind; not reserving even a little ,is what is meant. "Sabbattataaya also occurs in the Appamannavibhango in the Vibhanga quite a few times, but it seems always in the same context(I dont have a eng. translation) --------------------- Sarah: I'd also be glad for the Pali (and yr literal translation) for key phrases in the Visud. which are so often quoted. In fact when you've collected all the relevant terms, perhaps you may add them with expanatory comments we can refer to as needed. --------------------- Steve: I'll try to find the relevant Pali passages, but as for a translation and explanation, I think I better leave that up to someone who has a better understanding of Pali and Dhamma than me. Vis. IX8> First of all it should be developed only towards oneself,doing it repeatedly thus: 'May I be happy and free from suffering' or 'May I keep myself free from enmity, affliction and anxiety and live happily'. Pali> Sabbapa.thama.m pana 'aha.m sukhito homi niddukkho'ti vaa, 'avero abyaapajjo aniigho sukhii attaana.m pariharaamii'ti vaa eva.m punappuna.m attaniyeva bhaavetabbaa. ..... A.K. Warders intro to Pali has > Sabbattataa - > non-discrimination (all-self-ness) considering all beings as like > oneself, putting oneself in the place of others. ..... Sarah ..or treating others as we would like to be treated?? ..... Steve: yes, I think so ..... Sarah: I just went to an earlier post I wrote to look at whether this term in used in the Udana verse (quoted in the Vism) and commentary notes and would like to give a link to this post as some of the comments may be useful to consider for other relevant threads such as conceit and discouragement and self-attachment too: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m5476.html ------------ Steve: I dont think the term is in the Udana or its commentary.(perhapes a variant of it may be,I'm not sure) ----------- Sarah: This is the extract with the actual commentary notes: ***** After King Pasenadi and Queen Mallika concluded that indeed there was no one dearer than themselves, the Buddha spoke these lines in Udana, 5- 1, `Dear' (Masefield trans): `Having explored all quarters with the mind, one would simply not attain that dearer than the self in any place; thus is the self dear separately to others - therefore one desiring self should not harm another.' The commentary adds: `.....One would simply not attain that dearer than the self in any place (n'ev'ajjhagaapiyataram attanaa kvaci): whatever man, seeking out with every endeavour someone else (more) excessively dear than the self, would neither attain nor behold (such) in any place, anywhere in the (ten) quarters.Thus is the self dear separately to others (evam piyo puthu attaa paresa.m): thus is the self alone dear separately, severally, to this and that being, by way of the non-discovery of anyone dearer than the self. Therefore one desiring self should not harm another (tasmaa na hi.mse param attakaama): since each being holds the self dear in that way, is one desiring happiness for that self, one for whom dukkha is repulsive, therefore one desiring self, in wanting well-being and happiness for that self, should not harm, should not kill, should not even antagonise with the hand....and so on, another being, upwards from and including even a mere ant or (other) samll insect. for when dukkha is caused by oneself to some other, that (dukkha) is, after an interval of time, observed in one's (own) self, as though it were passing over therefrom. for this is the law of karma.' ****** Steve, really appreciating your participation. As Christine said, this is a thread that never dies (or sth like that), so will appreciate anything you find or quote too. Sarah ====== Thank-you. Steve 17609 From: Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 4:00pm Subject: nibbana Dear group, I have been trying to figure out the difference between the experience of nibbana during a path moment and the rest of the life of an ariyan. It seems like when a stream enterer, for example, experiences nibbana it must be something like the absolute certainty that he will never again be interested in formulating an opinion or believing in anything. That experience is temporary but its truth is not. Subsequently, the stream enterer can at any time notice that he is not interested in forming an opinion but the particular experience of "never again" is rare and takes special conditions to experience it. That is why the meditative attainment of cessation is not nibbana, because it is temporary. There is no finality to it. All this leads me to believe that nibbana is a mere cessation. The defilements that have ceased for a stream enterer have simply ceased and that is his portion of nibbana. There is nothing more to it. When an arahat dies the kind of consciousness necessary to generate a new life cannot arise because that kind of consciousness is a defilement that no longer arises. So that's the end of the arahat, kaput, nothing beyond. Anyone who asserts that nibbana must be other than a mere cessation must find that otherness in the ariyan's life because the cessation of defilements is nibbana and that cessation is lived with. What do you think? Larry 17610 From: peterdac4298 Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 4:23pm Subject: Re: The Three Abstinences --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, (especially those in the Right Livelihood, and Wrong > Speech corners) > Would it be fair to say that Abstinence means more than just 'not > doing', it means 'choosing not 'to do' when the opportunity 'to do' > has arisen.' e.g. 'biting one's tongue' and defeating a desire to > reply to an insult by using scintillatingly devastating Wrong Speech, > or, 'catching and transporting the cane toad to where it can't > poison the dog's water rather than clobbering it with a cricket bat' > (abstinence from wrong action)? > > metta, > Christine Hi Christine At Wat Ba Pong and branches, where forest rats, (looking more like mice to me) plagued the monastery kitchen, were routinely caught, kept in a paper bag over night (for some reason they never tried to get out of these bags, even though their jaws were very powerful and teeth needle sharp). We released them the following mornings on alms round at any place considered to be midway between the Wat and the village to which the monks would be visiting that morning. Cheers Peter 17611 From: robmoult Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 4:33pm Subject: Re: nibbana Hi Larry, I'm weak in this area, but let me put my two cents worth in. --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Dear group, > > I have been trying to figure out the difference between the experience > of nibbana during a path moment and the rest of the life of an ariyan. > It seems like when a stream enterer, for example, experiences nibbana it > must be something like the absolute certainty that he will never again > be interested in formulating an opinion or believing in anything. That > experience is temporary but its truth is not. Subsequently, the stream > enterer can at any time notice that he is not interested in forming an > opinion but the particular experience of "never again" is rare and takes > special conditions to experience it. That is why the meditative > attainment of cessation is not nibbana, because it is temporary. There > is no finality to it. > > All this leads me to believe that nibbana is a mere cessation. The > defilements that have ceased for a stream enterer have simply ceased and > that is his portion of nibbana. There is nothing more to it. When an > arahat dies the kind of consciousness necessary to generate a new life > cannot arise because that kind of consciousness is a defilement that no > longer arises. So that's the end of the arahat, kaput, nothing beyond. > Anyone who asserts that nibbana must be other than a mere cessation must > find that otherness in the ariyan's life because the cessation of > defilements is nibbana and that cessation is lived with. > > What do you think? ========= During a path moment and during fruit moments, nibbana is the object of the citta. What makes a path moment special is that it has the function of uprooting defilements (uprooting only needs to happen once): - Stream entry eradicates wrong view, envy, avarice and doubt - Once returning doesn't eradicate anything, it just weakens - Non-returning eradicates sensual greed, hatred and worry - Arahant eradicates delusion, shamelessness, recklessness, restlessness, other forms of lobha (clining to existence), conceit, sloth and torpor Any further cittas after the path citta that also take nibbana as an object will be fruit cittas (until the next cleansing, vodana, occurs). Does this help? Metta, Rob M :-) 17612 From: robmoult Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 4:22pm Subject: Re: The Three Abstinences Hi Christine, --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Would it be fair to say that Abstinence means more than just 'not > doing', it means 'choosing not 'to do' when the opportunity 'to do' > has arisen.' There are three degrees of Abstinence (in increasing order): - Abstaining in spite of opportunity obtained (momentary) - Abstaining because of observance of precepts (temporary) - Abstaining by way of eradication (permanent, for ariyans) Does this answer the question? Metta, Rob M :-) 17613 From: Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 4:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [determing stage" H Rob, Thanks for your reply. You didn't answer the question do good intentions always produce good results, never bad results. The reason I ask is because intentionality doesn't usually figure into conventional understanding of cause and effect. So cause and effect and kammic cause and result seem to be operating in different realms but somehow together. Correct? You say rootlessness isn't good by definition but I would say it is ultimately good just because it causes no harm. What is your reasoning that memory and accumulations are different and only javana cittas are accumulated? Is learning javana cittas or resultant? Does sanna play a role in remembering accumulations in connection with kamma resultant consciousness and thence coordinating with intention and root (kamma causing) consciousnesses? Thanks for your help. Larry 17614 From: Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 4:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: nibbana Hi Rob, What's the difference between the experience of nibbana and the living of nibbana? Larry 17615 From: Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 0:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? In a message dated 12/10/2002 7:34:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, Bodhi2500@a... writes: > Both voidness and empty are contemplation on not self. Nibbana is both the > ultimate voidness but it is not empty? > > Steve > Hi Steve. In this context I interpret the word empty to mean:--"empty of satifaction." In this case I believe "empty" is being used as a basic evaluation rather than a statement of ultimate meaning. Support for that conclusion is based on the listing in the Patisambhidamagga that describes "conditions as empty" and the "unconditioned as not empty." Since a large part of this list is evaluation oriented, and it only seems to make sense to interpret it this way, I think it is likely a correct interpretation. TG 17616 From: Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 0:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? In a message dated 12/10/2002 9:30:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Thanks Steve, > > Ritta and sunna seem like synonyms. Any ideas on in what sense nibbana > is not empty? > > Larry > Hi Larry Check out my response to Steve and see what you think. :) TG 17617 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:04pm Subject: Re: The Three Abstinences Hi Peter, Thanks for telling us such a satisfying story! I catch the cane toads in plastic shopping bags (so I don't have to touch them or their poison glands) and take them up the road to the only street light in the area (attracts a food source of moths etc.) and release them. Though I now wonder about the poor moths and my responsibility in their deaths. The dog and local moths vs the moths up the road .... And I DO understand the sensitivity of Aussie Environmentalists to not eradicating this introduced pest which is devastating to small fauna. But it is another Being, and our individual behaviour is covered by the Dhamma, so what is one to do? metta, Christine > Hi Christine > > At Wat Ba Pong and branches, where forest rats, (looking more like > mice to me) plagued the monastery kitchen, were routinely caught, > kept in a paper bag over night (for some reason they never tried to > get out of these bags, even though their jaws were very powerful and > teeth needle sharp). We released them the following mornings on > alms round at any place considered to be midway between the Wat and > the village to which the monks would be visiting that morning. > > Cheers > Peter 17618 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:07pm Subject: Re: The Three Abstinences Hi RobM, This is v.interesting. Could you give me a reference to look up about the momentary, temporary, permanent bit? Thanks, Christine :-) --- "robmoult " wrote: > Hi Christine, > > --- "christine_forsyth > " wrote: > > Would it be fair to say that Abstinence means more than just 'not > > doing', it means 'choosing not 'to do' when the opportunity 'to > do' > > has arisen.' > > There are three degrees of Abstinence (in increasing order): > - Abstaining in spite of opportunity obtained (momentary) > - Abstaining because of observance of precepts (temporary) > - Abstaining by way of eradication (permanent, for ariyans) > > Does this answer the question? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 17619 From: Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi TG Thanks. Yes that makes sense to me. I was also thinking how Nibbana is not-empty, seeing that Nibbana is a paramattha Dhamma and all Paramattha Dhamma's have there own charateristics, then Nibbana is not-empty of it own charateristics. But I know that idea doesnt gel with the Patisam. quote ie. the Khandha's are not-empty of their own charateristics as well. Does anyone know what the Abhidhamma states as Nibbana's own charateristics(sabhava??)? Thanks Steve TGrand458@a... writes: > > Hi Steve. > > In this context I interpret the word empty to mean:--"empty of > satifaction." > In this case I believe "empty" is being used as a basic evaluation rather > than a statement of ultimate meaning. Support for that conclusion is based > > on the listing in the Patisambhidamagga that describes "conditions as > empty" > and the "unconditioned as not empty." Since a large part of this list is > evaluation oriented, and it only seems to make sense to interpret it this > way, I think it is likely a correct interpretation. > > TG > Bodhi2500@a... writes: > Both voidness and empty are contemplation on not self. Nibbana is both the > ultimate voidness but it is not empty? > > Steve > 17620 From: peterdac4298 Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:28pm Subject: Re: Freewill is out?!;-)?!:-) --- "robmoult " wrote: > Hi Peter, > > --- "peterdac4298" > "...Cover > story: > > > > 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 :-) Thanks Rob This is well worth reflecting on. Seeing it expressed in the words of another certainly makes for much better clarity. Cheers Peter 17621 From: robmoult Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:48pm Subject: Re: The Three Abstinences Hi Christine, From Nina's book, "Cetasikas" p301: There are different degrees of abstinence and the Atthasåliní (I, Book I, Part III, Chapter VI, 103, 104) distinguishes between three kinds: abstaining "inspite of opportunity obtained", abstaining because of observance (of precepts) and abstaining by way of eradication. There is more in this book as well as additional references. Metta, Rob M :-) --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi RobM, > > This is v.interesting. Could you give me a reference to look up > about the momentary, temporary, permanent bit? > > Thanks, > Christine :-) > > --- "robmoult " > wrote: > > Hi Christine, > > > > --- "christine_forsyth > > " wrote: > > > Would it be fair to say that Abstinence means more than just 'not > > > doing', it means 'choosing not 'to do' when the opportunity 'to > > do' > > > has arisen.' > > > > There are three degrees of Abstinence (in increasing order): > > - Abstaining in spite of opportunity obtained (momentary) > > - Abstaining because of observance of precepts (temporary) > > - Abstaining by way of eradication (permanent, for ariyans) > > > > Does this answer the question? > > > > Metta, > > Rob M :-) 17622 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:00pm Subject: Re: The Power of Kusula Hi RobertK (Frank) and all, Thanks for this reply. I did wonder how we were ever going to get out of Samsara if there wasn't a different weighting of kusala and akusala moments. It is a relief to have it confirmed. :) This also answers something Frank asked in his great post on "Forgiveness" dsg post no.17380 3) "right effort" - two parts that strive to eliminate arisen defilements, and unarisen defilements! Eliminating unarisen defilements is especially interesting. How does one do this? (left as an exercise to the reader." Did you mean to say "silabataparamasa (clinging to SILA and wrong practice)" ? I thought it was 'attachment to mere rules and ritual'. metta, Christine --- "rjkjp1 " wrote: > Ken H has a good memory and thanks for bringing this up Christine, > The quote: "Kusa grass cuts a part of the hand with both edges. Even so > kusala cuts off both sections of passions - those that have arisen and > those that have not arisen" (abhidhammathasangaha). > It can seem discouraging once we realise that the moments of akusala in > a day far outnumber the moments of kusala. If it was simpoly a matter of > each being of equal power then it would be impossible to ever end > samsara. However the moments with right view have an extraordinary > strength to be able to eliminate akusala. > For example one might have some type of clinging to ritual. An extreme > case: one thinks that by washing in the river and chanting or praying one > is purifying oneself. This is a strong delusion but if one hears the right > Dhamma one will give up such practice like dropping a hot rock. It won't > be practiced again (at least in this life). > In the same way insight can understand that all that arises is anatta and > by that wrong views are increasingly subliminated until maggacitta > permenently eradicates wrongview. > I think it should be understaod that the sense desire cannot be eliminated > at all before all wrong view and silabataparamasa (clinging to sila and > wrong pratice) is gone. Hence the most important type of kusala is that > associated with the insight into the conditioned nature of dhammas. I think > one may still be mired in sense desire, still have greatly more akusala > cittas arising than kusala but be lessening the clinging to self and that will > lead gradually toward freedom. > Robert 17623 From: robmoult Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 7:20pm Subject: [dsg] Re: [determing stage" Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > You didn't answer the question do good intentions > always produce good results, never bad results. The reason I ask is > because intentionality doesn't usually figure into conventional > understanding of cause and effect. So cause and effect and kammic cause > and result seem to be operating in different realms but somehow > together. Correct? I gotta be careful about my definitions; I am defining "good" as meaning kusala, a citta with alobha, adosa and perhaps even amoha (panna). Using this definition, the cittas which are good include: 1. Sense sphere wholesome (i.e. javana cittas) 2. Sense sphere resultant (i.e. Bhavanga cittas for most humans / Devas; disabled humans and earth bound Devas can have rootless bhavanga cittas and also registration cittas) 3. Sense sphere functional (i.e. javana cittas for arahants) 4. Rupavacara / Arupavacara / Lokutara Vipaka cittas, except those included under item 3 above (i.e. "what happens to us") are called akusala / kusala to identify the type of javana that was their seed. What happens to us is not inherently "good" or "bad", these types of vipaka cittas have no roots. To put it another way, a kusala javana citta can only lead to a "kusala" vipaka citta (this is true by definition). The only difference between a kusala vipaka citta and an akusala vipaka citta is the source. A kusala vipaka citta and an akusala vipaka citta have the same possible set of cetasikas. There is no inherent difference between the two. A vipaka citta arises (either kusala or akusala, it doesn't matter which) in the thought process. Our accumulations condition our javana citta in the thought process (javana cittas are inherently good or bad, except for an arahant). > > You say rootlessness isn't good by definition but I would say it is > ultimately good just because it causes no harm. > According to my definition above, "causing no harm" is not enough to be called "good". > What is your reasoning that memory and accumulations are different and > only javana cittas are accumulated? Is learning javana cittas or > resultant? Does sanna play a role in remembering accumulations in > connection with kamma resultant consciousness and thence coordinating > with intention and root (kamma causing) consciousnesses? Let's leave the realm of Abhidhamma for a moment and consider the difference between accumulations and memory. I am drawn to study the Abhidhamma (while others are not) because of accumulations. Some people are quick to get angry (while others are not) because of accumulations. I remember my wife's beautiful face because I have seen it before. I remember the way to the office because I have driven there before. To me, accumulations and memories seem completely separate. Javana cittas are active. Other cittas are passive. When a javana citta arises, cetana causes the seed of a vipaka to be created. Cetana also creates an impression or deepens an impression in the accumulations (something like a habit is created or reinforced). I see learning as a combination of memory and accumulations working together. If we remember accumulations; then the object of the citta is a concept (the concept of accumulations), not the accumulations themselves. When I remember that I have a tendency to get angry, sanna is marking and remembering the concept of "a tendency to get angry". I hope that this is helpful. Metta, Rob M :-) 17624 From: robmoult Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 7:48pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi Steve; --- Bodhi2500@a... wrote: > > Does anyone know what the Abhidhamma states as Nibbana's own > charateristics(sabhava??)? I can't remember where I noted this down from, but: Characterisitc: Tranquility Function: Non-ceasing Manifestation: Being without symbol Proximate Cause: None Is this what you were looking for? Metta, Rob M :-) 17625 From: Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 7:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi TG & Steve, "Empty of satisfaction" could work in the sense of not desireable. So nibbana is not undesirable while impermanence _is_ undesirable. I think Howard's reading of "not ceased" also makes sense. The main problem with a double negative is that it comes close to attributing a positive quality to nibbana, but there is no strong indication that nibbana has positive qualities. Here is something from Vism. XVI 66: It [Nibbana] has peace as its characteristic. Its function is not to die; or its function is to comfort. It is manifested as the signless; or it is manifested as non-diversification. Larry 17626 From: robmoult Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:50pm Subject: [dsg] Re: nibbana Hi Larry, I understand Nibbana as an object of a citta (i.e. this explains "experiencing Nibbana"; I don't know what it might mean to "live Nibbana" except to dwell on the experience for an extended period (seven days maximum, I understand). Metta, Rob M :-) --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Rob, > > What's the difference between the experience of nibbana and the living > of nibbana? > > Larry 17627 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 8:13pm Subject: Re: The Power of Kusula Hi all, As Christine, Steven and Andrew have already reported, the weekend at Cooran was very pleasant and rewarding. The quality of our discussions improves with every meeting: I didn't need to prod anyone back `on-topic' and Christine, with her mountain of reference books, made the difference between Dhamma discussion and uninformed speculation. I've been suffering my usual fear of message-posting which is lamentable, especially when so many of you have shown interest and willingness to help with our questions. It's been inspirational to read all your helpful comments. I'm glad to see that Azita plans to join us one day; and what a pity it is that we came so close to but missed out on, a visit from Robert K. If any dsg people are planning to visit Brisbane or its near North Coast, we'll be only too happy to schedule our meetings to suit. Rob K, I see that the `power of kusala' question I've been meaning to ask you since 8th August 2002, has been asked on my behalf (everything's rush, rush, rush these days :-)), and that you have answered it, thank you. I appreciate your explanation of how just a momentary insight can result in the dropping of a strong delusion (e.g., in the efficacy of ritual bathing and prayer). On the subject of prayer, here's an extract from "What the Buddha REALLY Taught" by David Maurice: "The Buddha taught that it was of no use to pray to any `God' to help one. There was a custom at the time that when a man died his friends and relatives would gather and pay priests who would say prayers for the departed, praise him highly and `speed him heavenward.' The Buddha said it would be of no use casting a huge rock into a deep pool and with joined palms praising it and saying: `Rise up, good rock, float ashore, good rock!' And in similar manner, it was of no use praising a man who had been a killer, a thief, a slanderer, one given to bad sexual practices and so on and expecting that to help him to heaven. Conversely, if a man led a good life, nobody could keep him, when reborn, in a low state. (Samyuttanikaya: Salayatanasutta)" Kind regards Ken H 17628 From: Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 9:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: nibbana Hi Rob, By living nibbana I mean that a sotapanna's entire life as a sotapanna is living without certain defilements. No more ditthi, for example. That is the nibbana of ditthi, a mere cessation. It is nibbana element because it is a finality. There will never again be a ditthi in his continuum. Seeing that as a finality is the experience of nibbana in a path moment. There is no difference between the two experiences, life experience and path moment, in terms of the cessation of ditthi, but the path moment cannot be experienced during life experience without special conditions. Correct? Larry 17629 From: Andrew Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 10:21pm Subject: Re: Right livelihood - Samma-ajiva --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > > Andrew - I don't know much about the profession of Law, but isn't > there something in the Ethics of a Solicitor that if they *know* > (perhaps by private confession) their client is guilty they can > withdraw service? That's right. A lawyer cannot accept instructions to mislead the court or defeat justice. The legal profession does have high ethical standards that I think are generally consistent with sila. However, in practice, the ethical aspects can sometimes be easily overlooked. Some litigation lawyers go all out for a "win", perhaps not the best result from a "justice" point of view. That puzzled me for a long while, actually. Does Dhamma have a concept of "justice"? In my experience, most clients consider justice to be "getting what I want"!! I decided that justice per se was not a part of Dhamma. > > So would it be fair to say that a Buddhist should look at Word of the > Buddha first in choosing a livelihood, but after that it is it is not > the "who" or the "what", but the "how" of practising of the Dhamma > in daily life. Yes, I agree with your conclusion. Rob M asks about salespeople. What about bankers, too. Usury is said to be wrong livelihood. Anybody work in the credit card dept of a bank? (joke) 17630 From: Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 8:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [determing stage" Thanks Rob, I think I will wait for further accumulations before I can understand these issues. Thanks for your help. Larry 17631 From: James Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 11:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong speech in Jest Hey All, I would challenge anyone to read this sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-111.html and then state that the Buddha didn't have a sense of humor, crack jokes, startle people for comic effect, or misrepresent the truth for comic effect. Metta, James 17632 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 9:29pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? --- Bodhi2500@a... wrote: > Does anyone know what the Abhidhamma states as Nibbana's own > charateristics(sabhava??)? >_______________ Dear Steve, From A Survey of Paramattha Dhamma by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: http://www.abhidhamma.org/Para2.htm "Nibbåna paramattha dhamma can be classified according to three characteristics: voidness, suññatta signlessness, animitta desirelessness, appanihita Nibbåna is called voidness, suññatta, because it is void of all conditioned= realities (saòkhåra dhammas). It is called signlessness, animitta, because it is void of "signs", characteristics, of conditioned realities. I= t is called desirelessness, appanihita, because it is without any basis of desire, namely, conditioned realities. "endquote Robert 17633 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 0:37am Subject: Posts slow in appearing Dear Group, Don't know if anyone else is having this problem - posts from Oz have been taking an hour or two to appear on the List despite getting the message 'your message has been posted'. So far I've resisted the impulse to send twice, spared you all that at least. :-) metta, Christine 17634 From: Sarah Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 11:31pm Subject: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman Dear All, Thank you for all the helpful reminders on right speech and the other discussion topics from the weekend gathering of the SE Qld branch;-). When my brothers and I were small and counted our cherry stones, the fear was that we might end up as a ‘beggarman or thief’. On DSG it might be a ‘lawyer or used car salesman’;-) Like the lads in Cooran, when I’m with my brothers (which is not often) we laugh and tease each other and it’s usually kindly and affectionately intended. To change our ways of interaction would seem most unnatural, just as it would to my students to be forced to be serious all the time;-( I think the greatest error in understanding when we consider right speech, action and livelihood relates to conceptual and conventional ideas of ‘situations’ without any understanding of momentary consciousness which changes rapidly as we know. We forget completely that these 5fold or 8fold factors refer to the 3 viratis (abstinences). I’m not sure it’s therefore useful in any way to consider being a hospital worker or teacher, for example, as any more ‘right’ as a way of livelihood than being a used car salesman or any other livelihood. There are a mass of opportunities in a day for good and bad intentions and deeds regardless. ***** I’d like to type out the following section from B.Bodhi’s CMA (Abhidammatthasangaha)p.88 with brief comments in between sections: QUOTE #6 The Abstinences (virati) -3 1) Sammavaacaa 2)sammaakammanto 3)sammaa-aajiivo caa ti tisso viratiyo naama 1) Right Speech, 2) right action, and 3)right livelihood: these three are termed abstinences. Guide to #6 The abstinences: The viratis are three beautiful mental factors which are responsible for the deliberate abstinence from wrong conduct by way of speech, action, and livelihood. In mundane consciousnes, the viratis are operative only on an occasion when one intentionally refrains from a wrong mode of conduct for which an opportunity has arisen. When a person refrains from evil deeds without an opportunity for their performance arising, this is not a case of virati but one of pure moral conduct (sila). The commentators distinguish three types of virati: 1)natural abstinence; 2)abstinence by undertaking precepts; and 3)abstinence by eradication.” **** Details of the three types are given in the text. Whether it is ‘natural’ abstinence or abstinence by following the precepts, it is the momentary restraint that is referred to. The only way that any kind of sila will really be developed is when it is accompanied by wisdom which can understand the value and distinction between moments of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and which will lead to the eradication of the tendency to perform unwholesome deeds. I don’t understand it to be a matter of choosing the ‘right’ job, refraining from laughter and fun (unless one is a monk) or otherwise trying to ‘fix’ the situation in an unnatural manner. ***** QUOTE “The viratis comprise three distinct mental factors mentioned in the text: right speech, right action, and right livelihood. 1) Right Speech (sammaavaacaa): Right speech is the deliberate abstinence from wrong speech: from false speech, slander, harsh speech, and frivolous talk. 2) Right action (sammaakammanta): Right action is the deliberate abstinence from wrong bodily action: from killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct. 3) Right livelihood (sammaa-aajiiva): Right livelihood is the deliberate abstinence from wrong livelihood, such as dealing in poisons, intoxicants, weapons, slaves, or animals for slaughter. The three viratis have the respective charactaristics of non-transgression by bodily misconduct, by wrong speech, and by wrong livelihood. Their function is to shrink back from evil deeds. They are manifested as the abstinence from such deeds. Their proximate causes are the special qualities of faith, shame, fear of wrongdoing, fewness of wishes, etc. They should be regarded as the mind’s aversion to wrongdoing.” ***** Whatever our lifestyle - whether working with people, accounts, testubes or surfboards, whether eating, sitting, walking, talking or watching the ‘footie’, there are countless moments of lobha, dosa and moha in a day. There are many opportunites for unwise speech or action. Understanding the various phenomena when they appear for an instant is the way that sila will become firmly established naturally and without ‘forcing’. We know, for example, there is a lot of lobha when we eat or watch TV; the solution is not to stop eating or stop watching TV. I’ll sign off with a sobering reminder I find helpful which Nina quotes in ‘Cetasikas’: QUOTE “The Visuddhimagga (1, 154) mentions the following dangers of failure in virtue: ‘....Furthermore, on account of his unvirtuousness and unvirtuous person is displeasing to deities and human beings, is uninstructable by his fellows in the life of purity, suffers when unvirtuousness is censured, and is remorseful when the virtuous are praised.....’ “ ****** May we all be ‘instructable’ by our ‘fellows in the life of purity’. Looking forward to further comments. Sarah ===== 17635 From: Sarah Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:04am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Dana with things that are precious to us Dear Ven Yanatharo, --- "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: > Dear Peter, as many of you in the list, you people follow the books but > very > little you guys know about the really life of Bikkhus. ..... With all respect, I understand that Peter and some other members on the list have been bhikkhus and appreciate the difficulties and value in following all the rules. I also believe it is useful to discuss the Vinaya and its importance. This may be one of the few places on the net where it is possible. It is an integral part of the Tipitaka after all. While it is skilful and wise not to cause offence if it can be helped, the Sangha also have a very special opportunity to educate the public with regard to the vinaya and all aspects of the Tipitaka. I hope these comments do not seem disrespectful and are not intended as such. Sarah ====== 17636 From: robmoult Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:14am Subject: Re: Posts slow in appearing Hi Christine, I am tempted to make a derogatory comment about Australians, but I realize that there are many of you out there :-) In any case, it would be akusala, wrong speech. If it makes you feel any better, posts from China are taking just as long; I suspect it is a Yahoo! problem. Metta, Rob M :-) --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > Don't know if anyone else is having this problem - posts from Oz have > been taking an hour or two to appear on the List despite getting the > message 'your message has been posted'. > So far I've resisted the impulse to send twice, spared you all that > at least. :-) > > metta, > Christine 17637 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Dec 11, 2002 11:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong speech in Jest Hi James, To me it just seems that the Buddha was trying to speak to this man on a level he would understand. I think it would be an area that the Buddha was familiar with - a good understanding of the breeding and training of horses would have been a requirement of the ruling and warrior classes which I understand the Buddha came from. It was something he had in common with Kesi, a skillful means of joining with him, and isn't that where all communication starts? It is natural that people talk in the terms used in their everyday work when discussing other matters. I have a number of dairy farms and horse properties in my area. In conversation, these people often sprinkle their speech with terms like "keeping a tighter rein on the young filly" i.e. supervise their teenage daughter more closely, or, "time to put the old bull out to pasture" i.e. teasing the husband about growing older. They are just using descriptive language that even I understand. An untrainable horse IS killed. It would have been a well known fact. Kesi would have understood the simile, which would not have seemed very strange or startling in that society. I see no untruths or jokes, but rather a great sensitivity to and a use of language that would be familiar and meaningful to Kesi. metta, Christine --- "James " wrote: > Hey All, > > I would challenge anyone to read this sutta: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-111.html > > and then state that the Buddha didn't have a sense of humor, crack > jokes, startle people for comic effect, or misrepresent the truth > for comic effect. > > Metta, James 17638 From: robmoult Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:29am Subject: [dsg] Re: nibbana Hi Larry, My understanding is that when the Sotapanna magga citta arises, it wipes out the accumulations which can allow wrong view to arise. During the life of a Sotapanna, there are still gazillions of kammic seeds which given the right conditions could spring into wrong view (from past kammic actions), but without the accumulation to provide the condition, they can't arise. Those particular kammic seeds become inoperative (ahosi). I am not sure of your phrase "the nibbana of ditthi". I thought that Nibbana is an object of a citta, nothing more. I don't understand how Nibbana can be applied to anything. Am I wrong? Is Nibanna more than just the object of a citta? Metta, Rob M :-) --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Rob, > > By living nibbana I mean that a sotapanna's entire life as a sotapanna > is living without certain defilements. No more ditthi, for example. That > is the nibbana of ditthi, a mere cessation. It is nibbana element > because it is a finality. There will never again be a ditthi in his > continuum. Seeing that as a finality is the experience of nibbana in a > path moment. There is no difference between the two experiences, life > experience and path moment, in terms of the cessation of ditthi, but the > path moment cannot be experienced during life experience without special > conditions. Correct? > > Larry 17639 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 3:10am Subject: Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman Hi Sarah and Group, --- Sarah wrote: "I think the greatest error in understanding when we consider right speech, action and livelihood relates to conceptual and conventional ideas of `situations' without any understanding of momentary consciousness which changes rapidly as we know. We forget completely that these 5fold or 8fold factors refer to the 3 viratis (abstinences). I'm not sure it's therefore useful in any way to consider being a hospital worker or teacher, for example, as any more `right' as a way of livelihood than being a used car salesman or any other livelihood. There are a mass of opportunities in a day for good and bad intentions and deeds regardless." -------------------------------------- C: Now this is where I have a problem with understanding. I don't think anyone was suggesting a hospital worker or teacher was a more "right" livelihood than a used car salesman. Andrew merely mentioned the used car salesman as a joke. However I think the Vanijja Sutta clearly indicates there are some jobs that are more "wrong" than others. Anguttara Nikaya V.1777 'Vanijja Sutta' Business (Wrong Livelihood)"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in living beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison. "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in." C: "Should not engage in" seems quite definite to me. A question for me is, are these the only wrong livelihoods or was this list just an indicator of types of livelihoods that lay disciples should not engage in? And if we are seriously trying to live according to the Teachings, shouldn't Right Livelihood be a major consideration? metta, Christine 17640 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 3:24am Subject: Re: Hello(Venerable PiyaDhammo) Dear Ven. Phra Piyadhammo, It's great to hear from you. Sorry I couldn't make the trip to NC for your ordination as planned. My schedule has been quite busy of late, and it is unbecoming of a householder to shirk his obligations to other people. I do hope all is well with you. Best wishes, Dan --- "phrapiyadhammo " wrote: > Hello Robert, > > Thank you for the welcome. I hope to continue to share and contribute > when possible. As you probably know I will be in Thailand for some > time. Perhaps, we might actually have the oppurtunity to meet at some > point in time if you still travel there much? I revisited the post I > wrote that you forwarded from D-l.. Actually, in hindsight if I cut > through the humor, and that it is situationally fiction, all the > reasons for my going forth are in that piece. > > Have you heard from Dan? Is he well? Good to here from you Robert. > May you take care of yourself happily. May we all keep up the > practice....Drop the unwholesome, cultivate the wholesome, and purify > the mind. > > Your friend in Dhamma > Phra Piyadhammo > > > Dear Venerable, > > Thanks for joining the list. I'm sure any contibutions you make > will be > > much appreciated. There is actually a conversation between you > (when > > you were a layman) and Dan ,that I forwarded from D-l, in the > useful > > posts under "light relief". > > Robert 17641 From: Sarah Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 3:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong speech in Jest Hi Christine & James, Yes, it’s an interesting sutta. wrote: > > To me it just seems that the Buddha was trying to speak to this man > on a level he would understand. I think it would be an area that > the Buddha was familiar with - a good understanding of the breeding > and training of horses would have been a requirement of the ruling > and warrior classes which I understand the Buddha came from. > I agree with these sentiments. ..... > --- "James > > I would challenge anyone to read this sutta: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-111.html > > > > and then state that the Buddha didn't have a sense of humor, crack > > jokes, startle people for comic effect, or misrepresent the truth > > for comic effect. ..... For the arahants all lobha has been eradicated (and also for the anagamis except for a few very refined kinds not related to sense-pleasures). I’m just looking at the PTS translation by Woodward, but no commentary notes are given. Hopefully B.Bodhi will add some with his new translation. Just a few phrases for your interest to compare -it’s very similar to B.Thanissaro’s: Instead of “I kill him, Kesi”, PTS has “I destroy him, Kesi!” and then: “ ‘True it is, Kesi, that taking life does not become a Tathagata. yet if the man to be trained submits not to the training by mildness, by harshness or both together, then the Tathagata thinks it is not worth while to admonish that man, nor do his wise fellows in the God-life think it worth while to admonish that man. This, kesi, is destruction for a man in the discipline of the Ariyan, - when both the Tathagata and his fellows in the God-life think it not worth while to admonish him.’........” These are very useful reminders, thanks James. I don’t read them as being humourous at all, though I understand why you read them this way. They are similar to the one I just quoted from Visuddhimagga (1, 154) about the ‘unvirtuous person’ who is ‘uninstructable by his fellows in the life of purity’. Sarah ====== 17642 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 5:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right livelihood - Samma-ajiva Andrew As others have pointed out, 'Right Livelihood' in fact refers to a moment at which there is wholesome abstinence from a breach of the precepts in the course of earning one's livelihood. So it reflects the level of sila and understanding of the person in question rather than the nature of the occupation he pursues. Of course, some jobs by their very nature necessarily involve much wrong livelihood (like the 5 occupations named in the sutta quoted by Christine), so these would be best avoided if possible (but there is no rule about this). But outside of such occupations, it is really up to the individual to act appropriately -- no-one can 'make' one breach the precepts. BTW, note that the 5 occupations mentioned in the sutta do not include, for example, being a soldier, presumably because one could be a soldier without being called upon to take another's life. To repeat, the question of whether a person carries on his/her occupation skilfully and without breach of the precepts usually comes down to a matter of the individual's choice/accumulations and level of understanding. Factors such as peer pressure and the 'norms' of the particular occupation can make ethical conduct more difficult, but if one appreciates the great value of it then ways can usually be found. It's a bit like the issue of dealing with household pests other than by reaching for the spray gun/poison bait – if you give some thought to it, it's usually possible to find a workaround. Jon --- "Andrew " wrote: > Hi Azita, Jon & all > Thanks for your replies which I did find most useful. As an > ex-lawyer, I was actually considering whether the practice of law > is > right livelihood. Over the last year, I've lost count of the > number > of articles I've read on legal professional ethics. Of interest is > the strong "representational" view that a lawyer must do everything > to > advantage the client short of misleading the court or breaking the > law. This usually leads to disadvantaging the client's adversary. > Bhikkhu Bodhi writes of samma-ajiva that we should earn a living > "in > ways which do not entail harm or suffering for others". Is the > lawyer > acting on instructions from a malicious client practising wrong > livelihood because of the harm done to the client's adversary? > Bhikkhu Bodhi also says that if your work violates Right Speech, it > is > wrong livelihood. How does this relate to the lawyer seeking to > discredit a witness on cross-examination? I know Jon has a legal > background like me and I'm not expecting anyone to answer these > questions. They came to mind during my reading. Whereas > initially, I > thought "of course being a lawyer is right livelihood", I am now > more > of the view that it is one of those occupations that may or may not > be > right livelihood depending upon how it is practiced. > Andrew 17643 From: Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 0:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: If volition is conditioned: what difference between kamma and v... Hi, Rob - In a message dated 12/11/02 5:14:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I really like what you have written. I have inserted some questions. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I'll ty my best at giving answers. ---------------------------------------------- > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Rob (and Christine) - > > > > Here are some thoughts on this matter. They are not Dhamma, > but just > >my own thoughts which are hopefully not in contradiction to the > Dhamma. > > There are *many* namarupic streams of experience, each of > which we can > >think of, conventionally, as either a person or a world. > (Actually, even the > >notion of a single such stream is conventional.) These > experiential streams > >are not isololated, self-existent things, but are aspects or parts > of an > >interacting, interconnected whole. > > ======= > > My first impression is that a "namarupic stream of experience" might > be a fancy way of saying "self". Then I noticed that you > wrote, "person or a world"; interesting, do you mean that "the > world" has nama (mind)? > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: A namarupic stream of experience is a conditioned flow of events which are elements of the five khandhas. The stream is, relative to itself, "the all", and it is, conceived of, as a whole, both as the world and as the empirical self. But any one stream of becoming is one of many mutually interactive streams - it does not exist isolatedly. The elements of each stream that are not conceptual constructs are paramattha dhammas. --------------------------------------------------- > > Have you run across the concept of "an interacting, interconnected > whole" in the Dhamma? > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Not in so many words. But the Buddha was not a solipsist. He recognized a multiplicity of beings and worlds, and certainly he recognized the obvious interactions among them. The perspective I suggest here is an attempt to go a bit beyond the mundane reality I express in the last sentence to an understanding of it from a phenomenalist-abhidhammic-kammic vantage point. ---------------------------------------------------- > > ====== > > >The acts of volition arising in any > >mindstream have primary effect within that mindstream itself, but > also > >ultimately influence all the others. > > ======= > > I think that what you are saying is that kamma is what interconnects > everything. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: I see kamma as the creative and motive force, but not just the kamma of one "person". ---------------------------------------------- I can see how my actions impact those with whom I have > > immediate contact (conditions are created), but are you > suggesting, "I influence 'Howard' and because I influence 'Howard', > the way in which 'Howard' influences his wife (with whom I have no > direct contact, promise :-) ) will be impacted... therefore I have > an indirect influence on 'Howard's wife' and an even more indirect > influence on 'the friend of Howard's wife"? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Somewhat, yes. I am saying that our volitional actions spread out in waves of (ever-weakening) influence. Moreover, I am saying that kamma is a world-builder! There is no need for a creator god - creatrion is ongoing. -------------------------------------------------- > > =========== > > >The determination of the realm of > >experience into which a namarupic stream is "born" is vipaka of > kamma > >previously ocurring in that stream. Others with similar kammic > history are > >born into "the same" realm (although the realms of experience of > two > >different streams are never identical). A given realm of > experience is the > >joint-creation of the kamma of a multitude of beings, with the > specifics of > >one's own experiences the result largely of one's own kamma, but > also of the > >kamma of others. It is a vast, extraordinarily complex, > interactive network. > > ========== > > Are you saying that the world arises because of collective kamma? > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't like the term 'collective kamma', because it suggests group action and the results of that. But there is individual kamma, and the kamma of different beings, especially those who are kammically connected will interact. --------------------------------------------------- > > Does this imply that rocks and trees arise because of collective > kamma? BTW, the Abhidhamma says that rocks and trees arise because > of utu, not kamma (I am not trying to shoot down your argument, I am > trying to understand it better... it sounds interesting). --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well ... yes, that's what this implies. BTW, of course biologists will confirm that heat is needed for the growth of trees, and geologists will talk about heat and igneous rocks. But all the "things" of this world and all other worlds are conceptual constructs or pa~n~natti, and kamma is the (ultimate) creator. I make no presuppositions about the existence of external objects such as rocks "actually" existing "out there". Rocks are part of my world of experience, due to kamma and to the constructive capacity of mind. ------------------------------------------- > > =========== > > >From the perspective of the network as a whole, if there were such > such a > >perspective, perhaps events proceed deterministically. But from > the limited > >perspective of a single mindstream, that is not so. > > =========== > > I think that we are saying the same thing here; that the concept of > predeterminism doesn't apply from our own frame of reference. > > =========== > > > What occurs in "one's world" is multiply conditioned but > most > >directly by one's own volitional actions. Those actions are, of > course, > >constrained by what is possible, and what is possible is > determined by > >conditions, conditions brought into being by oneself and by others > in varying > >degrees and strengths. The main condition directly influencing > one's volition > >is desire, and the fact that we can will and act based on our > desire is > >generally what we mean by the ability to exercise "free will". > > ========== > > I think that our volition is conditioned by our accumulations and > desire is certainly a major accumulation in each of us. However, > there are many moments when other accumulations take centre stage. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: And how did they get formed? ---------------------------------------------- > > Please explain how acting based on desire means exercising "free > will". I am confused here. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Frankly, I think that the notion of 'free will' is probably incoherent. If someone is pressed to say what they mean by it, usually nothing worthwhile will emerge! ;-) But in colloquial usage, when someone says "I have free will", they typically mean that they can do what they wish (subject to some constraints). ----------------------------------------------- > > ========== > > >Even though > >our volition doesn't arise randomly (and what sort of "prize" > would random > >volition be?), volition does occur, it is most strongly based on > our own > >wishes, and it is the primary but not exclusive determiner of the > events that > >will befall us. For example, when A does something to B, it is a > direct > >consequence of factors within A (mainly volition) and within "the > shared > >world" of A and B, plus the kamma that put B into the > circumstances making it > >possible for A to do to B what A does. This kamma of B is among > the > >conditions leading to the event, but, all told, it is a minor > factor. The > >action of A is "owned" by A, and while B's kamma played some role > in the > >event, B can neither be praised nor blamed, at least in any > primary sense, > >for A's action. > > =========== > > Could we say that volition plays the "active role" in determining > what happens to us, while conditions have a "passive role"? > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm, perhaps. I think I would sooner use 'primary' and 'secondary' rather than 'active' and 'passive'. ------------------------------------------------ > > Let us expand on your example of A doing something to B, let us say > for example that A hits B. > > From the perspective of A > ------------------------- > The hitting arose because of conditions (the presence of B is one of > the conditions) and accumulations (in this case probably anger). The > impersonal law of kamma ensures that a seed of future akusala vipaka > is sown and it may impact A in the future (all beings are the owners > of their own kamma). > > From the perspective of B > ------------------------- > Being hit arose because of conditions (the presence of A is one of > the conditions) that allowed a past akusala kammic effort to develop > into a vipaka at that moment. The impersonal law of kamma has played > its part when the vipaka arose. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sure, it is possible that A has served as the vehicle for the fruition of some akusala kamma of B. But it is also possible that no kamma vipaka was being brought to the fore, and that A is now, in a sense, in the kammic debt of B. But this is guesswork on my part. What if B stands for Buddha? ;-) -------------------------------------------------- > > ============ > > > In a sense, every event is an occurrence within a vast, > interactive > >kammic network, centering on one namarupic stream, or a few, or > many, but > >ultimately going way beyond any of these. This, in part, is > perhaps one > >reason why full individual "control" is an illusion. But also, > because there > >are so *many* influences on any event, most with small impact, > volition looms > >large, and there *is* choosing. > > ============== > > Howard, I am enjoying your post. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: That pleases me, Rob. I hope that there is some merit to it and that it is not fully off-base. I readily admit that it is merely a point of view, and I do not hold it in a firm grasp. ---------------------------------------------------- > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > =========================== 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) 17644 From: phrapiyadhammo Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 7:21am Subject: Re: Hello(Venerable PiyaDhammo) Dear Dan, Hope you and your family are well. It is good to see you here also. I understand your obligations to others. Thank you for the kind words and best wishes. Much Metta to you and yours, Phra Piyadhammo > Dear Ven. Phra Piyadhammo, > It's great to hear from you. Sorry I couldn't make the trip to NC for > your ordination as planned. My schedule has been quite busy of late, > and it is unbecoming of a householder to shirk his obligations to > other people. I do hope all is well with you. > > Best wishes, > > Dan 17645 From: James Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 7:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong speech in Jest Sarah and Christine, Smiles and Salutations! Well, I don't think either one of you met my challenge. You did not show that the Buddha did not crack a joke, a very dark joke actually, in your interpretations of this sutta. Both of you miss the main thing that shows that it is a joke. Of course the Buddha turns it into a lesson, as humor is often used, but he first uses humor. Let me give you some hints: Don't look at the subject matter, horse training, jokes can occur in any setting; and don't look at the follow up explanation of the Buddha, jokes don't last forever and he did have a lesson to teach. Look at the events immediately following the words of the Buddha. There you will find the humor. And I am not going to point it out directly. Like insight, jokes are either something you get or something you don't. When they are explained, the experience is lost in translation. Christine wanted to know what makes something funny. Richard F. Taflinger comes up with some pretty good guidelines in his "A Theory of Comedy": 1) it must appeal to the intellect rather than the emotions; 2) it must be mechanical; 3) it must be inherently human, with the capability of reminding us of humanity; 4) there must be a set of established societal norms with which the observer is familiar, either through everyday life or through the author providing it in expository material, or both; 5) the situation and its component parts (the actions performed and the dialogue spoken) must be inconsistent or unsuitable to the surrounding or associations (i.e., the societal norms); and 6) it must be perceived by the observer as harmless or painless to the participants. When these criteria have been met, people will laugh. If any one is absent, then the attempt at humor will fail. The Buddha spoke against humor at some else's expense, not all humor in general—according to my interpretation of that teaching to his son. Granted, the Buddha didn't go around cracking jokes all of the time, but I don't think that was a sign of his enlightenment (Mahayana records tell of many subsequent Buddhas [arahants] who did crack jokes and laugh all the time…hence, `The Happy Buddha'…who I am beginning to resemble with all the food this holiday season ). I believe the Lord Buddha's predominately cool temperament was a result of him being raised as a Prince. Royality is expected and taught to act dignified and proper at all times and any type of humor is supposed to be dry and subtle at the very least. The Buddha was always a leader, even when seeking enlightenment. He would obviously know the responsibility that position held, social customs and mores expected, and was therefore prim and proper most of the time. Question: Did the Buddha ever smile? I think he must have. He wasn't Vulcan . Side Note: Sarah, you write, "For the arahants all lobha has been eradicated (and also for the anagamis except for a few very refined kinds not related to sense-pleasures)." Now, this statement really makes me smile. Please take the following statements as kind and not nasty: Just how many arahants and anagamis have you psychoanalyzed to make this determination? This is an `allness' statement and, giving the diversity of human nature, `allness' statements are very unlikely to be correct when applied to humans (or anything really). This is another issue I have with the Abhidhamma. It leads people to believe they know something that they cannot possibly know. The Buddha taught not to believe something unless it is experienced first-hand, and yet the Abhidhamma asks people to believe all sorts of things not experienced first-hand. That is, if it is to be taken literally; if it is to be taken symbolically, that is another issue. I eagerly await Nina's response to that. And, according to the Sutta Pitaka, arahants still have traces of defilements (of which `lobha', greed, is one) or they would disappear in a puff of smoke . Even the Lord Buddha had traces of defilements but his were practically nil because he had been purifying his karma stream for so many eons (according to the suttas and him…but that is up for argument also). Smiling Metta, James Ps. I find Thanissaro's translations of the suttas without equal. "I destroy him, Kesi" would not make any sense in context to the remainder of the sutta. Why would the Buddha say, "I destroy him, Kesi" and then later say, "`True it is, Kesi, that taking life does not become a Tathagata…" I can `destroy' someone's reputation; I can `destroy' a building, etc. This is obviously about taking life, `killing' as opposed to `destroying'. Thanissaro has proven time and time again that he knows these important subtleties in the English Language. We should all thank our lucky stars he decided to become a monk rather than a field more lucrative. 17646 From: nidive Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:34am Subject: Re: nibbana Dear Larry, > Anyone who asserts that nibbana must be other than a mere > cessation must find that otherness in the ariyan's life because > the cessation of defilements is nibbana and that cessation is > lived with. > What do you think? I agree with you: nibbana is cessation. Anyone who says that nibbana is equivalent to "anatta" or "emptiness" misses the whole point. If nibbana is equivalent to "anatta" or "emptiness", there could be no escape from that which is Conditioned, i.e. cittas, cetasikas and rupas, which are themselves "anatta" or "empty". Nibbana is the cessation of that arising, the cessation of that momentary existence, and the cessation of that dissolution. NEO Swee Boon 17647 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:50am Subject: Silabbata-paramasa Christine: Did you mean to say "silabbataparamasa (clinging to SILA and wrong practice)" ? I thought it was 'attachment to mere rules and ritual'. --------------- Dear Christine, Oh yes, I meant to say it. I sort of hoped though that I'd get away without having to explain it:). Silabbataparamasa: A common translation of this term is "attachment to mere rules and rituals." And this is a good translation for the more gross forms but doesn't quite clarify the meaning of the more subtle types. The meaning of sila is habit -which can be right or wrong. And in fact even right sila can be part of silabbataparamsa: In the Visuddhimagga XV11267. : "[he] thinks through Silabbataparamasa, 'This rite and ritual leads him who perfects it to perfect bliss... So silabataparamsa is a condition for all three namely the sense-desire, fine-material and immaterial kinds of becoming with their analysis and their synthesis". Thus one cane even develop jhana, be perfect in conduct but still be mired in silabbataparamasa. However, lets just consider the clinging which is very gross: When I first started in buddhism I grasped on to sila once I heard that it was the basis for all attainments. But grasping is always without wisdom and so it actualy made my life more difficult. Since then I see many new buddhists getting more uptight, having guilty feelings etc because of not comprehending that the path leads towards freedom- not entrapment. And the entrapment related to wrong practice can be gross or subtle. If right view is developing there will be a letting go of these aspects of grasping little by little. Needless to say this is much more profound than thinking, "ok sila and practice can be grasped, thus I'll run amok to show my lack of clinging". A good explanation of this is the conversation between Venerable Piyadhammo(David)and Dan (nice to see him on the list today ) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/8673 Robert ADVERTISEMENT 17648 From: Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 4:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong speech in Jest Hi, James - In a message dated 12/12/02 3:32:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > Hey All, > > I would challenge anyone to read this sutta: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-111.html > > and then state that the Buddha didn't have a sense of humor, crack > jokes, startle people for comic effect, or misrepresent the truth > for comic effect. > > Metta, James > ========================== I read the sutta. I agree with your evaluation except for the business of the Buddha's being misleading, for that was only momentary and was *immediately* followed by the clarification that metaphor was being used. With metta-for you, ;-) 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) 17649 From: robmoult Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:10pm Subject: [dsg] Re: If volition is conditioned: what difference between kamma and v... Hi Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I hope that there is some merit to it and that > it is not fully off-base. I readily admit that it is merely a point of view, > and I do not hold it in a firm grasp. > ---------------------------------------------------- Thanks for clarifying those points. I understand your perspective better now. I would like to continue this thread in a slightly different way. I think we can agree that your point of view is a very liberal interpretation of the Dhamma as laid out in the Tipitaka and supporting commentaries / subcommentaries. You've obviously done some thinking about this. I am assuming that your decision to take a very liberal approach arises because you are not comfortable with a more literal approach to the Tipitaka. I would be interested in knowing in what areas the Tipitaka just doesn't feel right for you. My intention is not to argue with you but to explore those areas more deeply. Would you be interested in continuing this thread using this approach? Metta, Rob M :-) 17650 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:16pm Subject: Re: Silabbata-paramasa Dear Robert, and all, You say: "even right sila can be part of silabbataparamsa" and "lets just consider the clinging which is very gross: When I first started in buddhism I grasped on to sila once I heard that it was the basis for all attainments. But grasping is always without wisdom and so it actualy made my life more difficult." C: I agree that grasping is without wisdom, but diligently following the basic ethical teaching of the Blessed One, not doing evil, cultivating virtue and purifying the mind doesn't necessarily equate to clinging, does it? Without 'seeing danger in the slightest fault', without cultivating sila to be as close as possible to the templates laid down in the Suttas, wouldn't one be likely to be deluded, find moral loopholes, convince oneself that what one really wants to do is part of a 'higher wisdom' free from 'rules' and 'precepts'? Perhaps that is more nearly clinging ... clinging to self? Thanks for this post which has left me a little bemused and reflecting. metta, Christine --- "rjkjp1 " wrote: 17651 From: Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 9:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: If volition is conditioned: what difference between kamma and v... Hi, Rob - In a message dated 12/12/02 4:10:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > >--------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > I hope that there is some merit to it and that > >it is not fully off-base. I readily admit that it is merely a > point of view, > >and I do not hold it in a firm grasp. > >---------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for clarifying those points. I understand your perspective > better now. I would like to continue this thread in a slightly > different way. > > I think we can agree that your point of view is a very liberal > interpretation of the Dhamma as laid out in the Tipitaka and > supporting commentaries / subcommentaries. > > You've obviously done some thinking about this. I am assuming that > your decision to take a very liberal approach arises because you are > not comfortable with a more literal approach to the Tipitaka. I > would be interested in knowing in what areas the Tipitaka just > doesn't feel right for you. My intention is not to argue with you > but to explore those areas more deeply. > > Would you be interested in continuing this thread using this > approach? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > ============================== I will start right now. I have no argument with the Tipitaka nor do I think that my interpretation contradicts it, but is simply a way of understanding it. Though I have no ready reference (I'm quite poor at citations), I believe there are places in the suttas where this very body-mind is identified as both the empirical person and as "the world". The five khandhas (of a single namarupic stream) are "the world", and nibbana, their cessation, is "the end of the world". In some sutta, that is the answer the Buddha gives for how one reaches the "end of the world". So, I am in line with the suttas in that respect. Also, that such phenomena as solidity, sights, sounds, touch sensations, feelings, volition, discernment etc, etc, all "internal phenomena", constitute a greater reality than trees, rocks, cars, and people, the apparent "external" entities that Abhidhamma, explicity, and the suttas, less explicitly, dismiss as mind-constructed pa~n~natti puts me somewhat in line with both of those baskets My phenomenalist interpretation of the Dhamma is not cut from whole cloth. It has been noted by many that Buddhism is, if not an outright species of phenomenalism, at least a species of phenomenology. Also, that kamma, defined by the Buddha as volition and volitional action, is the motive force of the world is at least implicit in the Dhamma. This in fact, may be why the Theravadins understand the paranibbana of an arahant as constituting an irreversible leaving of the world, for there remains no further kamma vipaka to sustain the wheel of becoming. (Actually, some Mahayanists accept this as well. Nagarjuna seems to express this at the end of his discussion of the 12-link wheel of dependent origination in his Mulamadhymikakarika.) That sentient beings living in a common realm cognize the same or similar "external things" clearly points to their having similar kammic accumulations - at least it does to me. So I view shared realms of experience as the result, directly and indirectly, of kammic contributions of many "beings". Now, if I'm wrong on this, well, that's okay. I have nothing riding on it. All that I consider of major importance is to walk lightly through life, without grasping - or as little as possible, following the Buddha's prescription for liberation, and with love and compassion for my fellow travellers. 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) 17652 From: phrapiyadhammo Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 2:17pm Subject: The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path In the Vibhangha, The Book of Analysis. The second book of the Abhidhamma. Translated from the Pali of the Burmese Chatthasangiti Edition by, Pathamakyaw Ashin Thittila (Setthila) Aggamahpandita. Pali Text Society Oxford. Chapter 11 Analysis of the Path Constituents #2 Analysis According to Abhidhamma, starting with verse number 490. through verse number 492. gives an analysis of the Eight Constituent Path with the factors, of course as we all know are: right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. Then verse 493. States the Five Constituent Path is: right view, right thought, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. Of course Sammaditthi and Sammasankappa are Panna. Sammavayama, Sammasati, and sammasamadhi are Samadhi. Verse 494. states: Therein what is the Five Constituent Path? Herein at the time when a Bhikkhu develops supramundane jhana tending to release, dispersive of continuing rebirth and death; he for the abandoning of wrong view, for entering of the first stage, aloof from sense pleasures, attains and dwells in the first jhana that is hard to practice and knowledge slowly acquired; at that time there is the Five Constituent Path right view, right thought, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. Verses 495. through 497. give an analysis of the five factors right view, right thought, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. In Dhamma Metta Phra Piyadhammo 17653 From: Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 9:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path Hi, Bhante - In a message dated 12/12/02 5:19:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, phrapiyadhammo@y... writes: > > In the Vibhangha, The Book of Analysis. The second book of the > Abhidhamma. Translated from the Pali of the Burmese Chatthasangiti > Edition by, Pathamakyaw Ashin Thittila (Setthila) Aggamahpandita. > Pali Text Society Oxford. > > Chapter 11 Analysis of the Path Constituents #2 Analysis According to > Abhidhamma, starting with verse number 490. through verse number 492. > gives an analysis of the Eight Constituent Path with the factors, of > course as we all know are: right view, right thought, right speech, > right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, > right concentration. > > Then verse 493. States the Five Constituent Path is: right view, > right thought, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. > Of course Sammaditthi and Sammasankappa are Panna. Sammavayama, > Sammasati, and sammasamadhi are Samadhi. > > Verse 494. states: Therein what is the Five Constituent Path? Herein > at the time when a Bhikkhu develops supramundane jhana tending to > release, dispersive of continuing rebirth and death; he for the > abandoning of wrong view, for entering of the first stage, aloof from > sense pleasures, attains and dwells in the first jhana that is hard > to practice and knowledge slowly acquired; at that time there is the > Five Constituent Path right view, right thought, right effort, right > mindfulness, right concentration. > > Verses 495. through 497. give an analysis of the five factors right > view, right thought, right effort, right mindfulness, and right > concentration. > > In Dhamma > Metta > Phra Piyadhammo > > > ============================ Thank you for this, Bhante! You are so fortunate to have an English-language version of the Abhidhamma available to you. Actually, I would presume that good fortune had nothing to do with it, but only good kamma! :-) 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) 17655 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 4:14pm Subject: Friday nonsense [Re: Posts slow in appearing] Hi RobM, How fortuate you only THOUGHT of making disparaging remarks about the intellectual capabilities of Australians. :) (do I sound fierce?) :) If you had, I would have been forced to sound The Australaise and call out the Aussies on the List to attend to you. A bit of a problem with the two hour delay at that point. :) This would have been excruciating to you, as I would have had to sing it to the tune of Onward Christian Soldiers, and insert within the dotted lines the Great Australian Adjective. "Fellers of Australier, Blokes an' coves an' coots, Shift yer --- carcases, Move yer --- boots. Gird yer --- loins up, Get yer --- gun,(perhaps as a buddhist I should substitute 'bun'?) Set the --- enermy An' watch the blighters run." (C.J. Dennis) On the other hand, I could simply unmask the identity of the only person who couldn't find others he knew in the Shangri-la lobby in HK. Who sat three tables away behind a pot plant, and had to ring on his mobile phone after 45 minutes so someone could walk twenty feet and escort him? But I won't. :-) {Can you tell I'm still on holidays?} much metta, Christine (clearly practising abstinence from any form of right speech) --- "robmoult " wrote: > Hi Christine, > > I am tempted to make a derogatory comment about Australians, but I > realize that there are many of you out there :-) > 17656 From: peterdac4298 Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 4:25pm Subject: Re: The Three Abstinences Hi Christine Ajhan Cha would tell us to watch the perplexity, doubt and confusion in the moment that they arose, 'cause that is where we get enlightened. From his pov, the whole point of the Vinaya is two fold, a/ the basis for developing tranquility, and b/ just this kind of predicament. I have heard of one instance, and I think it was Ajhan Sumedho who told the story, that there was an occasion of termite infestation of one of the monastery buildings, might have been a sala or a kuti. On this occasion there was no alternative but to kill the insects. Ajhan Cha took part in, if not actually led, the operation too. Needless to say this situation was distinctly a one off. Sangha credibility would never have survived a repetition. Fortunately, to my knowledge, the need for such extreme measures has never since arisen. Cheers Peter --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Thanks for telling us such a satisfying story! I catch the cane > toads in plastic shopping bags (so I don't have to touch them or > their poison glands) and take them up the road to the only street > light in the area (attracts a food source of moths etc.) and release > them. Though I now wonder about the poor moths and my responsibility > in their deaths. The dog and local moths vs the moths up the > road .... > And I DO understand the sensitivity of Aussie Environmentalists to > not eradicating this introduced pest which is devastating to small > fauna. But it is another Being, and our individual behaviour is > covered by the Dhamma, so what is one to do? > > metta, > Christine > > > Hi Christine > > > > At Wat Ba Pong and branches, where forest rats, (looking more like > > mice to me) plagued the monastery kitchen, were routinely caught, > > kept in a paper bag over night (for some reason they never tried to > > get out of these bags, even though their jaws were very powerful > and > > teeth needle sharp). We released them the following mornings on > > alms round at any place considered to be midway between the Wat and > > the village to which the monks would be visiting that morning. > > > > Cheers > > Peter 17657 From: robmoult Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 4:38pm Subject: Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi Howard, I think that I am starting to understand where my confusion is coming from. Allow me to define two different views; an "ethical view" and a "scientific view". I see these two views as quite distinct and perhaps even unrelated. For example, in the past century there has been major scientific progress, but it could be said this has not translated into ethical progress. I see Buddhism as working in the domain of the "ethical view". I see the ethical view as purely internal and as such, I strongly agree with your phenomenological approach. Last night I read that the proximate cause of rupa is "consciousness (vinnana)", according to Abhidhammatthasangahadipanipali (that's a mouthful!). Saying that consciousness it is a necessary condition for rupa to arise clearly supports a phenomenological perspective. Rupa only has relevance in the ethical view when it touches consciousness. Again, ethical view is purely internal. But what about that "stuff" out there that doesn't touch consciousness (i.e. the "sound" from the tree that falls in the forest with none to hear it)? I believe that according to Buddhism, this is not rupa because there is no consciousness. It is "out there", it is external. The "stuff" that is "out there" (the external stuff that doesn't touch consciousness) is not part of the ethical view. The ethical view does not make any statements about its existence or non- existence; it is simply not on the radar screen. Using strict definitions, I can't call it "rupa", so I will call it "apur" (rupa spelled backwards; I checked in my 1778 page Pali-English dictionary and apur is not already taken as a word :-) ). Apur is part of the scientific view. Scientists can write volumes about their analysis of apur and their models for apur. That is fine. The scientific view does not enter into the ethical realm. Last weekend, I attended a two day long Buddhist seminar that touched on the issues of ethics of cloning and euthanasia. Boy, are there challenges when science and ethics try to meet! As a Buddhist, I look at rupa from a purely phenomenological perspective. As a man of science, I look at apur from a purely non- phenomenological perspective. This does not create a dichotomy for me. What creates problems is when I try to mix views. If I try to extend the concept of rupa into the domain of science, I look like an Aristotelian (centuries out of date). Trying to take a scientific view on ethical issues is equally futile. Howard, I expect that you agree with most of what I am saying so far. Now let's look at "kamma". It is a critical part of the Buddhist ethical view. It says in a Sutta somewhere, "All beings are owners of their own kamma."; this emphasizes the "internal" nature of kamma. But what about the kamma of another being? Because it is not touching us at the moment, this "outside kamma", which I will call "ammak" ("ammak" is not in the big dictionary either). I have a hard time placing ammak in the scientific realm, but as it is external, it is not part of the ethical view. I would even go so far as to say that ammak is not part of Buddhism! Let's return to A hitting B. From the perspective of A, B is a condition and B's ammak is not relevant. From a phenomenological perspective, conditions exist but ammak does not. Similarly, from the perspective of B, A is a condition and A's ammak is not relevant. When the Buddha said, "Nibbana is the end of the world", he was speaking from an internal, phenomenological perspective, not from a scientific perspective. To summarize this long post, I am getting confused because I sense that you are moving a bit too freely between the ethical view and the scientific view. I could go on for a while longer, but this message is getting long and I want to get your feedback on what I have written so far. Metta (and "Attem") Rob M :-) 17658 From: James Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 4:48pm Subject: Re: The Three Abstinences --- "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Hi Christine > > Ajhan Cha would tell us to watch the perplexity, doubt and confusion > in the moment that they arose, 'cause that is where we get > enlightened. From his pov, the whole point of the Vinaya is two > fold, a/ the basis for developing tranquility, and b/ just this kind > of predicament. > > I have heard of one instance, and I think it was Ajhan Sumedho who > told the story, that there was an occasion of termite infestation of > one of the monastery buildings, might have been a sala or a kuti. > On this occasion there was no alternative but to kill the insects. > Ajhan Cha took part in, if not actually led, the operation too. > > Needless to say this situation was distinctly a one off. Sangha > credibility would never have survived a repetition. Fortunately, to > my knowledge, the need for such extreme measures has never since > arisen. > > Cheers > Peter Dear Peter, Thanks for this story. I was not aware of this story about Ajahn Chah and it is good to hear. I was recently at Wat Nanachat (August, 2002), within walking distance of Wat Pah Pong, with the goal of ordaining and the insect problem (not just termites) must have gotten much worse since Ajahn Chah's death. I felt, deep in my bones, that the entire area needed a thorough insect extermination. And I would single-handedly do it also!! -- For the sake of the Sangha and the sake of the insects. That such shortsighted silly people in the area don't see as much, I have no idea. I disagree that such an act would destroy Sangha credibility. And if it did, then so be it. In that case, it would demonstrate that the Sangha had lost its credibility anyway. Metta, James 17659 From: phrapiyadhammo Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 4:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path Howard, Your welcome. Came across the Five Constituent Path in my studies and thought I would share it. Right now Phra Maha Arkorn is having me memorize Vibangha and chant it in Pali also (besides the English language version of the Abhidhamma). Much Metta Phra Piyadhammo > ============================ > Thank you for this, Bhante! You are so fortunate to have an > English-language version of the Abhidhamma available to you. Actually, I > would presume that good fortune had nothing to do with it, but only good > kamma! :-) > > With metta, > Howard 17660 From: Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 11:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi, Rob - I find this a very interesting post of yours. I can see points of agreement between us and points of difference. I will give a full reply to this, but not immediately. I couldn't do it justice right now, because I'm running a bit of a fever and posibly have a recurrence of asthmatic bronchitis that landed me in the hospital a few months ago. (I hope to see the doctor tomorrow.) Please, in a week or so, if I haven't replied yet, do give me a reminder. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/12/02 7:40:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > I think that I am starting to understand where my confusion is > coming from. > > Allow me to define two different views; an "ethical view" and > a "scientific view". I see these two views as quite distinct and > perhaps even unrelated. For example, in the past century there has > been major scientific progress, but it could be said this has not > translated into ethical progress. > > I see Buddhism as working in the domain of the "ethical view". I see > the ethical view as purely internal and as such, I strongly agree > with your phenomenological approach. Last night I read that the > proximate cause of rupa is "consciousness (vinnana)", according to > Abhidhammatthasangahadipanipali (that's a mouthful!). Saying that > consciousness it is a necessary condition for rupa to arise clearly > supports a phenomenological perspective. > > Rupa only has relevance in the ethical view when it touches > consciousness. Again, ethical view is purely internal. But what > about that "stuff" out there that doesn't touch consciousness (i.e. > the "sound" from the tree that falls in the forest with none to hear > it)? I believe that according to Buddhism, this is not rupa because > there is no consciousness. It is "out there", it is external. > > The "stuff" that is "out there" (the external stuff that doesn't > touch consciousness) is not part of the ethical view. The ethical > view does not make any statements about its existence or non- > existence; it is simply not on the radar screen. Using strict > definitions, I can't call it "rupa", so I will call it "apur" (rupa > spelled backwards; I checked in my 1778 page Pali-English dictionary > and apur is not already taken as a word :-) ). > > Apur is part of the scientific view. Scientists can write volumes > about their analysis of apur and their models for apur. That is > fine. The scientific view does not enter into the ethical realm. > Last weekend, I attended a two day long Buddhist seminar that > touched on the issues of ethics of cloning and euthanasia. Boy, are > there challenges when science and ethics try to meet! > > As a Buddhist, I look at rupa from a purely phenomenological > perspective. As a man of science, I look at apur from a purely non- > phenomenological perspective. This does not create a dichotomy for > me. What creates problems is when I try to mix views. If I try to > extend the concept of rupa into the domain of science, I look like > an Aristotelian (centuries out of date). Trying to take a scientific > view on ethical issues is equally futile. > > Howard, I expect that you agree with most of what I am saying so > far. Now let's look at "kamma". It is a critical part of the > Buddhist ethical view. It says in a Sutta somewhere, "All beings are > owners of their own kamma."; this emphasizes the "internal" nature > of kamma. But what about the kamma of another being? Because it is > not touching us at the moment, this "outside kamma", which I will > call "ammak" ("ammak" is not in the big dictionary either). > > I have a hard time placing ammak in the scientific realm, but as it > is external, it is not part of the ethical view. I would even go so > far as to say that ammak is not part of Buddhism! > > Let's return to A hitting B. From the perspective of A, B is a > condition and B's ammak is not relevant. From a phenomenological > perspective, conditions exist but ammak does not. Similarly, from > the perspective of B, A is a condition and A's ammak is not relevant. > > When the Buddha said, "Nibbana is the end of the world", he was > speaking from an internal, phenomenological perspective, not from a > scientific perspective. > > To summarize this long post, I am getting confused because I sense > that you are moving a bit too freely between the ethical view and > the scientific view. > > I could go on for a while longer, but this message is getting long > and I want to get your feedback on what I have written so far. > > Metta (and "Attem") > Rob M :-) > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 17661 From: selamat at cbn Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 5:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path Bhante Piyadhammo, do you have the English version of Yamaka? I try to look after the book everywhere but have not found it. metta, selamat rodjali dhamma study group bogor indonesia ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 7:52 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path > Howard, > > Your welcome. Came across the Five Constituent Path in my studies and > thought I would share it. Right now Phra Maha Arkorn is having me > memorize Vibangha and chant it in Pali also (besides the English > language version of the Abhidhamma). > > Much Metta > Phra Piyadhammo > > > ============================ > > Thank you for this, Bhante! You are so fortunate to have an > > English-language version of the Abhidhamma available to you. > Actually, I > > would presume that good fortune had nothing to do with it, but only > good > > kamma! :-) > > > > With metta, > > Howard 17662 From: phrapiyadhammo Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 5:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Howard, I know you will take care of yourself, but I have to say it...please do take care of yourself. Please, let us know how you are doing after you go to the doctor tommorow! Metta, May you be healthy and strong, May you take care of yourself Phra Piyadhammo 17663 From: phrapiyadhammo Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 5:45pm Subject: Re: The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path Hello Selamat, Our Wat has the entire Tipitaka in Thai, Pali, and English. Unfortunantley our Chaowat was very kind and let a westerner borrow the Yamaka. It has been a couple of years, and the person never returned it. Fortunantly it is all he took, and thankfully our Chaowat has been kind only once concerning the English Tipitaka! The book may be out of print by the Pali text society. Mrs. Rhys Davids called it a valley of dry bones a hundred years ago, and probably killed much of any intrest in it. Metta In Dhamma Piyadhammo Bhikkhu > Bhante Piyadhammo, > do you have the English version of Yamaka? I try to look after the book > everywhere but have not found it. > > metta, > selamat rodjali > dhamma study group bogor > indonesia 17664 From: robmoult Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 5:50pm Subject: Take Care of Yourself Hi Howard, Please take care of yourself - I can wait a week or more; your health is very important. Metta, Rob M :-) 17665 From: Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 0:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi, Bhante - Thank you! You are very kind. I'm sure I'm pretty much okay. My fever isn't anywhere as high as last time (when it exceeded 104 F). With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/12/02 8:12:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, phrapiyadhammo@y... writes: > Howard, > > I know you will take care of yourself, but I have to say it...please > do take care of yourself. Please, let us know how you are doing after > you go to the doctor tommorow! > > Metta, May you be healthy and strong, > May you take care of yourself > Phra Piyadhammo > > /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) 17666 From: Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 0:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Take Care of Yourself Hi, Rob - In a message dated 12/12/02 8:51:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Please take care of yourself - I can wait a week or more; your > health is very important. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > ====================== Thank you, Rob! I hope to continue our conversation soon! 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) 17667 From: James Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 6:05pm Subject: Re: Take Care of Yourself Dear Howard, Oh my goodness! That sounds quite serious! Words like `hospital', `asthmatic bronchitis', and `fever' don't sound good to me…and ring many warning bells. Eeeekkkk!! Being ever mindful of myself (transient self), I realize the subtle and not-so- subtle attachment I have to you. Dhamma Grandpa, please take care! I, if not many more, depend on you. Good thoughts for your speedy recovery!! Metta, James 17668 From: dragonwriter2 Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 6:06pm Subject: Christine Re: Emptiness? Hi Christine, Thanks for your reply and an overt apology for not replying sooner :) "Are you still in Sulawesi?" No May you be happy May you be well May you be at ease Metta, Simon 17669 From: selamat at cbn Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 5:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path Ven Bhante, greatly appreciate your info. We still wait the info till the book returned to your Wat. Or does anyone in this mail list have the book? Abhidhamma is great for our practice in daily life. May ven Bhante and all in this list ever grow in the Dhamma. metta, selamat ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 8:45 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path > Hello Selamat, > > Our Wat has the entire Tipitaka in Thai, Pali, and English. > Unfortunantley our Chaowat was very kind and let a westerner borrow > the Yamaka. It has been a couple of years, and the person never > returned it. Fortunantly it is all he took, and thankfully our > Chaowat has been kind only once concerning the English Tipitaka! The > book may be out of print by the Pali text society. Mrs. Rhys Davids > called it a valley of dry bones a hundred years ago, and probably > killed much of any intrest in it. > > Metta > In Dhamma > Piyadhammo Bhikkhu > > > Bhante Piyadhammo, > > do you have the English version of Yamaka? I try to look after the > book > > everywhere but have not found it. > > > > metta, > > selamat rodjali > > dhamma study group bogor > > indonesia > > 17670 From: phrapiyadhammo Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 6:21pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path Dear Selamat, A note to make a correction. I talked to another Bhikkhu here and he said the book that is missing is The Points of Contoversy (Kathavatha). He said that the Pali Text Society never published the Yamaka. Sorry about the confusion. It happened when I checked for Yamaka in our Tipitaka and could not find it. I remembered that my Achaan had lent a Book of the Abhidhamma which was not ever returned. I assumed that was the missing book was the Yamaka. Metta Phra Piyadhammo > Ven Bhante, > greatly appreciate your info. We still wait the info till the book returned > to your Wat. Or does anyone in this mail list have the book? > > Abhidhamma is great for our practice in daily life. > > May ven Bhante and all in this list ever grow in the Dhamma. > > metta, > selamat 17671 From: selamat at cbn Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 6:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path ok Bhante, no problem. anumodana for your kind attention. muditacittena, selamat ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 9:21 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path > Dear Selamat, > > A note to make a correction. I talked to another Bhikkhu here and he > said the book that is missing is The Points of Contoversy > (Kathavatha). He said that the Pali Text Society never published the > Yamaka. Sorry about the confusion. It happened when I checked for > Yamaka in our Tipitaka and could not find it. I remembered that my > Achaan had lent a Book of the Abhidhamma which was not ever returned. > I assumed that was the missing book was the Yamaka. > > Metta > Phra Piyadhammo > > > Ven Bhante, > > greatly appreciate your info. We still wait the info till the book > returned > > to your Wat. Or does anyone in this mail list have the book? > > > > Abhidhamma is great for our practice in daily life. > > > > May ven Bhante and all in this list ever grow in the Dhamma. > > > > metta, > > selamat > > 17672 From: Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 7:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path Hi Selamat, Try this: http://www.pariyatti.com/book.phtml?prod_id=132765 Larry 17673 From: Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 7:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path Hi again Selamat, I just noticed. Its in pali. Sorry Larry ps: maybe you could translate it 17674 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 7:07pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path Dear Selamat, I have heard from a gentleman in Malaysia that the Burmese have translated the Yamaka into English (presumably sponsored by the Department for the Promotion and Propagation of the Sasana). I have a copy of their Dhammasangani translation. It's not great, but it beats the Mrs. Rhys Davids translation from 1900. My Dhs. says it was "Printed in the Union of Myanmar at the AZ Offset by U Myint Wynn Maung (04504), 118 Pathein Myay Quarter, Dawpn Township, Yangon." You could try contacting them about Yamaka. Mrs. Rhys Davids "valley of dry bones" comment dampened any potential interest of mine in Yamaka before that interest could even sprout. That changed when I read a wonderful and insightful essay by Ledi Sayadaw in the "Journal of the Pali Text Society" (v. VII, pp. 115- 163). The essay is entitled "Some points in Buddhist doctrine," and much of it is derived from his understanding of Yamaka -- great stuff. The "pairs" may be "dry bones" to some, but careful consideration of the pairs can surely clarify subtle shades of meanings of various concepts (one would think). If you should come across a copy, please let me know how I could too! (Best to do it off- list because I rarely pop in at dsg these days.) Dan > > Ven Bhante, > > greatly appreciate your info. We still wait the info till the book > returned > > to your Wat. Or does anyone in this mail list have the book? > > > > Abhidhamma is great for our practice in daily life. > > > > May ven Bhante and all in this list ever grow in the Dhamma. > > > > metta, > > selamat 17675 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:43pm Subject: Re: Ethical View vs. Scientific View --- "robmoult " wrote: >. Last night I read that the > proximate cause of rupa is "consciousness (vinnana)", according to > Abhidhammatthasangahadipanipali (that's a mouthful!). Saying that > consciousness it is a necessary condition for rupa to arise clearly > supports a phenomenological perspective. > > the "sound" from the tree that falls in the forest with none to hear > it)? I believe that according to Buddhism, this is not rupa because > there is no consciousness. ______________________ Dear Rob M, Could you give the full references that support these conclusions. Robert 17676 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:49pm Subject: Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman Hi Sarah, This takes me back to the dsg discussion meeting held on a balcony of the Noosa Sheraton in July. One of your old friends, (Gilli?), and I were giving you the third degree. We were trying to impress upon you, the need for social and environmental action. I should add that you and Jon put us all to shame, being as you are, the most considerate and responsible couple a person could ever hope to meet. But there you were, seemingly unimpressed by the need to go out and make the world a better place.(!) I think you gave the example of a person actually bulldozing a tree -- you said we can't know the state of his mind at any one moment. It could be kusala; while, with a person planting a tree or waving a protest banner, it could be akusala. I couldn't see that tree planting, even though ultimately unreal, was not better than bulldozing. I nodded in pretend agreement, vowing to myself that I would eventually understand what on earth you were on about. Well, here's my chance because you have put the same sort of thing down in writing. It's probably no different from the usual explanations of absolute reality verses conventional reality, but for some reason, it's particularly hard for me to grasp. Whenever this point is grasped, I think there will be more acceptance of our present circumstances. Even Red Cross volunteers won't consider themselves superior to butchers and vice versa. In reality, there are no Red Cross volunteers, no butchers, no occupations, just nama and rupa . -- the real Right Livelihood can occur anywhere at any time. It's hard to grasp and sometimes, we don't want to grasp it. The main thing is that we're working on it :-) Kind regards Ken H --- Sarah wrote: 17677 From: Sarah Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 9:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path Dear Phra Piyadhammo, Thank you for providing the reference and interesting/dificult points from the Vibhanga: --- "phrapiyadhammo " wrote: ..... > Then verse 493. States the Five Constituent Path is: right view, > right thought, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. > Of course Sammaditthi and Sammasankappa are Panna. Sammavayama, > Sammasati, and sammasamadhi are Samadhi. > > Verse 494. states: Therein what is the Five Constituent Path? Herein > at the time when a Bhikkhu develops supramundane jhana tending to > release, dispersive of continuing rebirth and death; he for the > abandoning of wrong view, for entering of the first stage, aloof from > sense pleasures, attains and dwells in the first jhana that is hard > to practice and knowledge slowly acquired; at that time there is the > Five Constituent Path right view, right thought, right effort, right > mindfulness, right concentration. > > Verses 495. through 497. give an analysis of the five factors right > view, right thought, right effort, right mindfulness, and right > concentration. ..... I wonder if you have a copy of the commentary to the Vibhanga. the Sammohavinodani (Dispeller of Delusion) in your monastery also? It gives very detailed additional commentary notes on this section of the Abhidhamma which I find very helpful (too much to type out). In brief it explains that in this particular context the noble (ariyo) eighfold path is meant: “...although “eightfold” is not said, it should nevertheless be understood as eightfold, for there is no supramundane path called fivefold. This is the agreed commentary of the teachers here.” A lot of detail is given including interesting reference to some of the MN suttas being discussed in other threads. The 3 virati “occur previously purified.” If you don’t have access to the commentary and would like me to add more detail, pls let me know. You may also like to review some earlier posts on the 5-fold/8-fold posts under 'Eightfold Path' in Useful Posts. It’s hard for me to imagine memorizing the Vibhanga in Pali. Anumodana in your efforts in these endeavours. Sarah ====== 17678 From: robmoult Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 9:31pm Subject: Re: Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi Rob K, The book that I was reading is "An Introduction to Theravada Abhidhamma" by G. D. Sumanapala (Prof of Pali and Buddhist Studies at University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka). It was published by Buddhist Research Society Singapore in 1998. In Chapter 5, "The Abhidhamma Analysis of the Four Realities (Paramatthadhamma)", on p79 of this text, it says: According to the four way of definition: 1. the characterisitic of rupa is molestation 2. its function is scattering or dispersing 3. its manifestation is abyakata 4. its proximate cause is consciousness (vinnana) For point 4 above, there is an end-note referencing page 10 of Abhidhammatthasangahadipanipali. It does not give any other details. The rest of the message is my own conclusions. Metta, Rob M :-) --- "rjkjp1 " wrote: > --- "robmoult > " wrote: > >. Last night I read that the > > proximate cause of rupa is "consciousness (vinnana)", according to > > Abhidhammatthasangahadipanipali (that's a mouthful!). Saying that > > consciousness it is a necessary condition for rupa to arise clearly > > supports a phenomenological perspective. > > > > > the "sound" from the tree that falls in the forest with none to hear > > it)? I believe that according to Buddhism, this is not rupa because > > there is no consciousness. > ______________________ > Dear Rob M, > Could you give the full references that support these conclusions. > Robert 17679 From: Sarah Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 11:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman Hi Ken H, ( Chris, ‘n All) We both really enjoyed our discussions with you and other friends in Noosa. Any 'third degree' questioning was done so skilfully and pleasantly that it was no hardship at all. Thanks for reminding me of the topics. When I wrote the post yesterday, we hadn’t read any of the ones that had come in earlier that day on ‘Rt Livelihood’ including Christine’s helpful reminders about the ‘how’ rather than the ‘what’. Although we’re only joking most the time when we talk about the poor used car salesmen or other favourite ‘targets’, I think some of our ideas can be very deep-rooted as you explain so well yourself: -- "kenhowardau " wrote: > > Whenever this point is grasped, I think there will be > more acceptance of our present circumstances. Even Red > Cross volunteers won't consider themselves superior to > butchers and vice versa. In reality, there are no Red > Cross volunteers, no butchers, no occupations, just nama > and rupa . -- the real Right Livelihood can > occur anywhere at any time. It's hard to grasp and sometimes, > we don't want to grasp it. The main thing is that we're working > on it :-) .... Yes, it’s similar to our deep-seated beliefs in a favourable time, place and position to develop satipatthana. So often we fail to see the entrenched lobha and views behind these ideas. As Christine said, there has been very little discussion on Right Livelihood or the 3 viratis on DSG to date, especially considering how much there has been on other topics such as ‘luminous’ and nibbana;-) I’m glad you’ve all raised these points with some good team-work and sharing of drafts folder notes;-). Prompted by your comments (and at the risk of over-kill), let me add a few more quotes and comments: ***** From the Vibhanga (PTS transl p.311): “Therein what is right livelihood? That which is avoiding, desisting from, refraining from, abstaining from, not committing, not doing, being guiltless of, not over-stepping the limit of, destroying the causeway to wrong livelihood: right livelihood, path constituent, included in the path. This is called right livelihood.” ***** As with all other path factors, this refers to a single citta or series of citta arising together with the other 5-fold (mundane) or 8-fold (supramundane) path factors. As you suggest, it can arise anywhere, anytime when there is the opportunity for abstaining from wrong livelihood or transgression of the precepts in one’s daily work. ***** From Sammohavinodani1 (PTS transl by Nanamoli,p.142): “Right Livelihood ---------------------- In the description of Right Livelihoos, iddha (“here”) means “in the dispensation”. Ariyasaavako (“the noble disciple”) means the disciple of the Noble enlightened One. Micchaa-aajiva.m pahaaya (“abandoning wrong livelihood”) means by the profitable livelihood taught by the Enlightened One. Jiivita.m kappeti (“makes his living”): makes the process of life proceed. And also because there is abstaining from transgression in the body door by one consciousness and from transgression in the speech door by another, therefore this arises multiple moments in the prior stage. But at the moment of the path, profitable abstention called Right Livelihood arises singly, fulfilling the path factor by accomplishing non-arising because of cutting-away the foundation of the volition connected with the bad conduct of wrong livelihood which has arisen through the seven courses of action in the two doors. This is Right Livelihood” ***** We can see how understanding of realities - of namas and rupas - as you say, leads to restraint of the senses and developed sila in all forms: “Whenever a monk perceives a form with the eye, a sound........he neither adheres to the appearance as a whole, nor to its parts. And he strives to ward off that through which evil and unwholesome things, greed and sorrow, would arise, if he remained with unguarded senses; and he watches over his senses, restrains his senses” (MN 38, Nyantiloka transl) ***** (By ‘he’ watches or remains, should be understood sati, panna and so on). I’m sure we’re all concerned to ‘make the world a better place’ and invariably will consider lifestyles and conventionally regarded livelihoods or ‘causes’ rather than the development of satipatthana as being the ‘solution’. This reflects our lack of confidence in the Teachings as I see it. Even if we consider the monk’s life as being the ‘purest’ way of life, we may again forget what the real meaning of ‘Right Livelihood is: ***** From the Sammohavinodani1, p.176 “...But it is the volition which occurs in one who goes to a monastery, (thinking:) ‘I will go forth for the purpose of perfecting virtue,’ in one going forth and in one who, having reached the fulfilment of his wish, adverts: ‘I am indeed well and truly gone forth,’ in one exercising the Patimokkha restraint, in one reviewing such requisites as the robes, in one exercising restraint in the eye door regarding visible data, etc which have come into focus there, and in one ourifying his livelihood, that is called “made by virtue”. It is the volition which occurs in one who, according to the path of insight given in the Patisambhida, develops eye as impermanent, painful, no-self, in one who develops ear..mind..visible data...ageing and death as impermanent, painful and no-self, that is called “made by development”. “ ***** Just to emphasise the point that there can be many good and bad actions performed by us all for the sake of livelihood (though as others have mentioned, there may be more opportunities for ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in particular lifestyles), let me add one last quote to show that it is the deeply rooted kilesa, whatever the lifestyle, that are the real problem: ***** From Sammohavinodani 11, p.266 “Aajiivakabhaya.m (“fear due to livelihood”) is fear arisen due to livelihood, mode of life. that is to be found both in the householder and in one gone forth. Herein, many unprofitable things have been done by a householder for the sake of a livelihood; then when hell appears at the time of death, fear arises. By one gone forth also much wrong seeking (for requisites) has been done; then when hell appears at the time of his death, fear arises. This is called “fear due to livelihood”." **** As you said, Ken, the points are not easy to grasp and none of us start off with any right view;-). The dhamma is indeed deep and profound. It’s also liberating. Thanks Ken & Chris for your encouragement to consider further. Sarah ===== 17680 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 11:27pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Wrong speech in Jest Dear Sarah, James, and Christine, The commentaries don't have much on what the Buddha said, but has this: Kesi is the name of the horse trainer. He is a trainer because he trains horses that should be trained (to behave appropriately). The trainer appropriately maintains the horse by giving fine food, pure water, and fine words before the training, making this a gentle training. When he trains by tying the mouth, tying the knees, and stabbed with stick (???), whip, and harsh words, this is harsh training. If he does both when appropriate, it is both gentle and harsh training. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: Sarah [mailto:sarahdhhk@y...] > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:28 AM > Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong speech in Jest > > > Hi Christine & James, > > Yes, it’s an interesting sutta. > wrote: > > > > To me it just seems that the Buddha was trying > to speak to this man > > on a level he would understand. I think it > would be an area that > > the Buddha was familiar with - a good > understanding of the breeding > > and training of horses would have been a > requirement of the ruling > > and warrior classes which I understand the > Buddha came from. > > > I agree with these sentiments. > ..... > > --- "James > > > I would challenge anyone to read this sutta: > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-111.html > > > > and then state that the Buddha didn't have a sense of humor, crack > > jokes, startle people for comic effect, or misrepresent the truth > > for comic effect. ..... For the arahants all lobha has been eradicated (and also for the anagamis except for a few very refined kinds not related to sense-pleasures). I’m just looking at the PTS translation by Woodward, but no commentary notes are given. Hopefully B.Bodhi will add some with his new translation. Just a few phrases for your interest to compare -it’s very similar to B.Thanissaro’s: Instead of “I kill him, Kesi”, PTS has “I destroy him, Kesi!” and then: “ ‘True it is, Kesi, that taking life does not become a Tathagata. yet if the man to be trained submits not to the training by mildness, by harshness or both together, then the Tathagata thinks it is not worth while to admonish that man, nor do his wise fellows in the God-life think it worth while to admonish that man. This, kesi, is destruction for a man in the discipline of the Ariyan, - when both the Tathagata and his fellows in the God-life think it not worth while to admonish him.’ ........” These are very useful reminders, thanks James. I don’t read them as being humourous at all, though I understand why you read them this way. They are similar to the one I just quoted from Visuddhimagga (1, 154) about the ‘unvirtuous person’ who is ‘uninstructable by his fellows in the life of purity’. Sarah ====== 17681 From: robmoult Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 11:28pm Subject: Re: Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi Rob K （again）； I admit that I do not understand the proper definition of “Phenomenologyâ€? and therefore my statement “Saying that consciousness it is a necessary condition for rupa to arise clearly supports a phenomenological perspective.â€? may be misleading。 My definition of “phenomenologyâ€? is “we focus on things that touch the mindï¼› things that do not touch the mind are outside the scope of study。â€? If this definition is wrong，then I apologize for any confusion caused。 Metta， Rob M ：-） --- "robmoult " wrote: > Hi Rob K, > > The book that I was reading is "An Introduction to Theravada > Abhidhamma" by G. D. Sumanapala (Prof of Pali and Buddhist Studies > at University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka). It was published by Buddhist > Research Society Singapore in 1998. > > In Chapter 5, "The Abhidhamma Analysis of the Four Realities > (Paramatthadhamma)", on p79 of this text, it says: > > According to the four way of definition: > 1. the characterisitic of rupa is molestation > 2. its function is scattering or dispersing > 3. its manifestation is abyakata > 4. its proximate cause is consciousness (vinnana) > > For point 4 above, there is an end-note referencing page 10 of > Abhidhammatthasangahadipanipali. It does not give any other details. > > The rest of the message is my own conclusions. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > > --- "rjkjp1 " > wrote: > > --- "robmoult > > " wrote: > > >. Last night I read that the > > > proximate cause of rupa is "consciousness (vinnana)", according > to > > > Abhidhammatthasangahadipanipali (that's a mouthful!). Saying > that > > > consciousness it is a necessary condition for rupa to arise > clearly > > > supports a phenomenological perspective. > > > > > > > > the "sound" from the tree that falls in the forest with none to > hear > > > it)? I believe that according to Buddhism, this is not rupa > because > > > there is no consciousness. > > ______________________ > > Dear Rob M, > > Could you give the full references that support these conclusions. > > Robert 17682 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 11:33pm Subject: Moderator bulletin Dear Group, TRIMMING OF POSTS and other reminders ====================================== For those who didn't see the last reminder, we'd appreciate your cooperation with trimming of messages. When replying to someone's post, please retain only those parts that are necessary for the reader to see. This is both for the convenience to fellow members and to minimise the size of the future archives (Yahoo are now imposing limits). Repeat 'offenders' are likely to receive an off-list reminder on this or other infringements, such as 'off-topic' subjects or failure to use an appropriate 'sign-off'. (Kom and Christine have been volunteered to help). Please take any such reminders -- which may just be in the form of a subject heading -- as well-meant prompts for the smooth-running of the list. Thanks for your cooperation. Jon & Sarah P.S. Comments to moderator messages off-list only. Thanks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17683 From: Date: Thu Dec 12, 2002 7:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Take Care of Yourself Hi, James - In a message dated 12/12/02 9:06:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Dear Howard, > > Oh my goodness! That sounds quite serious! Words > like `hospital', `asthmatic bronchitis', and `fever' don't sound > good to me…and ring many warning bells. Eeeekkkk!! > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: ;-) It's much less of a thing this time - no hospital in my near future, I'm sure! I probably just need a few days of prednisone and the right antibiotic, or even just the prednisone will sufice. ------------------------------------------------ Being ever > > mindful of myself (transient self), I realize the subtle and not-so- > subtle attachment I have to you. Dhamma Grandpa, please take care! > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Now I'm *really* feeling old! I'm old enough to be your father, James, but "Grandpa" is push! ;-)) [You're in your 30's I presume? My older son is 33.] ------------------------------------------------ > I, if not many more, depend on you. Good thoughts for your speedy > recovery!! > > ========================= You're *very* kind, James. Thanks a lot! I'll be fine. 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) 17684 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 0:56am Subject: A mine of gems Dear Group, I suppose it's natural to have a 'favourite' among the Great Disciples - for me, it is Ananda. Ananda became a monk when he was thirty-seven years old and became a Sotapanna shortly thereafter, the Buddha was then fifty-five years old. Perhaps there were others of greater intellectual brilliance, perhaps not - Ananda wasn't just a thinking parrot or a living tape recorder. I've always felt that the gentle Ananda would understand people in their situations more acutely than the other great disciples. Even across the hurdle of time and through the filters of identity, gender and culture his intelligence, metta and karuna shine through. Ananda always seems so Real - there was no pretense or posturing as the perfect disciple to impress others, he didn't worry about making a mistake or not knowing everything, he seemed a genuinely loving person with the highest ethical standard. He wanted nothing for himself except perhaps progress on the Path, and so he engendered in others that most rare and precious of human responses, trust. He had the honour of being trusted by a Buddha, and the manner of his acceptance of the post of attendant shows the true calibre of the man. "It is time" [the Buddha] said, "to have a reliable, trustworthy attendant." He then asked if any of the assembled monks would like to be His personal attendant. All the noble ones gathered immediately responded to His request by offering their services. Ananda, however, who dearly wished to be His attendant, modestly held back, thinking, "The Buddha would surely appoint me if I were the most suitable person." The Buddha, with His divine eye, observed that many eons ago Ananda had aspired to be a personal attendant of a Buddha, the fulfilment of which was to occur during His reign. Refusing the offers of the other monks, He turned to Ananda and offered the post to him. Ananda agreed to accept the post if the Buddha would agree to eight conditions. Four of them related to the non-acceptance of gifts and favours from the Buddha. Ananda wanted to ensure that there would be no doubts cast that he had accepted this position in order to obtain material gain. The other four related to the performance of his duties while being mindful of his own advancement in the Noble Path. The Buddha agreed to Ananda's requests." (from Relatives and Disciples of the Buddha by Radhika Abeysekara.) Ananda was designated by the Buddha as the leader in five categories. They were: Erudition, Retentive memory, Good behaviour, Steadfastness, and Ministering of care. It is difficult to think of how bereft he must have been after the Blessed One's Parinibbana. Particularly when within a year, The Buddha, Sariputta, Moggallana and King Pasenadi had all died. But how fortunate we are that he endured in this life for so many more years as Guardian of the Dhamma. (Some Ananda verses from Great Disciples of the Buddha by Nyanaponika Thera and Hellmuth Hecker): "My companion has passed away, The Master, too, is gone. There is no friendship now that equals this: Mindfulness directed to the body. The old ones now have passed away, The new ones do not please me much, Today I meditate all alone Like a bird gone to its nest." ------------- And some added about Ananda afterwards: "Of great learning, bearer of the Dhamma, The guardian of the Great Seer's treasure, Ananda, the eye of the entire world, Was a dispeller of gloom on the darkness. The seer who was so retentive, Of keen memory and resolute, The elder sustaining the true Dhamma, Ananda was a mine of gems." ------------ metta, Christine 17685 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 5:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] question Stephen --- oreznoone@a... wrote: > <> I'm not sure about being 'symmetrical' but, yes, both would be instances of worldly conditions, for the recipient of the praise/blame (the hypothetical moderator). <<... in fact, the latter is perhaps likely to cause you harm (e.g., build your ego a bit) than the former, which I rather doubt would have much effect.>> I think you're saying that there would probably be more akusala conditioned by the praise than by the blame. I don't see how this can be known. A person's reaction depends on a number of factors including, of course, his/her accumulated tendencies, but also factors peculiar to the occasion in question. I really don't think it's possible to generalise on this, even for a given individual. <> Are you perhaps postulating action taken by the (hypothetical) moderator based solely or mainly on the akusala that is conditioned by the praise/blame in question, rather than on appropriate objective considerations? This is always possible, of course, since moderators are only human after all. But it would not necessarily be the case, since a moderator might be also be able to put personal considerations aside for the most part in such cases. I suspect I've missed your point somewhere, in which case, please feel free to say so. Jon 17686 From: Sarah Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 5:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Out of Cooran - Metta is first "developed" towards oneself :) Hi Steve, Thank you very much for all your helpful comments and translation points. I know Nina will also appreciate these too. --- "bodhi2500 " > "Sabbattataaya also occurs in the Appamannavibhango in the Vibhanga > quite a few times, but it seems always in the same context(I dont > have a eng. translation) > --------------------- I have an Eng translation but no Pali in it;-) There is a whole chapter of the 4 brahma viharas. Almost at the end under "2. The couplets", it says they "are external". I'm not sure what this refers to. You may also be interested to look at the very brief section in B.Bodhi's CMA if you have it (or another transl if not), 11,Guide to 5 & 7. Metta is given under adosa (non-hatred) . "When non-hatred appears as the sublime quality of loving-kindness (metta) it has the characteristic of promoting the welfare of living beings. its function is to prefer THEIR welfare....."(my caps). Karuna and mudita details under 'the illimitables': "Karuna, or compassion, has the characteristic of promoting the removal of suffering in OTHERS...." (my caps) "Mudita or appreciative joy, has the characteristic of gladness at the success of OTHERS....." (my caps). I doubt very much that there is any translation bias here;-) ..... > Steve: > > I'll try to find the relevant Pali passages, but as for a translation > and explanation, I think I better leave that up to someone who has a > better understanding of Pali and Dhamma than me. .... Anytime we take any translations as 'works in progress' here - just occasional phrases are very helpful as you've done in your post (mostly snipped, but saved for very useful reference). I'm sorry the timing to meet up in Thailand didn't quite work out but am very glad you were back in time to meet up with the group in Cooran. Sarah ===== 17687 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 5:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong speech in Jest Hi James Buddha do not use humor at his teachings. The sutta is straight to the point. He is just using an indirect approach to educate and it does not mean to joke. With your reference in the theory of comedey... the first point "it must appeal to an intellect". Do u think it will appeal to a Buddha for an appeal to an intellect. Do u think Buddha needs to be reminded of humanity? Do u think buddha is confined by his upbrining as a prince even though he could see his own endless past lives. Buddha dont joke dont jest bc it is rooted in lobha. Be it Lobha in culture, in intellect or in humanity or in anything in fact By the way could you kindly state which Mahayana sutta that say some Buddha always crack jokes and laugh all the time. regards KC --- "James " wrote: > Sarah and Christine, > > Smiles and Salutations! Well, I don't think either one of you met > my challenge. You did not show that the Buddha did not crack a > joke, a very dark joke actually, in your interpretations of this > sutta. Both of you miss the main thing that shows that it is a > joke. Of course the Buddha turns it into a lesson, as humor is > often used, but he first uses humor. Let me give you some hints: > Don't look at the subject matter, horse training, jokes can occur > in > any setting; and don't look at the follow up explanation of the > Buddha, jokes don't last forever and he did have a lesson to teach. > > Look at the events immediately following the words of the Buddha. > There you will find the humor. And I am not going to point it out > directly. Like insight, jokes are either something you get or > something you don't. When they are explained, the experience is > lost in translation. > > Christine wanted to know what makes something funny. Richard F. > Taflinger comes up with some pretty good guidelines in his "A > Theory > of Comedy": > 1) it must appeal to the intellect rather than the emotions; > 2) it must be mechanical; > 3) it must be inherently human, with the capability of reminding us > > of humanity; > 4) there must be a set of established societal norms with which the > > observer is familiar, either through everyday life or through the > author providing it in expository material, or both; > 5) the situation and its component parts (the actions performed and > > the dialogue spoken) must be inconsistent or unsuitable to the > surrounding or associations (i.e., the societal norms); and > 6) it must be perceived by the observer as harmless or painless to > the participants. When these criteria have been met, people will > laugh. If any one is absent, then the attempt at humor will fail. > > The Buddha spoke against humor at some else's expense, not all > humor > in general—according to my interpretation of that teaching to his > son. Granted, the Buddha didn't go around cracking jokes all of > the > time, but I don't think that was a sign of his enlightenment > (Mahayana records tell of many subsequent Buddhas [arahants] who > did > crack jokes and laugh all the time…hence, `The Happy Buddha'…who I > am beginning to resemble with all the food this holiday season > ). I believe the Lord Buddha's predominately cool > temperament was a result of him being raised as a Prince. Royality > > is expected and taught to act dignified and proper at all times and > > any type of humor is supposed to be dry and subtle at the very > least. The Buddha was always a leader, even when seeking > enlightenment. He would obviously know the responsibility that > position held, social customs and mores expected, and was therefore > > prim and proper most of the time. Question: Did the Buddha ever > smile? I think he must have. He wasn't Vulcan . > > Side Note: Sarah, you write, "For the arahants all lobha has been > eradicated (and also for the anagamis except for a few very refined > > kinds not related to sense-pleasures)." Now, this statement really > > makes me smile. Please take the following statements as kind and > not nasty: Just how many arahants and anagamis have you > psychoanalyzed to make this determination? This is > an `allness' statement and, giving the diversity of human > nature, `allness' statements are very unlikely to be correct when > applied to humans (or anything really). This is another issue I > have with the Abhidhamma. It leads people to believe they know > something that they cannot possibly know. The Buddha taught not to > > believe something unless it is experienced first-hand, and yet the > Abhidhamma asks people to believe all sorts of things not > experienced first-hand. That is, if it is to be taken literally; > if > it is to be taken symbolically, that is another issue. I eagerly > await Nina's response to that. > > And, according to the Sutta Pitaka, arahants still have traces of > defilements (of which `lobha', greed, is one) or they would > disappear in a puff of smoke . Even the Lord Buddha had > traces of defilements but his were practically nil because he had > been purifying his karma stream for so many eons (according to the > suttas and him…but that is up for argument also). > > Smiling Metta, James > > Ps. I find Thanissaro's translations of the suttas without > equal. "I destroy him, Kesi" would not make any sense in context > to > the remainder of the sutta. Why would the Buddha say, "I destroy > him, Kesi" and then later say, "`True it is, Kesi, that taking life > > does not become a Tathagata…" I can `destroy' someone's reputation; > > I can `destroy' a building, etc. This is obviously about taking > life, `killing' as opposed to `destroying'. Thanissaro has proven > time and time again that he knows these important subtleties in the > > English Language. We should all thank our lucky stars he decided > to > become a monk rather than a field more lucrative. 17688 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 5:40am Subject: Re: A mine of gems --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > I suppose it's natural to have a 'favourite' among the Great > Disciples - for me, it is Ananda. ______________ Dear Christine, I don't know if you have read the commentary about the parinibbana of Ananda. From memory it says he rose into the air above the middle of the Ganges river, near Varansi I believe, so that disciples on both sides might see his final passing. It is said that the tears and lamentation at this time were even more than at the Buddha's parinibanna, so popular was he, among the people. zzzzrobert 17689 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 5:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Three Abstinences What has to come has to come, if the termites will to destroy the building so be it. Build another one or go to another place. It is not right for anyone to take away any lives. Why attach to form when one was homeless in the first place rgds KC --- "James " wrote: > --- "peterdac4298 > " wrote: > > Hi Christine > > > > Ajhan Cha would tell us to watch the perplexity, doubt and > confusion > > in the moment that they arose, 'cause that is where we get > > enlightened. From his pov, the whole point of the Vinaya is two > > fold, a/ the basis for developing tranquility, and b/ just this > kind > > of predicament. > > > > I have heard of one instance, and I think it was Ajhan Sumedho > who > > told the story, that there was an occasion of termite infestation > > of > > one of the monastery buildings, might have been a sala or a kuti. > > > On this occasion there was no alternative but to kill the > insects. > > Ajhan Cha took part in, if not actually led, the operation too. > > > > Needless to say this situation was distinctly a one off. Sangha > > credibility would never have survived a repetition. Fortunately, > > to > > my knowledge, the need for such extreme measures has never since > > arisen. > > > > Cheers > > Peter > > Dear Peter, > > Thanks for this story. I was not aware of this story about Ajahn > Chah and it is good to hear. I was recently at Wat Nanachat > (August, 2002), within walking distance of Wat Pah Pong, with the > goal of ordaining and the insect problem (not just termites) must > have gotten much worse since Ajahn Chah's death. I felt, deep in > my > bones, that the entire area needed a thorough insect extermination. > > And I would single-handedly do it also!! -- For the sake of the > Sangha and the sake of the insects. That such shortsighted silly > people in the area don't see as much, I have no idea. > > I disagree that such an act would destroy Sangha credibility. And > if it did, then so be it. In that case, it would demonstrate that > the Sangha had lost its credibility anyway. > > Metta, James 17690 From: James Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 5:49am Subject: [dsg] Re: Take Care of Yourself Dear Howard, Oh, it is good that it isn't so serious. Oops...I was going on your picture. I didn't know how old you are. The beard adds age. Maybe I should have written : Dhamma Santa? Do take care of yourself. Metta, James 17691 From: James Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 6:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong speech in Jest --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi James > > Buddha do not use humor at his teachings. The sutta is straight to > the point. He is just using an indirect approach to educate and it > does not mean to joke. (Yes it is a joke. It is not straight to the point. He could have been much more straight to the point. Okay, since you don't seem to get the joke, I will try to translate without ruining it. The Buddha is asking Kesi how he trains horses...the difficulties involved. Kesi goes through a long description of how he trains them. Then the Buddha asks Kesi what he will do with the horse if it is untrainable. Kesi replies that he will have to kill the horse in that case so that it won't interfere with the training of the other horses. Then Kesi asks the Buddha how he trains monks. The Buddha goes through a long description of how he trains monks that parallels how Kesi trains horses. Then Kesi asks the Buddha what he does if a monk cannot be trained. The Buddha replies, with a straight face and very convincingly, "Then I kill that monk, Kesi." LOL! (Could you imagine the Buddha killing the monks who wouldn't take to training so they wouldn't 'ruin' the other monks?...it is a very dark joke). Kesi believes him, part of the humor, and the Buddha goes on to explain that what he means is that he will ignore that monk. Now, anyone with any intellect knows that killing a person and ignoring a person are hardly equal. And the Buddha could have just said that right at the start if his teachings were always "straight forward"; he didn't have to have Kesi believe, even for an instant, that the Buddha would knock off any untrainable monk. :-) > > With your reference in the theory of comedey... the first point "it > must appeal to an intellect". Do u think it will appeal to a Buddha > for an appeal to an intellect. Do u think Buddha needs to be > reminded of humanity? Do u think buddha is confined by his upbrining > as a prince even though he could see his own endless past lives. > > Buddha dont joke dont jest bc it is rooted in lobha. Be it Lobha in > culture, in intellect or in humanity or in anything in fact (These guidelines are for people, not Buddhas. They may apply to Buddhas as well, I am not sure of that one. But I didn't state that they applied to Buddhas) > > By the way could you kindly state which Mahayana sutta that say some > Buddha always crack jokes and laugh all the time. (I had read it in a book from the library, when I was first becoming a Buddhist, that described the personalities of 12 different Buddhas in China and Japan. I don't have the book any longer and I am not an expert in Mahayana texts to find it for you...which could be considered off-topic for this list if I did that anyway. But I am amazed that of all the 'Happy Buddha' statues in the world, laughing and smiling, you actually want me to pull out some suttas to prove it to you. Just look around and look in your heart. You will find the answer there.) > > > regards > KC Happy Holidays, James 17692 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 6:16am Subject: Re: Ethical View vs. Scientific View --- "robmoult < > > The book that I was reading is "An Introduction to Theravada > Abhidhamma" by G. D. Sumanapala (Prof of Pali and Buddhist Studies > at University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka). It was published by Buddhist > Research Society Singapore in 1998. > > In Chapter 5, "The Abhidhamma Analysis of the Four Realities > (Paramatthadhamma)", on p79 of this text, it says: > > According to the four way of definition: > 1. the characterisitic of rupa is molestation > 2. its function is scattering or dispersing > 3. its manifestation is abyakata > 4. its proximate cause is consciousness (vinnana) > > For point 4 above, there is an end-note referencing page 10 of > Abhidhammatthasangahadipanipali. It does not give any other details. > > ______________________ Dear Rob, You have many books that I don't (thanks very much for the Abhidhamma book that Jon passed on to me BTW). If you have the pasage in pali we could search it out. In the meantime how do you reconcile "that consciousness it is a necessary condition for rupa to arise " with the Abhidhammamatthasangaha: http://www.palikanon.com/abhidham/sangaha/chapter_6.htm " Material phenomena arise in four ways, viz: 1. Kamma, 2. Mind, 3. Seasonal Conditions, and 4. Food." Seasonal conditions is utu. In Survey of Paramattha Dhammas (appendix)p.274 http://www.abhidhamma.org/survey6.pdf "Rúpas which originate from kamma are called kammaja rúpas 1 Rúpas which originate from citta are called cittaja rúpas Rúpas which originate from temperature are called utuja rúpas Rúpas which originate from nutrition are called åhåraja rúpas" It says that the sound nonad may arise conditioned by either citta of utu: "The sound nonad, which is a kalåpa of nine rúpas: the eight inseparable rúpas and sound. If sound does not originate from citta, in the case of speech intimation, sound originates from temperature, such as the sound of traffic, or of a waterfall.""" Robert 17693 From: nidive Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 6:26am Subject: Re: Ethical View vs. Scientific View Dear Robert, > In the meantime how do you reconcile "that consciousness it is > a necessary condition for rupa to arise " with the > Abhidhammamatthasangaha: > http://www.palikanon.com/abhidham/sangaha/chapter_6.htm I wonder if Samyutta Nikaya XII.67, Nalakalapiyo Sutta, Sheaves of Reeds might help you: "Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name & form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress. "If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&- form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-067.html -------------------------------------------------------------- "And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements & the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form." [SN XII.2] NEO Swee Boon 17694 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 7:01am Subject: Re: Silabbata-paramasa --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > > C: I agree that grasping is without wisdom, but diligently following > the basic ethical teaching of the Blessed One, not doing evil, > cultivating virtue and purifying the mind doesn't necessarily equate > to clinging, does it? Without 'seeing danger in the slightest > fault', without cultivating sila to be as close as possible to the > templates laid down in the Suttas, wouldn't one be likely to be > deluded, find moral loopholes, convince oneself that what one > really wants to do is part of a 'higher wisdom' free from 'rules' > and 'precepts'? Perhaps that is more nearly clinging ... clinging to > self? > Thanks for this post which has left me a little bemused and > reflecting. >_____________________________- Dear Christine, Sometimes it's hard to explain many aspects of the teaching at the same time. The Cariyapitaka (Net of views p 300) says: "esteeming virtue as the foundation of all achievements, as the soil for the origination of all the Buddha qualities, the beginning, footing, head and chief of all the dhammas issuing in buddhahood…". Then again the Visuddhimagga XV11267 explains that even such pure conduct and practice that leads to the deva world and highest brahma world can still be silabbataparamasa : "So silabataparamsa is a condition for all three namely the sense-desire, fine-material (rupa-brahma)and immaterial kinds of becoming(arupa Brahma". Is this a conflict in the teachings? I don't think so. Sila is a necessary = part of the development of insight but sometimes we forget that sila is a really a very brief moment of conditioned nama. We tend to think I am keeping sila and that is still clinging to concept. As you say all types of extremes are possible: one may neglect sila altogether. I think the only way is to really learn to see the characteristics of dhammas; then, so I believe, panna will know what is ultimately right or wrong; it is never us actually who is or is not keeping sila. It may seem reckless but I have confidence that learning about the nature of conditioned dhammas means that a type of wisdom is developing that will gradually perceive rightness and wrongness in a more subtle way than any such reckoning done when the idea of self is still dominant. Robert 17695 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 7:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong speech in Jest > > (Yes it is a joke. It is not straight to the point. He could have > been much more straight to the point. Okay, since you don't seem > to get the joke, I will try to translate without ruining it. The > Buddha is asking Kesi how he trains horses...the difficulties > involved. Kesi goes through a long description of how he trains > them. Then the Buddha asks Kesi what he will do with the horse if > it is untrainable. Kesi replies that he will have to kill the > horse> in that case so that it won't interfere with the training of the > other horses. Then Kesi asks the Buddha how he trains monks. The > Buddha goes through a long description of how he trains monks that> parallels how Kesi trains horses. Then Kesi asks the Buddha what he does if a monk cannot be trained. The Buddha replies, with a > straight face and very convincingly, "Then I kill that monk, Kesi." > LOL! (Could you imagine the Buddha killing the monks who wouldn't > take to training so they wouldn't 'ruin' the other monks?...it is a > very dark joke). Kesi believes him, part of the humor, and the > Buddha goes on to explain that what he means is that he will ignore > that monk. Now, anyone with any intellect knows that killing a > person and ignoring a person are hardly equal. And the Buddha > could have just said that right at the start if his teachings were > always "straight forward"; he didn't have to have Kesi believe, > even > for an instant, that the Buddha would knock off any untrainable > monk. :-) KC: I think it is a matter of perspective. It can be meant to be shock so to jolt the person up. > > > > With your reference in the theory of comedey... the first point > "it > > must appeal to an intellect". Do u think it will appeal to a > Buddha > > for an appeal to an intellect. Do u think Buddha needs to be > > reminded of humanity? Do u think buddha is confined by his > upbrining > > as a prince even though he could see his own endless past lives. > > > > > Buddha dont joke dont jest bc it is rooted in lobha. Be it Lobha > in culture, in intellect or in humanity or in anything in fact > > (These guidelines are for people, not Buddhas. They may apply to > Buddhas as well, I am not sure of that one. But I didn't state > that they applied to Buddhas) KC: These guidelines are for everyone bc it is taughted by Buddha. If a teacher do not practise what he taught, then who will believe in him. Thus the sutta is not about humor, it is trying to jolt the person into reflection and hence leading to the path. > > > > By the way could you kindly state which Mahayana sutta that say > some > > Buddha always crack jokes and laugh all the time. > > (I had read it in a book from the library, when I was first > becoming > a Buddhist, that described the personalities of 12 different > Buddhas > in China and Japan. I don't have the book any longer and I am not > an expert in Mahayana texts to find it for you...which could be > considered off-topic for this list if I did that anyway. But I am > amazed that of all the 'Happy Buddha' statues in the world, > laughing > and smiling, you actually want me to pull out some suttas to prove > it to you. Just look around and look in your heart. You will find > > the answer there.) k: What you are describing is the Laughing Buddha. A chinese cultural effect on Metreiya Buddha. Kind rgds KC 17696 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 7:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A 'Funny' Question I think the reason behind why Buddha being affirmitive about his attainment is that at that time, there are many practitioner of different faith and some of them has claim they have reach enlightment (if my memory did not fail me). This is compounded by the fact that the Gods themselves think they are "better". He is not shy bc he wants the world to know that he is here to teach the path to enlightment and he is willing to take on the challenge and by doing that reaffirm his teaching to those who are skeptical about his teaching. There are also other reason, to attract those willing to learn to seek him out. kind rgds KC --- "nidive " wrote: > Hi robmoult, > > > What would motivate me to tell my friend about my attainment? > Encouragement... that there indeed is a way out of samsara. That I > know there is that WAY. That that WAY is attainable by those who > practise the Dhamma diligently. Not to give up. > Sharing... as a form of dana, sharing of merit. > > > The Buddha was certainly not "shy" about mentioning his own > > attainment. I suspect that the Buddha's motivation was to use > this > > as a teaching aid. > I don't think that confiding about one's attainment with those > close > to the Dhamma is anything wrong. There were Bikkhus and Bikkhunis > who declared their attainment to the Buddha, isn't it? > Since there is no Buddha now, the closest is our Dhamma friends and > > Bikkhus. > > NEO Swee Boon 17697 From: Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 2:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Take Care of Yourself Hi, James - In a message dated 12/13/02 8:50:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > Dear Howard, > > Oh, it is good that it isn't so serious. Oops...I was going on your > picture. I didn't know how old you are. The beard adds age. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: In April I'll be 63. Not *real* old, yet not a kid either! Yes, the beard is aging, but I think I look better with it than without it. Interestingly (to me ;-), I think I am mentally and attitudinally younger right now than I've ever been in this lifetime! The aging process is fascinating, I find. It provides a conventional insight into anicca. (All of a sudden you look in a mirror and wonder "Where the hell did that old guy come from, and where did 'Howard' go!" And you look back in your mind at events and characters in earlier acts of this play we call "our life", and they seem to have been played out in another lifetime entirely. Fascinating. ------------------------------------------------- Maybe > > I should have written : Dhamma Santa? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, t'is the season!! ------------------------------------------------- Do take care of > > yourself. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks. I'm starting on a one-week prednisone regimen today which I'm certain will do the job. -------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 17698 From: Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 3:19am Subject: Brief Comment/NEO Swee Boon Re: [dsg] Re: Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi, NEO Swee Boon - The sutta you reference here is one of my very favorites and one which I have long considered to be very important. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/13/02 9:28:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > Dear Robert, > > >In the meantime how do you reconcile "that consciousness it is > >a necessary condition for rupa to arise " with the > >Abhidhammamatthasangaha: > >http://www.palikanon.com/abhidham/sangaha/chapter_6.htm > > I wonder if Samyutta Nikaya XII.67, Nalakalapiyo Sutta, Sheaves of > Reeds might help you: > > NEO Swee Boon > > ========================== 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) 17699 From: James Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 8:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong speech in Jest --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > KC: I think it is a matter of perspective. It can be meant to be > shock so to jolt the person up. Kenneth, I am open to the possibility that my interpretation of this sutta is incorrect and, if so, I would like to be taught the correct way to view this sutta. However, you don't provide any explanation or analysis for your determination that this sutta is simply about the Buddha 'shocking' Kesi to teach him a lesson. Why did he shock him? What was the lesson particular to Kesi that required him to be shocked to understand it? Can you give other examples of the Buddha purposefully shocking people to teach a lesson. Why did he do it in those instances? I don't see how you can declair, "The Buddha did not have a sense of humor...because I say he didn't have a sense of humor...and that is the end of that." Other religions may use that type of argumentation, but that doesn't float in Buddhism. This is a thinking person's religion and way of life. Metta, James 17700 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 0:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong speech in Jest Hi James (Sarah, Ken) and all, The laughing fat buddha wasn't around until one and a half thousand years after the Buddha passed away. A cultural outgrowth of China and Japan, not of Theravada countries. He made his appearance in the 10th century, and is otherwise known as Hotei (Japan) and Pu-Tai (China) and embodies the ideals of the good life: i.e. health, happiness, prosperity and longevity. Buddhist notions of happiness based on self-mastery and enlightened insight were (somehow!) fused with popular Chinese and Japanese life-ideals of happiness through material prosperity. It is possible that The Laughing fat Buddha is modeled on an historical figure, a obese wandering Zen monk named Pu- tai, who allegedly claimed to be an incarnation of the future Buddha Maitreya (Chinese Mi-lo-fo; Japanese Miroku). Perhaps these comments about the Sutta at Access to Insight will be of assistance? "Kesi Sutta (AN IV.111) -- To Kesi the Horsetrainer. The Buddha explains to Kesi, a horsetrainer, how he teaches Dhamma. Kesi is so moved by the Buddha's explanation that he pledges to follow the Buddha for life. This brilliant exposition warrants careful study by all teachers -- not only of Dhamma -- as it reveals the multiple levels in which effective teaching operates: the Buddha speaks in terms that the listener understands (horsetraining), he uses similes to great effect, and he deftly answers the real question that lies behind the student's query ("Please, can you train me?"). " Maybe different cultural perceptions and personal life experiences are influencing how we view the telling of this teaching. To me, where farm animals are part of everyday life, there is no humour and no shock tactics. Perhaps to a town or city person it does seem unusual. I think to Kesi, the giving up on and exclusiion of a person may have seemed shocking (as it did to me) until put in realistic everyday terms he could understand. Kesi would have known, as the story unfolded, without even considering it, that the Buddha meant a relcalcitrant person would be put out of communion. He would not even have considered that the Buddha meant really killing. In my example, I didn't even consider that the parents would actually put a bridle and rein on the teenage daughter. I knew these things were used for restraint and control, therefore I knew they were talking about restraint and control of their daughter. Just so, Kesi wouldn't have needed to even consider that actual killing was meant, he would have known it meant all avenues of training had been explored, the person was unchangeable, therefore they would, at this time at least, have no further opportunities for training and interaction. {Note to James: Discussing this Sutta has been extremely helpful to me in putting another matter into perspective. So thank you for raising it} :-) metta, Christine --- "James " wrote: 17701 From: phrapiyadhammo Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 0:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path Dear Sarah, Thank you for your response and an essential reminder. I posted the section from the Vibhangha that I did because I have heard people debate the Five Constituent path before. People often question,"well what about sila? Where did sila go?" This particular verse was selected specificaly beacause it does show, as you have stated there is no supramundane Five Constiuent Path in and of itself outside of the Noble Eight Fold Path. That, indeed, because a Bhikkhu has practiced mental development to the point of supramundane jhana tending to release, dispersive of continuing rebirth; he for the abandoning of wrong view, for entering of the first stage, aloof from sense pleasure....at that time there is the Five Constituent Path. It seems pretty clear that at this point of mental development described in detail in this verse that dasa sila is already kept by the Bhikkhu perfectly, happily, at this point ie., attainment of jhana factor tending towards release, dispersive of continuing rebirth and death, and having abandoned wrong view aloof from sense pleasures is stated quite clearly. The comentary, though, would be much appreciated as a side note. Thank you much if you would share some of it. Metta In Dhamma Phra Piyadhammo > "...although "eightfold" is not said, it should nevertheless be understood > as eightfold, for there is no supramundane path called fivefold. This is > the agreed commentary of the teachers here." > > A lot of detail is given including interesting reference to some of the MN > suttas being discussed in other threads. The 3 virati "occur previously > purified." > > If you don't have access to the commentary and would like me to add more > detail, pls let me know. You may also like to review some earlier posts on > the 5-fold/8-fold posts under 'Eightfold Path' in Useful Posts. > > It's hard for me to imagine memorizing the Vibhanga in Pali. Anumodana in > your efforts in these endeavours. > > Sarah > ====== 17702 From: peterdac4298 Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 1:40pm Subject: Re: A mine of gems Hi Christine It is interesting to note that you have not mentioned perhaps the most famous attribute to Ananda. After all it was he who asked the Buddha to admit women to the Sangha. Indeed, on later occasions, the Buddha found it necessary to rebuke Ananda for being too concerned for the welfare of the Bhikkhunies and not enough for his own practice. Cheers Peter --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > I suppose it's natural to have a 'favourite' among the Great > Disciples - for me, it is Ananda. Ananda became a monk when he was > thirty-seven years old and became a Sotapanna shortly thereafter, the > Buddha was then fifty-five years old. > metta, > Christine 17703 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 2:49pm Subject: Re: A mine of gems Dear Peter, On a number of lists (including this one) and over a period of time, I have found the topic of the Bhikkuni Sangha, and especially the issue of its Restoration in terms of the original, to be uncomfortable to many posters. Discussion is always adversarial. People tend to have definite views separated by impassable barriers. One side asks for investigation with loving-kindness, goodwill and compassion as to the possibility, the other side points to its impossibility according to scripture. One side goes ahead in some countries, and begins a process, the other side says, sadly, it will always be invalid. Having experienced the implacability of those of the 'God said ...'persuasion within the Christian context of the same issue, I have simply vacated the field. It remains a deep sorrow. So, It was not a case of 'failed to' but rather 'chose not to' in the interest of shining a broad light on this inspiring man and not narrowing the focus to what he is already revered for by countless men and women through the centuries. metta, Christine --- "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Hi Christine > > It is interesting to note that you have not mentioned perhaps the > most famous attribute to Ananda. After all it was he who asked the > Buddha to admit women to the Sangha. Indeed, on later occasions, > the Buddha found it necessary to rebuke Ananda for being too > concerned for the welfare of the Bhikkhunies and not enough for his > own practice. > > Cheers > Peter > > --- "christine_forsyth > " wrote: > > Dear Group, > > > > I suppose it's natural to have a 'favourite' among the Great > > Disciples - for me, it is Ananda. Ananda became a monk when he > was > > thirty-seven years old and became a Sotapanna shortly thereafter, > the > > Buddha was then fifty-five years old. > > > metta, > > Christine 17704 From: Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 9:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Out of Cooran - Metta is first "developed" towards oneself :) Hi Sarah In a message dated 13/12/02 11:15:53 PM E. Australia Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Metta is given under adosa (non-hatred) . "When non-hatred appears as the > sublime quality of loving-kindness (metta) it has the characteristic of > promoting the welfare of living beings. its function is to prefer THEIR > welfare....."(my caps). > > Karuna and mudita details under 'the illimitables': > "Karuna, or compassion, has the characteristic of promoting the removal of > suffering in OTHERS...." (my caps) > > "Mudita or appreciative joy, has the characteristic of gladness at the > success of OTHERS....." (my caps). > Yes, as far as my understanding goes all referances to the development of the Brahmavihara's in the Tipitaka and most of the commentries (That I have seen) are directed towards others. And for me at this point in time is the most beneficial way of looking at the Brahmavihara's. ie. When we see/understand Dukkha it is a condition for the arising of karuna for all beings, when we see someone experiance joy/success, it is a condition for the arising of mudita for others etc. Thank-you Steve 17705 From: James Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 5:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong speech in Jest Christine and All, Thank you. You give a lot of facts, and quotes…but not much that I can grasp onto as a position. But this discussion reminds me again of why I am a Buddhist. You know, I always thought of Buddhism as a happy and joyful way of approaching life. A way of saying, "Yes, we are all suffering…and it is all quite unnecessary. It is possible to find true happiness in the here and now and the hereafter. And it if from your own efforts that such will be done." But since being a member of this group I have confronted such depressing positions as Nibbana as complete nothingness and void, the Buddha was practically a Vulcan and had no trace of humanity whatsoever, that inanimate objects (like rocks) have the intrinsic characteristic of suffering along with being hard and cold, and that joking, smiling, laughing, and happiness are all against Buddhism. I am not sure if this is a Buddhist group or a Silvia Plath fan club . I keep writing to kids to be happy, be optimistic, and know that everything is for a reason and that reason is good….but from the thinking of the vocal majority of this group I might as well tell them all to cut their wrists on the spot. There is nothing worth living for and there is nothing to attain. All is emptiness and emptiness is all…And `Have a Good, Mettiful Day' ;-) Rubbish and Nonsense!! So much has been lost and those who think they know don't really know anything. They only hear the empty echoes in their lonely heads as they lament to themselves. I just wanted to get this off my chest. I am sure the doomsayers will have much to say in response. Fine. But please, I want to urge everyone, don't think that all is forsaken! There is hope and there is happiness…all is not dukkha. Dukkha is a dream, Happiness is reality. Just take a Prozac and call me in the morning. Metta, James 17706 From: peterdac4298 Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 5:43pm Subject: Re: A mine of gems Hi Christine Yep! I'd have to agree, it sure is a contentious issue. I am sure you are familiar with all of this, though having just checked the archives to see some discussion last August ref Thailand, hope I'm not opening up a load of old wounds but instead would like to add what may be seen as a side note, rather than a major point. At Amaravati, the nuns have gone for something of a 'middle way'. They are fully kosher ten sila Sammaneriis. But their ten precepts have been expanded to include the entire Vinaya, edited and rearranged under the ten precepts, (much as the Visudhimagga has been edited and rearranged to accommodate all the old commentaries under the seven stages of purity). In addition, the nuns, (I am ashamed to say I'm not up to date on their current designation: last I new, they carried the title of Ayya, and am further ashamed to say I don't know what that means, but am pretty sure it is something rather good), have been given equivalent status to the Bhikkus: i.e., based on rains ordination, they have equal rank. What this means is that the intimidating and demeaning requirements of the original Bhikkuni order are abandoned and a more democratic system has been introduced, with all the training potential of the Bhikku Vinaya: i.e. they develop the same moral and skillful basis for developing Samadhi whilst falling into the same dilemmas and paradoxes as a Bhikku practicing the full Vinaya. This works quite well because the communities are kept well separated for formal purposes and accommodation etc. Though they eat and work together and share informal meetings where lay people would normally be present too. Whether all this would become universally acceptable, or not, is something else. But it may help to get a perspective on the issue to remember that the different sects of Bhikkus have all sorts of recognition problems wrt Bhikkus of other sects. Monks of one sect, when visiting monasteries of another, are routinely treated as lay men irrespective of home based seniority: e.g., are at the back of the line for receiving alms; allowed to stay for a maximum of three nights, or go through formal procedures to get special permission to stay any longer; and perhaps most significantly, are excluded from Patimokha assemblies with the host community. How this last one came about is something of a mystery when one remembers that causing a schism in the Bhikku community is a Parajika offence. Where, from a Vinaya pov, schism is interpreted as holding separate Patimokhas: unless one sees it as the result of the quirks of (much latter) political upheavals, i.e. a purely historical phenomena. In view of all this, your words seem to carry much wisdom: "...Having experienced the implacability of those of the 'God said ...'persuasion within the Christian context of the same issue, I have simply vacated the field. It remains a deep sorrow. ..." Paranoia is definitely involved in all this, and that is perhaps the cause for optimism. As we all know, such things being compounded conditions are subject to dissolution if wisdom prevails for long enough. I'm sure it will. Just hope the Bhikkunis of the future know what they are letting themselves in for! Cheers Peter --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Peter, > > On a number of lists (including this one) and over a period of time, > I have found the topic of the Bhikkuni Sangha, and especially the > issue of its Restoration in terms of the original, to be > uncomfortable to many posters. Discussion is always adversarial. > metta, > Christine 17707 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 7:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong speech in Jest James I think shock can be too strong a word, I mean he is trying to change the person perspective by using a more indirect approach. Sometimes Buddha used the indirect approach to teach pple, there are some suttas where he use different indirect approach. Presently I could not quote other sutta bc I am a lazy person to remember or to research or study into it. The rationale why Buddha don't have a sense of humour bc humour is rooted in the three akusala roots. How could a person not rooted in the three roots be capable of being humourous ? There is no need for him to be humorous to teach bc he knows it will not get the right result. Humor may get him more popular that is not what he wants. He is more interested in pple believing in his teaching rather by his humourous way. By all means that is no need to be humourous to be consider human, it is only an outgrowth of societal norms that one needs to be humorous. Buddhism is a way of like, it just a set of guidelines and is up to individual to investigate and as a result whether to follow or not to follow. It is not a compulsive doctrine, individual will choose on their own accord. It does not condemn anyone even the person done wrong bc kamma will do the work. It is a doctrine that give you ownership of your life and dont direct your life and it is up to you choose to follow or not to. Like when we investigate scientific experiements, there are hypothesis we want to confirm, Buddhism is like that, it set up the hypothesis and is up to us to think and investigate it. It is thinking as in the sense like an experiment, but like experiments it do have certain limitations, as it cannot allow everyone to do what they like or change the way what is define as an experiment. I think I being too long winded and may be out of point, so far science has not proved any concepts of Buddhism wrong and on the contrary it has proved it has been right. Sorry sometimes I just cannot explain things, I need some time to think. I hope this fullfil your questions, if not ask me in a different way as it will help me to think and as I say before I am a lazy peson. kind rgds KC > > Kenneth, > > I am open to the possibility that my interpretation of this sutta > is > incorrect and, if so, I would like to be taught the correct way to > view this sutta. However, you don't provide any explanation or > analysis for your determination that this sutta is simply about the > > Buddha 'shocking' Kesi to teach him a lesson. Why did he shock > him? What was the lesson particular to Kesi that required him to > be > shocked to understand it? Can you give other examples of the > Buddha > purposefully shocking people to teach a lesson. Why did he do it > in > those instances? > > I don't see how you can declair, "The Buddha did not have a sense > of > humor...because I say he didn't have a sense of humor...and that is > > the end of that." Other religions may use that type of > argumentation, but that doesn't float in Buddhism. This is a > thinking person's religion and way of life. > > Metta, James > > 17708 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 7:20pm Subject: Re: A mine of gems Hi Peter, Over this side of the world, I understand Ajahn Brahmavamso and Ajahn Vayama have a nun's monastery at Dhammasara, Perth, Western Australia. Ajahn Brahmavamso is the Abbot of Bodhinyana Monastery and Ajahn Vayama is the Abbott of Dhammasara Nun's Monastery. She is an Australian Ten-Precept nun who was ordained in Sri Lanka in 1985 with Ayya Khema at Parappuduwa Nun's Island, and who spent the first ten years of her monastic life there. In the mid 90's she lived in Amaravati and later at Wat Buddha Dhamma in New South Wales. She afterwards spent a year with the community of Ven. Ajahn Sumedho in England, before returning to live in Australia. Hopefully the same practices that are being instituted at Amaravati (i.e. non- intimidating and non-demeaning) are likely at Dhammasara ... You aren't 'opening up old wounds at all Peter, but providing me with a happiness on this hot afternoon here. I didn't know much about how Amaravati was going, thank you for telling us. metta, Christine --- "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Hi Christine > > Yep! I'd have to agree, it sure is a contentious issue. I am sure > you are familiar with all of this, though having just checked the > archives to see some discussion last August ref Thailand, hope I'm > not opening up a load of old wounds but instead would like to add > what may be seen as a side note, rather than a major point. > > At Amaravati, the nuns have gone for something of a 'middle way'. > They are fully kosher ten sila Sammaneriis. But their ten precepts > have been expanded to include the entire Vinaya, edited and > rearranged under the ten precepts, (much as the Visudhimagga has > been edited and rearranged to accommodate all the old commentaries > under the seven stages of purity). > > In addition, the nuns, (I am ashamed to say I'm not up to date on > their current designation: last I new, they carried the title of > Ayya, and am further ashamed to say I don't know what that means, > but am pretty sure it is something rather good), have been given > equivalent status to the Bhikkus: i.e., based on rains ordination, > they have equal rank. > > What this means is that the intimidating and demeaning requirements > of the original Bhikkuni order are abandoned and a more democratic > system has been introduced, with all the training potential of the > Bhikku Vinaya: i.e. they develop the same moral and skillful basis > for developing Samadhi whilst falling into the same dilemmas and > paradoxes as a Bhikku practicing the full Vinaya. > 17709 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 7:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong speech in Jest Hi James, The problem is the definiton of happines. The problem with societal norms of joy and happines is a way different from the perspective of Buddhism. The joy in Buddhism is different. To me it is an unending, continuous bliss that does not depend on anything to be in bliss. A boundless happiness. Buddhists should be happy and optimistic pple bc they know the impermance of all things and not attached it. But how many pple could do it, honestly speaking I definitely cannot. Happines that is not condition by impermenance is the highest peace. Nibbana is always misrepresented. Nibbana is an end to the samasara world. End to temporal joy. It is an end to conditional happiness, and in my perspective the start of unconditional happiness. The problem is that the road to unending happiness is the begining of discarding conditional behaviour, which project a person like a vulcan. Only through such a vuclan attitude seeing things with objectivitiy and mindfullness of ourselves and gaining wisdom then conditional behaviour is able to be discarded. And during such a transition, many pple mistaken it as unhuman bc they dont understand human conditional behaviour does not bring us true joy and infact conditional behaviour reinforces our misery. Hence the first thing, what a Buddhist accomplish to the road of nibbana is to discard wrong views. Easy to say but hard to do. Just imagine Buddha did it for countless live, that does not mean we should be discourage as one day you will also be one. At the meantime, relax and enjoy your life do what we can and not what we cannot. :) Each one of us has their own accumulations. I personally never force myself to do anything I dont like, hence I will definitely take a much longer time than u to reach nibbana, if I ever reach it at all with such a lazy attitude. Cheers and kind regards KC --- "James " wrote: > Christine and All, > > Thank you. You give a lot of facts, and quotes…but not much that I > can grasp onto as a position. But this discussion reminds me again > of why I am a Buddhist. You know, I always thought of Buddhism as > a happy and joyful way of approaching life. A way of saying, "Yes, > we are all suffering…and it is all quite unnecessary. It is possible to find true happiness in the here and now and the hereafter. And it if from your own efforts that such will be done." > > But since being a member of this group I have confronted such > depressing positions as Nibbana as complete nothingness and void, > the Buddha was practically a Vulcan and had no trace of humanity > whatsoever, that inanimate objects (like rocks) have the intrinsic > characteristic of suffering along with being hard and cold, and > that joking, smiling, laughing, and happiness are all against Buddhism. > I > am not sure if this is a Buddhist group or a Silvia Plath fan club > . I keep writing to kids to be happy, be optimistic, and > know > that everything is for a reason and that reason is good….but from > the > thinking of the vocal majority of this group I might as well tell > them all to cut their wrists on the spot. There is nothing worth > living for and there is nothing to attain. All is emptiness and > emptiness is all…And `Have a Good, Mettiful Day' ;-) > > Rubbish and Nonsense!! So much has been lost and those who think > they know don't really know anything. They only hear the empty > echoes in their lonely heads as they lament to themselves. I just > wanted to get this off my chest. I am sure the doomsayers will > have > much to say in response. Fine. But please, I want to urge > everyone, > don't think that all is forsaken! There is hope and there is > happiness…all is not dukkha. Dukkha is a dream, Happiness is > reality. Just take a Prozac and call me in the morning. > > Metta, James 17710 From: Sarah Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 10:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A mine of gems Dear Christine, --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Peter, > > On a number of lists (including this one) and over a period of time, > I have found the topic of the Bhikkuni Sangha, and especially the > issue of its Restoration in terms of the original, to be > uncomfortable to many posters. ..... Did I miss something on DSG in this regard? I thought most the discussion was between ourselves;-) ..... >Discussion is always adversarial. > People tend to have definite views separated by impassable barriers. > One side asks for investigation with loving-kindness, goodwill and > compassion as to the possibility, the other side points to its > impossibility according to scripture. ..... Are you quite sure all the “loving-kindness, good will and compassion” is only on one side???;-)Do we have to think in terms of 'sides' at all? ..... >One side goes ahead in some > countries, and begins a process, the other side says, sadly, it will > always be invalid. Having experienced the implacability of those of > the 'God said ...'persuasion within the Christian context of the > same issue, I have simply vacated the field. It remains a deep > sorrow. ..... I’m not sure it’s at all useful to compare the Buddhist Teachings with Christianity in this regard. On a personal level I don’t have any particular problem with different views or with members of the Sangha who don’t follow certain rules. It is to be expected and is certainly not my responsibility. If you ask me however, whether this is ‘valid’ or whether it will hasten the downfall of the Teachings or whether it should be considered as an act of metta and consideration for their supporters to ‘pick and choose’ which rules to follow, I would feel bound to refer to what we read in the texts which have been laid our with the greatest loving-kindness and compassion. ..... > So, It was not a case of 'failed to' but rather 'chose not to' in the > interest of shining a broad light on this inspiring man and not > narrowing the focus to what he is already revered for by countless > men and women through the centuries. ..... I also find Ananda’s example inspiring and appreciated the fine comments you wrote. He was certainly very highly regarded and appreciated by women, particularly nuns, especially on account of his championship of their cause. However, as you know, the Buddha is supposed to have said that as a result the Sasana’s length would be halved and of course Ananda was rebuked for this at the First Council. I think that we all have to consider for ourselves what are acts of kindness, compassion and consideration for giving access to the Teachings. This applies to those around us and also for future generations who might otherwise not have this access. I am sure we are all acting in good faith in this regard, however blinkered our stances may seem to those with different views (as James found with our interpretations of the Kesi sutta;-)). Perhaps we can all just appreciate others’ good intentions. I hope this issue won’t always be a ‘deep sorrow’ for you, Chris. metta, Sarah ===== 17711 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:46pm Subject: Bhikkhunis Hi Sarah, and all, You are correct - any discussion of this matter on this list, particularly between you and I, has been respectfully conducted. The rest is probably my subjective interpretation. Implacability, though, has been evinced by people taking the 'the scriptures say it's impossible to reinstate' line. e.g. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/15646 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/15653 Of great interest to me is this article which states: 'There is permission in the Vinaya Chullavagga for monks to ordain nuns." and, "the Bhikkhuni Sasana has been revived in Sri Lanka According to full Theravada ceremonial." http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/nunorder.htm "As a sequel to the public interest created on this question Ven. M. Vipulasara, Principal, Parama Dhamma Chetiya Pirivena and President Mahabodhi Society came forward with the assistance of the World Sangha Council and Sakyadhita International Organisation of Buddhist Women and held an ordination ceremony on 8.12.96 at Saranath Temple, India. This was a grand and historic ceremony - a red letter day in the annals of Theravada Buddhism. At this ceremony 11 selected Sinhalese DSM nuns were ordained fully as Bhikkhunis by a team of Theravada monks in concert with a quorum of Korean Nuns. Thus for the first time after 980 odd years the Theravada Bhikkhuni Order was revived in India. For the first time since the disappearance, the Bhikkhuni Order was restored at Saranath India on 8.12.96. The Sinhalese Nuns who received their Bhikkhuni Ordination there came back to Sri Lanka after one year and two months at the invitation of the Bhikkhuni Sasanodaya Society, Dambulla. On Medin Poya Day (12/3/98) they ordained 23 selected Sinhalese DSM Nuns into the Bhikkhuni Sangha. This ordination was confirmed and ratified by a quorum of the Theravada Sangha as required in the Vinaya. Ven. Inamaluwe was the director of the function and the master of ceremonies. He was assisted by Ven. Mapalagama Vipulasara, Galkadawela Punnasara, Pandit Tallalle Dhammananda Anu Nayakam, Ven. Prof. K. Vajira and Porwagama Soma and a few others. Thus for the first time since the Anuradhapura days the Bhikkhuni Sasana has been revived in Sri Lanka According to full Theravada ceremonial." metta, Christine --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Christine, > > --- "christine_forsyth " > wrote: > Dear Peter, > > > > On a number of lists (including this one) and over a period of time, > > I have found the topic of the Bhikkuni Sangha, and especially the > > issue of its Restoration in terms of the original, to be > > uncomfortable to many posters. 17712 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 2:20am Subject: My letter to Kom Dear Kom, I am Janice Chung and I am 11 years old.You might have heard from me in other letters. However, I shall introduce myself again. I speak Chinese(Mandarin and some Cantonese,but I am not really good at it) and English as my first languages. I was born in Hong Kong and I study in Chinese International School. I know Jan as she is in my English class at school. I would like to ask some questions about you. By the way, where do you live and where do you come from? Just to make sure, are you a buddhist? Well I also have a few questions about Buddhism. Is the Buddha your religious teacher or your close friend? Is the kamma something very meaningful to you? I think that is about it for this letter! I hope to hear from you soon! Janice Chung 17713 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 2:26am Subject: To xxxxx from Janice Dear James, It's me again, Janice! I hope I am not getting too boring for you, as I have been writing to you all the time. Let's change change the subject, by the way thank you for all three poems once again, as well as the two questions about the word the word ' Metta and approximately how may Gods, demons, Ghosts are in the Buddhism religion. I feel sorry for your sister's death at the age of 23. (Sorry to mention that and I think she passed away too young) Why did she pass away? However, we should keep smiling everyday! In Kom's letter, what does Kamma mean? Just to make sure are you a Buddhism? I would be most happy if you could send me more poems! (Are you running out of poems to give me? ) Metta, Janice Chung 17714 From: Date: Fri Dec 13, 2002 9:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi, Rob - I'm going to try my hand at a limited reply now. In a message dated 12/12/02 7:40:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I think that I am starting to understand where my confusion is > coming from. > > Allow me to define two different views; an "ethical view" and > a "scientific view". I see these two views as quite distinct and > perhaps even unrelated. For example, in the past century there has > been major scientific progress, but it could be said this has not > translated into ethical progress. > > I see Buddhism as working in the domain of the "ethical view". I see > the ethical view as purely internal and as such, I strongly agree > with your phenomenological approach. Last night I read that the > proximate cause of rupa is "consciousness (vinnana)", according to > Abhidhammatthasangahadipanipali (that's a mouthful!). Saying that > consciousness it is a necessary condition for rupa to arise clearly > supports a phenomenological perspective. > > Rupa only has relevance in the ethical view when it touches > consciousness. Again, ethical view is purely internal. But what > about that "stuff" out there that doesn't touch consciousness (i.e. > the "sound" from the tree that falls in the forest with none to hear > it)? I believe that according to Buddhism, this is not rupa because > there is no consciousness. It is "out there", it is external. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that whatever things ordinarily appear as "out there" or are so hypothesized, ranging from trees, to atoms, to quarks, constitute, from the Buddhist perspective, a world of concepts, and not of actualities, or, at least, not directly knowable as actualities. That world of concepts is the world in which we seem to exist and through which we wend our way moment by moment and day by day. The "scientists" work with the conceptual objects of everyday people and with their own more subtle abstractions to create predictive theories that aid us in wending our way through this world of apparent reality, and they do so quite successfully. Our concepts are constructed from the elements of the directly discerned preconceptual material, and they provide a kind of a shorthand mental packaging of interrelated groups of these elements. We couldn't function in this world of our making without conceptual theories, both informal and formal. There are the two views that you call ethical and scientific. They *are* related, though not, I think, in a simple way. The terminology of 'Scientific vs Ethical', has the alternates of 'Objective vs Psychological', 'Realist vs Phenomenalist', and 'External vs Internal'. I find it amusing, however, that the so-called scientific or objective or realist or external perspective is, in fact, the conceptual perspective, whereas the other perspective is the paramatthic one. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > The "stuff" that is "out there" (the external stuff that doesn't > touch consciousness) is not part of the ethical view. The ethical > view does not make any statements about its existence or non- > existence; it is simply not on the radar screen. Using strict > definitions, I can't call it "rupa", so I will call it "apur" (rupa > spelled backwards; I checked in my 1778 page Pali-English dictionary > and apur is not already taken as a word :-) ). -------------------------------------------------- Howard: The "stuff" that is "out there" may or may not exist, and it's existence or lack thereof is, in principle, not directly knowable but only inferable based on presumption. What is directly known are the paramattha dhammas, and we also know, but indirectly, the mind-constructed material we *project* as constituting an "external world". ------------------------------------------------ > > Apur is part of the scientific view. Scientists can write volumes > about their analysis of apur and their models for apur. That is > fine. The scientific view does not enter into the ethical realm. > Last weekend, I attended a two day long Buddhist seminar that > touched on the issues of ethics of cloning and euthanasia. Boy, are > there challenges when science and ethics try to meet! > > As a Buddhist, I look at rupa from a purely phenomenological > perspective. As a man of science, I look at apur from a purely non- > phenomenological perspective. This does not create a dichotomy for > me. What creates problems is when I try to mix views. If I try to > extend the concept of rupa into the domain of science, I look like > an Aristotelian (centuries out of date). Trying to take a scientific > view on ethical issues is equally futile. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Dhammic knowledge of the world of concepts, especially knowledge of the danger in grasping onto "things" in that world, of the impermanence of "things" in that world, and of the emptiness and impersonality of things in that world is an essential foundation, but directly seeing the tilakkhana in the "internal world" of paramattha dhammas, at the level of Dhammic insight, is what is ultimately liberating. I think we may be in agreement here. ----------------------------------------------------- > > Howard, I expect that you agree with most of what I am saying so > far. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: We are at least very close. ------------------------------------------------------- Now let's look at "kamma". It is a critical part of the > > Buddhist ethical view. It says in a Sutta somewhere, "All beings are > owners of their own kamma."; this emphasizes the "internal" nature > of kamma. But what about the kamma of another being? Because it is > not touching us at the moment, this "outside kamma", which I will > call "ammak" ("ammak" is not in the big dictionary either). --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You make the presumption here of a "hard separation" between sentient beings. But I do not. Different psychophysical streams interact, and the kamma of one stream effects the other stream. And this is reflected in their "external worlds". Those "external worlds" are harmoniously overlapping and interacting. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > I have a hard time placing ammak in the scientific realm, but as it > is external, it is not part of the ethical view. I would even go so > far as to say that ammak is not part of Buddhism! ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Kamma is intention and intentional action. I'm really not clear on what the "external" analogue of that is intended to be except for a conceptual correlate of some sort. I don't find the notion of 'ammak' to be a clear one. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Let's return to A hitting B. From the perspective of A, B is a > condition and B's ammak is not relevant. From a phenomenological > perspective, conditions exist but ammak does not. Similarly, from > the perspective of B, A is a condition and A's ammak is not relevant. > > When the Buddha said, "Nibbana is the end of the world", he was > speaking from an internal, phenomenological perspective, not from a > scientific perspective. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: When the Buddha spoke of "the world" in this manner, he was referring to all things, I think, as perceived by nonarahants, and they cease with the advent of nibbana. ---------------------------------------------------- > > To summarize this long post, I am getting confused because I sense > that you are moving a bit too freely between the ethical view and > the scientific view. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I hope not. It is an error to conflate the two, but also an error to presume their unrelatedness. --------------------------------------------------------- > > I could go on for a while longer, but this message is getting long > and I want to get your feedback on what I have written so far. > > Metta (and "Attem") > Rob M :-) > ================================ 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) 17715 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 2:37am Subject: To Joanne Dear Joanne: Hello! I'm Kiana! Of course I remember you! And i am really glad to receive a letter from you! Yes ,you're right everybody wants peaceful life,but if everything is wonderful,you won't get any sadness , but in the other hand , you won't grow , because you don't get any experience , then how do you grow? So life is always unfair , that might be good; give us a chance to grow. By looking all these Buddhism, I've really learnt something about Buddhism , did you? Just need to say bye take care ! Love , Kiana. __________________________________________________ 17716 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 2:42am Subject: Good >>> Book!!! Dear everyone: Last week, Mrs Abbott lent me a book called It is a very meaningful book.It is retold by Noor Inayat Khan. There're twenty tales .That book is easy to understand but each of the tales is full of meaning and educational and you can think about your mistakes from reading that book. I like the "The noble horse" the most of that book.Becuase the horse died for protecting the country, but now the people didn't know how to protect their country, they even tried to destroy!! I think they need to take a look of this book and think about it. Finally I have to thank Mrs. Abbott to lend me this>>> Good Book !!! Love , Kiana. 17718 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 2:48am Subject: Hello! From Sandy Dear James, Merry Christmas! I've read one of your letters from you to Janet. I'm so sorry to hear from you, that your sister just died. Do Buddhists believe that there would be spirit after death? Hope to hear from you! Sandy 17719 From: Sarah Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 4:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhikkhunis Hi Christine, Thanks for sharing the articles you come across on this and other 'issues'. metta, Sarah ===== 17720 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 6:08am Subject: Holding self dear Dear all, I would like share the following: If you hold yourself dear then don't fetter yourself with evil, for happiness isn't easily gained by one who commits a wrong-doing. Samyutta Nikaya III, 4 Metta, Victor 17721 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 7:23am Subject: The Perfections, Patience, Ch 7, no. 1 The Perfections, by Acharn Sujin, Patience, Ch 7, no. 1 The Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct² defines the perfection of patience as follows: Patience has the characteristic of acceptance; its function is to endure the desirable and undesirable; its manifestation is tolerance or non-opposition; seeing things as they really are is its proximate cause. The perfection of patience, khanti påramí, has a wide meaning. Patience is to be developed not merely towards an undesirable object, but also towards a desirable object. We should have patience towards a desirable object so that lobha does not arise, so that there is no attachment and delight in visible object and the other sense objects that appear. Khanti or patience is kusala, it is a sobhana (beautiful) dhamma which does not arise with akusala citta, with the citta rooted in attachment, but which arises with sobhana citta. However, people can also have a great deal of endurance in the akusala way, and this is endurance with lobha, when they want to obtain something. Someone may be able to endure everything in order to obtain what he desires, no matter whether he has to stay awake until late at night or all night. However, can one endure this in order to develop kusala? Endurance with the development of kusala is the perfection of patience, khanti påramí. With the perfection of patience one can stand heat or cold. This means, that on account of hot or cold weather akusala citta does not arise, that there is no disturbance or annoyance. We should be aware of the characteristic of the citta arising at such a moment, we should know whether it is kusala or akusala. Is there like or dislike of the weather? If we like it there is lobha, attachment, and if we dislike it there is dosa, aversion, and in both cases the perfection of patience does not arise. The perfection of patience is endurance with true calm at such moments, no attachment nor aversion. When visible object appears, seeing-consciousness experiences it, and it can be known that there is no being, no person no self. If we have no patience to be aware of the characteristic of the reality appearing at this moment, we cannot reach the further shore, that is, nibbåna. If we do not have endurance with regard to lobha and dosa, defilements cannot be eliminated. If we lack patience we cannot reach the further shore, nibbåna, we cannot penetrate the four noble Truths. Learning about the ten perfections will help us to investigate whether we accumulate the perfections which are still deficient, and if we see their value and significance there are conditions for them to grow and develop. We should be patient while we investigate and consider realities thoroughly, so that we acquire right understanding of them and practise in the right way. Without right understanding there are no conditions for the arising of right mindfulness which is aware of the characteristics of realities that appear. Khanti is endurance and restraint with regard to akusala citta which arises. 17722 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 7:23am Subject: Abhidhamma James, dear dhamma friend, There is nothing you have to apologize for. I know that you are kindhearted, and nothing is insulting that you write. I often have to laugh. I also notice that you make thorough studies of texts. We have different viewpoints but that does not matter, how could we all agree. Thank you Sarah for forwarding letters to me, and answering and also Robert K. for answering. Yes, my Email was last night still closed off, I returned only yesterday. I understand that it brings frustration if people do not answer, I know that feeling too, but that does not mean anything. Lack of time. I have a few projects running, and it is difficult to answer all letters. op 11-12-2002 08:52 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: >> James wrote: >>> ps. If one more person tries to push off Nina's book on me, I am >>> going to scream! :-) Just kidding... >>> I have >>> addressed questions to her in this group and she has blatantly >>> ignored them while addressing others. >> .... Sarah: LOL, this really does sound just like my students... Nina: Now your questions: James: In `ADL', each chapter gives the vocabulary, analysis, >> and exposition in regards to the Abhidhamma ontology and the ancient >> commentaries on such and then concludes with how Abhidhamma ontology >> relates to the teachings of the Buddha with the comparison to >> various sutta quotes and subsequent analysis. I reached the >> conclusion that this final part of each chapter was demonstration of >> how the Abhidhamma thus applies to daily life, as stated in the >> title. I don't see this connection as proof that the Abhidhamma >> applies to daily life or even should be applied to daily life in >> such a literal manner >> The point I want to make, and the question I have for you, is that >> perhaps the Abhidhamma is being approached with a methodology >> contrary to its intended purpose. Perhaps the Abhidhamma is not >> supposed to be taken literally, but symbolically. But, the way it is being approached now, as >> classifications of ultimate reality, I see it as lying motionless >> and limited. Do you have any thoughts on this matter? Do you know >> of sources that approach the Abhidhamma Pitaka as symbolism rather >> than a description of ultimate reality? Nina: I do not know Hesse's book. This symbolism may make things complicated, let us talk directly about life. Your points are very relevant and I know this is a point of view shared by others. I also read other posts by you, comparing different texts and wondering which ones are the Buddha's word or not. I noticed you make thorough studies of texts. I know, people have doubts, they also question the Path of Discrimination, Patisambhiddhamagga. They question the value of the Commentaries. I saw it on the Pali Yahoo list. We discussed this while in Bgk. What came out was the following: without sati and panna (sati-sampajanna) arising now which is aware of and understand the dhamma appearing now through one of the six doors, all the texts of the Tipitaka cannot be understood at all. The understanding will just be on the level of theory, but there will not be the profound understanding of realities the Buddha taught after he attained enlightenment. I very much feel my shortcomings, since I get so involved in Pali texts, I forget the real goal. Yes, Chrisitine was surprised I also asked questions. That is the way to learn. I said that when coming to Bgk, each time I realize how little I really understand. Jon remarked that this should be encouraging, it shows that there is a little more understanding. A board meeting of the Foundation of the Dhamma Study and Support was dedicated to the point you brought up. I shall write more on this later on, I find it very important. This was one of the points that I found very beneficial and helpful for myself, such a reminder. An example are the four caritas, characters: A. Sujin said: how can you know what character you have if you have not developed satipatthana. That is the answer. Here is what Num wrote: N:Yes, I am the same, I get lost. But good to know when we get lost, again, this is Abhidhamma. Larry was wondering about the four satipatthanas: Acharn Supee said: this is a matter of the order of teaching, desana. Not: this first, than that. Just as in the case of sila, samadhi and panna; only a matter of the order of teaching: desana. Not: this first, than that. I enjoyed reading the posts on Bgk and Keng Kacang from all friends and to me also it was a very special experience. Later on the discussions in Thai were also most helpful. I listened to the radio programs from six in the morning on and copied some of them. Time was still too short. Now James, here is an example of the crybabies Christine heard and Jon's comment, completely Abhidhamma in daily life, no symbolism: >Jon: 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.> N: This is Abhidhamma, but I can substitute the word life for Abhidhamma: Dosa and mana, conceit: should they not be known when they arise, and they arise so often in daily life. I feel the three parts of the Tipitaka are one, pointing to the same goal: right understanding, by means of which defilements are eradicated. As Sarah recently quoted from the Path of Discrimination: the all has to be understood: what all, the eye, objects, seeing, feeling, defilements arising because of seeing. The same is time and again stated in the suttas. A. Sujin stressed: in the whole Tipitaka there are two kinds of situations: being mindful and being forgetful. Look at the suttas: there is rupa which is so dear, piya rupa, and if one is forgetful, defilements arise. If there is right understanding and awareness, no defilements at that moment. I hope you do not feel out of sorts now. The Dhamma should not make you feel worried, but happy. I want to talk about life again: Lodewijk and I felt out of sorts when arriving, with a jetlag, but that was not all. In our absence one of the helpers of my father (almost 102 years) had falsely accused Lodewijk for meddling with his day and night schedule, seemingly imposing his own ideas (the contrary was true). My father who is mentally not so well, became furious and we had to hear a flood of angry words when visiting him after we just arrived. Lodewijk said to me that he remembered vipaka when hearing, and also A. Sujin's words: he had asked in Keng Kajan whether there are limits to metta, and she had answered: there are no limits to metta. Lodewijk said that he kept on thinking about and remembering these words. He stayed calm and now we see that a negative experience can become very positive. My father also calmed down somewhat. For him the most important lesson was that there are no limits to metta. Actually, there is no one in the world, no one in our thinking. There is hearing of sound, but hearing and sound are gone immediately, the stories we dwell on condition our ideas of an angry person who scolds us and who seems to last. If we only live in the world of concepts and do not know the realities which condition our thinking of people, situations, we are in for great trouble and distress. Nina. P.S. If you want to react (but no obligation -:), it is better to delay this, my mail may not yet be put back. I had to give my password, but it did not help. 17723 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 7:28am Subject: No Email Dear Sarah, I said to Kom that I am back, but something happened, maybe he is away. No Email at all now. But I sent out some. I want to learn now how to click it on, but cannot. Nina. 17724 From: James Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 10:25am Subject: Re: To xxxxx from Janice --- Star Kid wrote: > Dear James, > > It's me again, Janice! > > I hope I am not getting too boring for you, as I have > been writing to you all the time. Let's change change > the subject, by the way thank you for all three > poems once again, as well as the two questions about > the word the word ' Metta and approximately how may > Gods, demons, Ghosts are in the Buddhism religion. > > I feel sorry for your sister's death at the age of 23. > (Sorry to mention that and I think she passed away > too young) Why did she pass away? However, we should > keep smiling everyday! > > In Kom's letter, what does Kamma mean? Just to make > sure are you a Buddhism? > > I would be most happy if you could send me more poems! > (Are you running out of poems to give me? ) > > Metta, > Janice Chung Hi Star Kid Janice! No, I am not getting tired of you! Don't be silly. You could write to me 100 and one letters…and I would still like to have one more! Friends, especially ones who ask such intelligent questions, are hard to find. You know Janice, you always bring up very important issues in your letters. I want to combine everything you write about into one response from me. You bring up: my dead sister, smiling, kamma, and my Buddhism. Yes, my sister did die young. She died from a brain hemorrhage. That is when one of the veins that supplies blood to the brain explodes open, blood spills into the brain, and the brain dies. There isn't any pain involved and the person will just die suddenly. My sister died in her sleep. Prior to this, she suffered a lot of headaches, really strong ones called migraines, so her death was actually a good thing for her. The doctors had done all that they could for her. It was time for her to die. However, she did have a daughter, my niece, who is a little angel (and sometimes demon), who lives on with her memory. Okay, keeping this in mind, let me explain kamma. `Kamma', also called `Karma', is a word that means that for everything that happens in life, something preceded it to cause it to happen and something will follow it because it happened. Those things that occur before and after are the karma. Let me give you a few examples: When your teacher teaches you well (karma), you do well on the tests and homework, and you get a good grade (karma). When there is good food to eat (karma), you eat the good food, and you grow up strong and healthy (karma). Now these are examples of good things. Most people, for some unexplainable reason, usually like to think about karma in negative terms. Here are some negative examples: When there are a lot of expensive things in a store (karma), someone will steal those things, and that person will go to jail (karma). When there isn't any food available (karma), people don't have anything to eat, and they die of starvation (karma). Karma is neither good or bad, karma is just the consequences of actions. People are the ones who determine if it is good or bad. Which brings me to your next topic. Was my sister's death because of good or bad karma? Some people would quickly say, "Oh, bad karma. If anyone dies young that is always bad." But when you know the details you could say, "Oh, good karma. She was suffering a lot of pain that finally ended." But on the one hand she left a daughter without a mother; on the other hand, that daughter may grow up to be a good mother because she appreciates what she didn't have, etc., etc., etc. Are you understanding Janice? Karma is impossible to figure out. There are so many different factors that it boggles the mind to try to keep track. Which brings me to your next topic. So, what are we to do? You have given the answer already: SMILE! Our actions in life should be determined, as the Buddha taught, by how beneficial they are to others and us. If the actions make everyone smile, they are good; if they make everyone unable to smile, they are bad. It is just that simple….and not so simple sometimes. Life can become very confusing; that is why we all need a direction in our life. Which brings me to your last topic. Yes Janice, I am a Buddhist. And I am not the type of Buddhist who is one every once in a while, like going to church just on Sunday, I am a Buddhist 24 Hrs a day, everyday of the week. The questions of life, my place in it, and the happiness of everyone is constantly on my mind. My sister's death doesn't really upset me; losing a job doesn't really upset me; people thinking the wrong thing about me doesn't really upset me…but those who take Buddhism for granted, approach it in the wrong way, use it to put down others, use it to justify a wrong view of life, etc….that REALLY upsets me. I don't smile then…I frown, get upset, and have been known to rant-and- rave. But that is just me. Some say I shouldn't care about other's happiness, but I don't think that is possible. If I stopped caring about the happiness of others, I would stop caring about my own happiness. And that isn't going to happen. The Buddha cared about all of us; I won't do less in my life. Mentioning happiness let me give you a few more poems to make you smile. Write again anytime you like. I hope you are being a good girl and getting ready for Christmas. Love, James December 26 by Kenn Nesbitt A BB gun. A model plane. A basketball. A 'lectric train. A bicycle. A cowboy hat. A comic book. A baseball bat. A deck of cards. A science kit. A racing car. A catcher's mitt. So that's my list of everything Santa Claus forgot to bring. ******* My Prayer by Bruce Lansky I pray my father finds his keys. I pray my sister doesn't tease. I pray that baby has no rash. But most of all, I pray for cash. ******* Birthday Wishes by Bruce Lansky I wish for peace. I wish for knowledge. I wish my (brother/sister) would leave for college. ******* Freddie by Phil Bolsta I don't like doing homework. I know that it will bore me. But now I am much happier 'Cause Freddie does it for me! He greets me at the door each day When I come home from school. He just can't wait to read my books-- I think that's pretty cool. I give him all my homework, Like history and math. And when he's done I give him A nice warm bubble bath! My grades are so much better now, Which makes my parents glad. Freddie is the smartest dog That I have ever had! 17725 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 10:57am Subject: RE: [dsg] My letter to Kom Dear Janice, > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > > Dear Kom, > > I am Janice Chung and I am 11 years old.You might have > ... Thanks for writing and re-introducing yourself again. It's very kind of you. > By the > way, where do you live and where do you come from? > Just to make sure, are you a buddhist? I was born in Bangkok, Thailand, but I have lived in a few other cities in the U.S. I am a Buddhist to the extent that I see the benefits and the values of the teachings of the Buddha, and I follow some of the teachings sometimes (not all the time). I found the Buddha's teachings to be true and meaningful in my daily life, which is why I am a Buddhist. > Well I also have a few questions about Buddhism. Is > the Buddha your religious teacher or your close > friend? Is the kamma something very meaningful to you? The Buddha is both a religious teacher, and a good friend like no others. He is a good friend, because he teaches me about truths, about lives, about why things are the way they are, about how to behave that is beneficial, about how to behave that is harmful, and about kamma. Kamma, as James has explained to you, is the same word as Karma (just spelled differently). Karma is your (and my) actions (or really, the intention of the actions) toward other people in our daily life. When you are angry and say bad things to other people, that is a bad karma. When you see other people in need of help, and you help them out, that's a good karma. The Buddha teaches that good karma will bring good results (result of karma), and bad karma will bring bad results. You might notice that you and other people experience different things in your life. When you are hearing a pleasant sound (like somebody praising you), somebody else maybe hearing an unpleasant sound (like somebody scolding them). The Buddha teaches that pleasant results, such as hearing pleasant sound, must come from good karma, and unpleasant results, such as hearing unpleasant sounds, must come from bad karma. This is how karma is very relevant and meaningful to me. > I think that is about it for this letter! > I hope to hear from you soon! > It's very nice of you to write. I think asking questions to learn about useful things that we don't know is definitely a good kamma. I hope you write again soon. kom 17726 From: Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 11:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi Rob (& Howard), In my opinion kamma must reach from javana, through vipaka and subsequent remembering of accumulations to the next javana and must necessarily include the object of vipaka. Since that object is often rupa then the intention of kamma must coordinate with the physical universe in order to resolve the kamma. If I walk outside and get hit in the head by a meteor it is because some javana citta in my past arranged for a meeting between my head continuum and the meteor. How this could happen is something only the Buddha would know. As to the reality of rupa, even if you think rupa is only immaginary, probably you would still accept that an eye cannot see without consciousness. That is the nama rupa distinction. Actually, I think there are three kinds of rupa: rupa the physical phenomenon, rupa that is translated by sensory nerves into a consciousness-like phenomenon which is experienced by as many as 17 cittas in a row in citta process, and rupa that is the experience of rupa. This might entail that there are two kinds of consciousness: one the regular consciousness that experiences objects and the other that specifically translates physical rupa into 'mental' rupa at the senses. Agreed? Larry 17727 From: Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 6:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi, Larry (and Rob) - In a message dated 12/14/02 2:13:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Rob (& Howard), > > In my opinion kamma must reach from javana, through vipaka and > subsequent remembering of accumulations to the next javana and must > necessarily include the object of vipaka. Since that object is often > rupa then the intention of kamma must coordinate with the physical > universe in order to resolve the kamma. If I walk outside and get hit in > the head by a meteor it is because some javana citta in my past arranged > for a meeting between my head continuum and the meteor. How this could > happen is something only the Buddha would know. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree that whatever the nature of "external objects" may be, they are all ultimately kamma-created, and, for that matter, the same is true of all conditioned dhammas, both pa~n~natti an paramattha dhammas, and both namas and rupas, though the kamma need not be entirely one's own. (Actually, as I see it, the effect is always directly involving the paramattha dhammas, and the mind then creates a corresponding "world change".) When A hits B, some of B's past kamma may be bearing fruit, but also A's kamma is an immediate event of B's world; so A's volitional action is changing A's world. ------------------------------------------------------- > > As to the reality of rupa, even if you think rupa is only immaginary, > probably you would still accept that an eye cannot see without > consciousness. That is the nama rupa distinction. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: They are certainly distinct. BTW, phenomenalism wouldn't consider rupas per se as imaginary, but it would consider "external objects" as having unknowable ontological status, and would not presume their existence. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Actually, I think there are three kinds of rupa: rupa the physical > phenomenon, rupa that is translated by sensory nerves into a > consciousness-like phenomenon which is experienced by as many as 17 > cittas in a row in citta process, and rupa that is the experience of > rupa. This might entail that there are two kinds of consciousness: one > the regular consciousness that experiences objects and the other that > specifically translates physical rupa into 'mental' rupa at the senses. > Agreed? > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I would not consider the last of these as rupa. ------------------------------------------------ > > Larry > > ========================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 17728 From: Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 1:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi Howard, What is rupa, in your view? If the rupa category doesn't include consciousness of rupa, how can you have a position on what it is or isn't? Maybe we need two more qualifications: consciousness as subject and consciousness as object. We could say rupa is in all likelihood really out there and it is also a consciousness object-only, never a subject. It seems to be the subjectivity of consciousness that the nama rupa distinction is pointing at, among other things. Does the principle of kamma control the rupa out there and/or consciousness? To say we don't understand kamma is one position and to say we can't directly experience rupa (in the sense that consciousness [experience] can't *be* rupa) is another position. What I am asking about is the logic of the kamma doctrine as we have it. Is it a correct interpretation to say kamma function controls the rupa of the universe? Larry 17729 From: Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 8:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi again, Larry - In a message dated 12/14/02 2:46:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > >Actually, I think there are three kinds of rupa: rupa the physical > >phenomenon, rupa that is translated by sensory nerves into a > >consciousness-like phenomenon which is experienced by as many as 17 > >cittas in a row in citta process, and rupa that is the experience of > >rupa. This might entail that there are two kinds of consciousness: one > >the regular consciousness that experiences objects and the other that > >specifically translates physical rupa into 'mental' rupa at the senses. > >Agreed? > > > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I would not consider the last of these as rupa. > ------------------------------------------------ > ========================== I just re-read the foregoing, and I think I misunderstood you. I take back what I said there. 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) 17730 From: Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 9:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi, Larry - In a message dated 12/14/02 4:11:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > What is rupa, in your view? If the rupa category doesn't include > consciousness of rupa, how can you have a position on what it is or > isn't? -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Consciousness of rupa is not rupa - it is discernment. I take rupa to be whatever can be object of the so-called physical-sense consciousnesses: visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, and gustatory. Whatever can be object *only* of mental discernment is nama and not rupa. ----------------------------------------------------- Maybe we need two more qualifications: consciousness as subject> > and consciousness as object. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Consciousness as object is still nama, and not rupa. --------------------------------------------------------- We could say rupa is in all likelihood> > really out there and it is also a consciousness object-only, never a > subject. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I would not agree with that. As far as I see it, the only rupas that are taken as mind objects have been previously taken as sense-consciousness objects. If there were any rupas that are grasped by mind alone, and not by the physical senses, they would be, as I see it, mind-constructed pa~n~natti. Any true objects "out there", and not mental constructs, and also not discernable by the five physical senses, are not directly knowable but only inferable. Philosophically, a phenomenalist dismisses them, but, as a worldling, seems to deal with them all the time. ------------------------------------------------------------- It seems to be the subjectivity of consciousness that the nama> > rupa distinction is pointing at, among other things. > > Does the principle of kamma control the rupa out there and/or > consciousness? > --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The question is unanswerable for me, because of its presupposition. --------------------------------------------------------------- > > To say we don't understand kamma is one position and to say we can't > directly experience rupa (in the sense that consciousness [experience] > can't *be* rupa) is another position. > ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Huh? I wouldn't take either position. (I do admit that we cannot *fully* grasp kamma, but we can understand it a bit. As for the second, we *do* directly experience rupa in the sense that a rupa-discernment event occurs, one pole/aspect of which is the subjective pole, and the other of which is the objective pole. When we mentally isolate (and not just distinguish) one from the other, mentally splitting them and losing the interdependency, is when we tend to reify self and object.) ----------------------------------------------------------------- What I am asking about is the> > logic of the kamma doctrine as we have it. Is it a correct > interpretation to say kamma function controls the rupa of the universe? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. (Well, I guess I have to add "as I see it"!! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Larry > > ========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 17731 From: Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 2:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View aHA! Then the old vedic priests were right. Rites and rituals (intentions) do make a difference. -------------------- part 2: Are you saying there is a direct experience of rupa but we can't verify its accuracy with panna? As I understand it, direct experience isn't enough. If panna isn't present the experience is mistaken. Can panna verify the blueness of blue or only anicca, dukkha, anatta? Larry 17732 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 3:01pm Subject: Mana (conceit) Dear Group, I was thinking today about what Mana (conceit) means in Buddhist terms in daily life. My pre-Dhamma understanding was influenced by Christianity, and I knew mana as Vanity. "Vanity of Vanities, saith the Preacher, all is vanity." (Ecclesiastes 1:2) The Hebrew word for vanity in this context simply means "breath" or "vapor." The writer of Ecclesiastes lists pleasure-seeking, the trappings of materialism, the seeking of fame and power, and becoming a learned philosopher as all this world had to offer and yet, concluded, it was all vain, the grasping at wind. So, to me, the Christian definition involves sensuality and selfish acquisitiveness (physical and mental) designed to increase an individual's standing in the world. The first jolt I had about the Buddhist take on Mana was when I went for Dhamma discussions with friends in Bangkok a year ago. Feeling overwhelmed by a gathering of people with years of Dhamma knowledge, practice experience and understanding, and anxious about the microphones for taping of the conversation, I tended to do what is seen as 'humility' in my circles - make deprecating remarks about my own lack of knowledge and admiring remarks about that of others. A friend, much to my mortification at the time, told me that this was just conceit. Another friend wrote that I was probably an 'under- estimator', which at least sounds better than being told I have omana 'inferiority-conceit :-) Referring to the three kinds of Mana, Nyanatiloka gives this meaning: The (equality-) conceit (mána), the inferiority-conceit (omána) and the superiority-conceit (atimána): this threefold conceit should be overcome. For, after overcoming this threefold conceit, the monk, through the full penetration of conceit, is said to have put an end suffering" (A. VI, 49). "Those ascetics and brahman priests who, relying on this impermanent, miserable and transitory nature of corporeality, feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness, fancy: 'Better am I', or 'Equal am I', or 'Worse am I', all these imagine thus through not understanding reality" (S. XXII, 49). The definition in the CMA II.7 "Conceit (mana): Conceit has the characteristic of haughtiness. Its function is self-exaltation. It is manifested as vainglory. (n. Ketukamyata, lit. a desire to fly the banner - to advertise oneself). Its proximate cause is greed dissociated from views. (n. because conceit arises only in greed- rooted cittas dissociated from views.) It should be regarded as madness." This is a difficult definition for me to understand because it makes it seem as if conceit should be easily recognisable and that the boundaries are quite narrow and easily discerned. I think my 'underestimator' or 'inferiority-conceit' could be included within "vainglory - a desire to fly the banner to advertise oneself" i.e. It is seeing oneself as important in some way. All the time I'm is protesting how much better someone else is at something than I, or how lacking I am in certain knowledge - isn't that waving the banner about myself, keeping others attention on me while I speak, write etc.? Just so with most arguing on e-lists about how wrong other people's beliefs, method of practice, level of understanding is, or how incorrect their alleged manners and behaviour seems to us ... isn't this just 'flying the banner' of atimana (superiority conceit) and attracting attention to oneself by articulating 'righteous anger' at others? (Just for you, Victor, your favourite quote :-)) Sarah in post 11868 writes: "This is mine, this am I, this is my self" as often quoted. "This is mine" refers to craving, taking objects as belonging to self. "This am I" refers to mana, conceit and "This is my self" refers to the personality belief, sakkaya ditthi, identified with the 5 khandhas. So if "This am I" refers to mana, conceit, then anything that points to, underlines, articulates, indicates, or identifies oneself as better, worse or the same as another is Mana - conceit. I think that this would also include unlikely types of thinking, and actions not just speech. It is 'having a self view', it is not understanding anatta. It is not understanding that there is no self to be important, to be protective of or to promote. e.g. I was in a hurry to get out of the Supermarket, had only four items to pay for, so went to the priority check-out (under eight items). Just before I got there, a large man with a full trolley rudely pushed in front and the Operator didn't quibble about rules, just began processing his groceries. Well!!! I spent the next ten minutes creating stories about how hard done by I was, how rude the man was, how ill trained and cowardly the staff were, what was the point of having special aisles for fewer purchases and quicker exit etc. etc. etc ... I think the basis for all my uncomfortable emotions was Conceit. It is said that Conceit is only eradicated when one becomes an Arahat, it is one of the Fetters so-called because they fetter aggregates [in this life] to aggregates [of the next], or kamma to its fruit, or beings to suffering. For as long as the ones exist there is no cessation of the others. Vis. XXII.48f I was wondering if anyone has other references for Conceit, and if anyone can think of other examples in everyday life that show conceit in action? Does it join with other factors that disguise it? - I ask this because most people, even those well versed in Dhamma, don't seem to realise when mana is a large part of their speech or actions. metta, Christine 17733 From: Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 3:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mana (conceit) Dear Christine, I think one thing you have wrong is that pointing out other's faults isn't conceit. It's generosity. Larry 17734 From: Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 10:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi, Larry - I'm really not sure - are you writing this to me? You didn't quote anything, and I'm not clear on what you are referencing. I will try to respond semi-intelligently. In a message dated 12/14/02 5:59:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > aHA! > > Then the old vedic priests were right. Rites and rituals (intentions) do > make a difference. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Intention must lead to appropriate action, I would think, for there to be an appropriate effect. And if the action is irrelevant, so will the effect be. There must be a coherent chain of relevant conditionality. ----------------------------------------------- > -------------------- > part 2: > > Are you saying there is a direct experience of rupa but we can't verify > its accuracy with panna? > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: No. How do you infer that from what I wrote? ------------------------------------------------------ > > As I understand it, direct experience isn't enough. If panna isn't > present the experience is mistaken. Can panna verify the blueness of > blue or only anicca, dukkha, anatta? > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I think the latter. There is mundane wisdom, correct knowledge obtained from experience, but liberating wisdom (pa~n~na) is, I believe, something else. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Larry > > ========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 17735 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 3:24pm Subject: Letting our notions fall away (Re: If volition is conditioned)/ David Hello David, I've been thinking about your post over the last couple of days. I see what you mean by 'letting our notions fall away'. I wonder if we could both be right? :-) As I understand it, the arising of panna depends on conditions... hearing the true Dhamma, reflecting on this, and association with wise friends. Could my seeking answers fit within the 'hearing and reflecting on the Dhamma'? Perhaps with an emphasis initially on the 'hearing' part. And could your letting concepts fall away fit within the 'hearing and reflecting on the Dhamma' ... perhaps with an emphasis initially on the reflecting part? And, of course, after considering your post over the last couple of day, the benefit of association with wise friends goes without saying. thanks and metta, Christine --- "chase8383 " wrote: > Hi Christine > > Christine: "I tried to imagine not seeking answers but found I would need to become a different person ... I could agree they were a hindrance if by 'answers' you meant merely the proliferation of thought. But I tend to see 'looking for answers' as 'looking for truth' (in the Dhamma)." > > Well, let me ask you. Is it what you learn that's important, or is it what falls away? Is it the addition, or is it the subtraction that counts? > > If we get involved in something new, something we have a preconceived notion about. In understanding it, our notions of it have to fall away. So are we looking for "answers", or are we just allowing our concepts to fall away so we can perceive the truth of it? > > That's what I meant. > > Peace, David 17736 From: Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 3:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi Howard, Sorry I lost you. Let's try again. Larry: What I am asking about is the logic of the kamma doctrine as we have it. Is it a correct interpretation to say kamma function controls the rupa of the universe? Howard: Yes. (Well, I guess I have to add "as I see it"!! ;-) L: aHA! So the old vedic priests were right. Rites an rituals (intentions) do make a difference. H: Consciousness of rupa is not rupa - it is discernment. I take rupa to be whatever can be object of the so-called physical-sense consciousnesses: visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, and gustatory. L: Are you saying there is a direct experience of rupa but we can't verify its accuracy with panna? Larry 17737 From: Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 10:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mana (conceit) Hi, Christine - In a message dated 12/14/02 6:03:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > Dear Group, > > I was thinking today about what Mana (conceit) means in Buddhist > terms in daily life. > My pre-Dhamma understanding was influenced by Christianity, and I > knew mana as Vanity. "Vanity of Vanities, saith the Preacher, all is > vanity." (Ecclesiastes 1:2) The Hebrew word for vanity in this > context simply means "breath" or "vapor." The writer of Ecclesiastes > lists pleasure-seeking, the trappings of materialism, the seeking of > fame and power, and becoming a learned philosopher as all this world > had to offer and yet, concluded, it was all vain, the grasping at > wind. So, to me, the Christian definition involves sensuality and > selfish acquisitiveness (physical and mental) designed to increase an > individual's standing in the world. > ============================== I'm quoting just the beginning of your post, Christine, because that is what I'd like to reply to. A friend of ours is a Chassidic Jew who is a Distinguished Professor at CUNY Graduate Center and a brilliant man - his wife, also a dear friend, is Chair of my department at Queens College. His area is Computer Science, but he also has taught comparative religion for years and he knows and respects a great deal of Buddhism. At a recent Sabbath dinner at his house, he was reading aloud from Ecclesiastes to the assembled guests, and commenting on it, making several comparisons with Buddhism. I also think that it comes quite close in several respects to the Dhamma. It is interesting that, as you point out, the Hebrew word that is standardly translated here as 'vanity' literally means 'breath' or 'vapor', each of which points to something quite insubstantial, ephemeral, and ungraspable. One may be reminded of the part of the Phena Sutta (taken from ATI) which reads as follows: > Form is like a glob of foam; > feeling, a bubble; > perception, a mirage; > fabrications, a banana tree; > consciousness, a magic trick -- > this has been taught > by the Kinsman of the Sun. > However you observe them, > appropriately examine them, > they're empty, void > to whoever sees them > appropriately. It strikes me that instead of 'vanity' being taken as translation, 'emptiness' might be a better choice, including its senses of insubstantiality, impermanence, ungraspability, and unsatisfactoriness. 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) 17738 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 4:16pm Subject: Contemplating Aging ([dsg] Re: Take Care of Yourself) Hi Howard, (and all), I was going to say "you young whippersnapper" but I'm not quite sure what one is. :-) You can tell from her remarks that Nina's dad at 102 yrs of age and still a loved and vital presence within the family. Your comments about your health and the fascination at considering your own aging process, started me musing about my own. This happens quite regularly especially this last year - I think because unavoidable reminders of aging - having to get reading glasses, and the first grey hairs - were such a shock. I too look back at myself in earlier years and wonder who that person was, full of passionate causes, so sure she was right, valuing only intellect and ethics, agitating for justice and equality, no excuses accepted, believing the world could be set to rights by good will, self-sacrifice and reason ... Can one feel compassion for a younger 'self'? :-) Because the 'stories' of the world go on and on, at home the family and love stories of joy and grief, the getting and spending, in the political arena the rhetoric, the brinkmanship and demonstrations and, at work the meetings, the plans and the grievances, and very few things change permanently - happiness and suffering cycle around - samsara rolls on. I am reminded of how little humanity changes by this quote which may ring true for those in bureaucratic organisations and businesses: "We trained hard .. but every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be re-organised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by re-organising .. and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing inefficiency and demoralisation". (Petronius A.D. 66 The old saying is still true 'The more things change, the more things stay the same'. But the body doesn't stay the same, and the changes cannot be ignored. They can be ameliorated but are ultimately irreversible and relentless. Maybe the contemplation of the physical changes is a blessing in disguise. i.e. It prevents one ignoring the idea of eventual death, 'my' death, any longer. That gets a lot of things in perspective don't you think? e.g. what's important (hearing and reflecting on the Dhamma, talking with admirable friends) and what's not (who wins, who loses, who's 'important', who's not), and when will I ever really understand anatta? metta, Christine --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > > In a message dated 12/13/02 8:50:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, > buddhatrue@y... writes: > > > > > Dear Howard, > > > > Oh, it is good that it isn't so serious. Oops...I was going on your > > picture. I didn't know how old you are. The beard adds age. > > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > In April I'll be 63. Not *real* old, yet not a kid either! Yes, the > beard is aging, but I think I look better with it than without it. > Interestingly (to me ;-), I think I am mentally and attitudinally > younger right now than I've ever been in this lifetime! > The aging process is fascinating, I find. It provides a conventional > insight into anicca. (All of a sudden you look in a mirror and wonder "Where > the hell did that old guy come from, and where did 'Howard' go!" And you look > back in your mind at events and characters in earlier acts of this play we > call "our life", and they seem to have been played out in another lifetime > entirely. Fascinating. 17740 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 5:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mana (conceit) Hi Larry, and all, Aughh! Larry .. I spent a lot of time thinking about this, and thought I had it all sorted out. :-) But you can't get away with just a one-liner, mate. Give me something with a bit more substance. Some clarification, a few sutta citations, or a few quotes to back up your remark. I've never thought of generosity in terms of telling others what is wrong with them. I don't think I could be trusted to be let off the leash of Right Speech. And I'm often wrong (deluded) about others faults. How would pointing out others's faults fit with the Precepts? Couldn't it be akusala kamma patha via speech .. more so if you're wrong? And is that an ominous phrase "ONE thing you have wrong'? What else? ... Be brutally honest or should I say 'brutally generous', I can take it (I think). :-) But your remarks made me look a little further and I remembered a discussion in the past on dsg that mentions criticism of ourselves and how we should regard it as being pointed to treasure. I'm not sure it applies to criticising others. But it had good points on Mana. Could the Mighty Custodian of the Useful Posts consider a topic on Mana please? Just imagine if I could have clicked on that, I wouldn't have had to do all the considering and reflecting ... ahh! For the 'Pointing us to Treasure' thread' see a great post by Sarah at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/13626 As with everything, timing is of the essence - I wish I had remembered to look for these posts before I sent mine, but such is life. :-( metta, Christine --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Dear Christine, > > I think one thing you have wrong is that pointing out other's faults > isn't conceit. It's generosity. > > Larry ADVERTISEMENT 17741 From: peterdac4298 Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 5:20pm Subject: Re: Bhikkhunis Hi Christine, Sarah, and all In my previous post on this thread I used the expression "intimidating and demeaning" in brief reference to the original, historic Bhikkhuni Sangha, and how this was absent from the more democratic Amaravati style DSM Sangha of today. I feel I aught to expand this so as to avoid any misunderstanding. As most of us are aware, at the time of the Buddha, when Ananda thrice requested the admittance of women to the Sangha, the Buddha replied in what could be seen by todays standards as rather a derogatory, if not paranoid manner. He spoke about the Sasana lasting only half the time it originally would have. And also insisted on eight restrictions ('capital points', ~Naa.namoli) to be imposed on the nuns as a condition for their admittance. One of which was that a nun of advanced seniority would be junior to a monk newly admitted that very day. Another spoke of Bhikkhunis not being allowed to find fault with Bhikkhus nor admonish them at all. A Bhikkhuni must never address discourses to Bhikkhus, but Bhikkhus may address discourses to Bhikkhunis. In the matter of grave offences a Bhikkhuni must do penance before both Sanghas. Additionally to these eight capital points, a Bhikkhuni must be given the admission by both Sanghas (and is why the lineage could not be restored once broken: hence the need to find an unbroken branch elsewhere). The Buddha gave his reasons for insisting on these eight conditions of acceptance. He unflatteringly likened women in the Sangha to a rice field being infected by various kinds of fungus or mildew. A clan with too many women and too few men is vulnerable to robbers and bandits is likened to the Sangha with women admitted. "...As a man might construct in advance an embankment so that the waters of a great reservoir should not cause a flood, so I too have made known in advance these eight cardinal points..." (~Naa.namoli) Now this can't be explained as some kind of slip of the tongue, or even playing to contemporary sensibilities. These are powerful and systematic statements. What are we to make of them? The Buddha, having willingly recognised their equal ability to fully penetrate and realize the Dhamma, is more than creating an historic precedent by granting women the admission. This is virtual revolution by the standards of that time. But he goes to great lengths to ensure that there is no mistaking his view on female admission. It's always possible the Buddha, being a mere mortal, had some kind of a blind spot and got this bit wrong! Either way, the Amaravati DSM's evade this whole issue, and seem quite happy having equal rank with Bhikkhus even though it is only within the Amaravati Sangha. They enjoy the holy life, exhibit a mature understanding of the Dhamma and are much sought after for teaching engagements. Cheers Peter --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Sarah, and all, > > You are correct - any discussion of this matter on this list, > particularly between you and I, has been respectfully conducted. > The rest is probably my subjective interpretation. Implacability, > though, has been evinced by people taking the 'the scriptures say > it's impossible to reinstate' line. e.g. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/15646 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/15653 > > Of great interest to me is this article which states: 'There is > permission in the Vinaya Chullavagga for monks to ordain nuns." > and, "the Bhikkhuni Sasana has been revived in Sri Lanka According > to full Theravada ceremonial." > http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/nunorder.htm > > metta, > > Christine > > > --- Sarah wrote: > > Dear Christine, > > > > --- "christine_forsyth " > > wrote: > Dear Peter, > > > > > > On a number of lists (including this one) and over a period of > time, > > > I have found the topic of the Bhikkuni Sangha, and especially > the > > > issue of its Restoration in terms of the original, to be > > > uncomfortable to many posters. 17742 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 6:04pm Subject: Re: Bhikkhunis Hi Peter, Your post is a crucially important one to me. I guess I've been operating under false ideas of what underpinned Buddhism and the Buddha's view of women. I guess I assumed he was trying not to create alarm in a chauvinist society, so as to get the Sangha firmly established. I guess I thought the Buddha really saw no difference in the value of males and females, but was constrained by the mores of a conservative culture. I agree that these words "can't be explained as some kind of slip of the tongue, or even playing to contemporary sensibilities. These are powerful and systematic statements." First though, I'll try to find the original suttas that you allude to. Gratitude, Christine --- "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Hi Christine, Sarah, and all > As most of us are aware, at the time of the Buddha, when Ananda > thrice requested the admittance of women to the Sangha, the Buddha > replied in what could be seen by todays standards as rather a > derogatory, if not paranoid manner. > > He spoke about the Sasana lasting only half the time it originally > would have. And also insisted on eight restrictions ('capital > points', ~Naa.namoli) to be imposed on the nuns as a condition for > their admittance. One of which was that a nun of advanced seniority > would be junior to a monk newly admitted that very day. Another > spoke of Bhikkhunis not being allowed to find fault with Bhikkhus > nor admonish them at all. A Bhikkhuni must never address discourses > to Bhikkhus, but Bhikkhus may address discourses to Bhikkhunis. In > the matter of grave offences a Bhikkhuni must do penance before both > Sanghas. Additionally to these eight capital points, a Bhikkhuni > must be given the admission by both Sanghas (and is why the lineage > could not be restored once broken: hence the need to find an > unbroken branch elsewhere). > > The Buddha gave his reasons for insisting on these eight conditions > of acceptance. He unflatteringly likened women in the Sangha to a > rice field being infected by various kinds of fungus or mildew. A > clan with too many women and too few men is vulnerable to robbers > and bandits is likened to the Sangha with women admitted. "...As a > man might construct in advance an embankment so that the waters of a > great reservoir should not cause a flood, so I too have made known > in advance these eight cardinal points..." (~Naa.namoli) > > Now this can't be explained as some kind of slip of the tongue, or > even playing to contemporary sensibilities. These are powerful and > systematic statements. What are we to make of them? The Buddha, > having willingly recognised their equal ability to fully penetrate > and realize the Dhamma, is more than creating an historic precedent > by granting women the admission. This is virtual revolution by the > standards of that time. But he goes to great lengths to ensure that > there is no mistaking his view on female admission. It's always > possible the Buddha, being a mere mortal, had some kind of a blind > spot and got this bit wrong! > > Either way, the Amaravati DSM's evade this whole issue, and seem > quite happy having equal rank with Bhikkhus even though it is only > within the Amaravati Sangha. They enjoy the holy life, exhibit a > mature understanding of the Dhamma and are much sought after for > teaching engagements. > > Cheers > Peter 17743 From: Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 6:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mana (conceit) Hi Christine, I looked but couldn't find any scriptural support for what I had in mind by my comment that criticism is generosity, not conceit. I agree that conceit often accompanies and motivates criticism and the criticism is often received with conceit. However, I have found that criticism is an opportunity to re-examine my beliefs and look at them in a different way, even if I disagree, and especially if I am bothered by it. To me, being bothered is a wonderful sign that I am holding onto something that could be let go of, usually just by noticing it. Even if I think I am right as rain, the impulse to secure truth is a mistake. Right understanding is impermanent and not self. Plus there is always the remote possibility that I am wrong. Larry 17744 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 7:22pm Subject: Re: Mana (conceit) Hi Christine, Here are two discourses that might be relevant to your post on conceit. Anguttara Nikaya IV.199 Tanha Sutta Craving http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-199.html Anguttara Nikaya IV.200 Pema Sutta Affection http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-200.html Metta, Victor --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > I was thinking today about what Mana (conceit) means in Buddhist > terms in daily life. > My pre-Dhamma understanding was influenced by Christianity, and I > knew mana as Vanity. "Vanity of Vanities, saith the Preacher, all is > vanity." (Ecclesiastes 1:2) The Hebrew word for vanity in this > context simply means "breath" or "vapor." The writer of Ecclesiastes > lists pleasure-seeking, the trappings of materialism, the seeking of > fame and power, and becoming a learned philosopher as all this world > had to offer and yet, concluded, it was all vain, the grasping at > wind. So, to me, the Christian definition involves sensuality and > selfish acquisitiveness (physical and mental) designed to increase an > individual's standing in the world. > > The first jolt I had about the Buddhist take on Mana was when I went > for Dhamma discussions with friends in Bangkok a year ago. Feeling > overwhelmed by a gathering of people with years of Dhamma knowledge, > practice experience and understanding, and anxious about the > microphones for taping of the conversation, I tended to do what is > seen as 'humility' in my circles - make deprecating remarks about my > own lack of knowledge and admiring remarks about that of others. A > friend, much to my mortification at the time, told me that this was > just conceit. Another friend wrote that I was probably an 'under- > estimator', which at least sounds better than being told I have > omana 'inferiority-conceit :-) > Referring to the three kinds of Mana, Nyanatiloka gives this meaning: > The (equality-) conceit (mána), the inferiority-conceit (omána) and > the superiority-conceit (atimána): this threefold conceit should be > overcome. For, after overcoming this threefold conceit, the monk, > through the full penetration of conceit, is said to have put an end > suffering" (A. VI, 49). > "Those ascetics and brahman priests who, relying on this impermanent, > miserable and transitory nature of corporeality, feelings, > perceptions, mental formations and consciousness, fancy: 'Better am > I', or 'Equal am I', or 'Worse am I', all these imagine thus through > not understanding reality" (S. XXII, 49). > > The definition in the CMA II.7 "Conceit (mana): Conceit has the > characteristic of haughtiness. Its function is self-exaltation. It > is manifested as vainglory. (n. Ketukamyata, lit. a desire to fly the > banner - to advertise oneself). Its proximate cause is greed > dissociated from views. (n. because conceit arises only in greed- > rooted cittas dissociated from views.) It should be regarded as > madness." > > This is a difficult definition for me to understand because it makes > it seem as if conceit should be easily recognisable and that the > boundaries are quite narrow and easily discerned. > I think my 'underestimator' or 'inferiority-conceit' could be > included within "vainglory - a desire to fly the banner to advertise > oneself" i.e. It is seeing oneself as important in some way. All the > time I'm is protesting how much better someone else is at something > than I, or how lacking I am in certain knowledge - isn't that waving > the banner about myself, keeping others attention on me while I > speak, write etc.? > Just so with most arguing on e-lists about how wrong other people's > beliefs, method of practice, level of understanding is, or how > incorrect their alleged manners and behaviour seems to us ... isn't > this just 'flying the banner' of atimana (superiority conceit) and > attracting attention to oneself by articulating 'righteous anger' at > others? > > (Just for you, Victor, your favourite quote :-)) > Sarah in post 11868 writes: > "This is mine, this am I, this is my self" as often quoted. "This is > mine" > refers to craving, taking objects as belonging to self. "This am I" > refers to mana, conceit and "This is my self" refers to the > personality > belief, sakkaya ditthi, identified with the 5 khandhas. > > So if "This am I" refers to mana, conceit, then anything that points > to, underlines, articulates, indicates, or identifies oneself as > better, worse or the same as another is Mana - conceit. I think that > this would also include unlikely types of thinking, and actions not > just speech. It is 'having a self view', it is not understanding > anatta. It is not understanding that there is no self to be > important, to be protective of or to promote. > e.g. I was in a hurry to get out of the Supermarket, had only four > items to pay for, so went to the priority check-out (under eight > items). Just before I got there, a large man with a full trolley > rudely pushed in front and the Operator didn't quibble about rules, > just began processing his groceries. Well!!! I spent the next ten > minutes creating stories about how hard done by I was, how rude the > man was, how ill trained and cowardly the staff were, what was the > point of having special aisles for fewer purchases and quicker exit > etc. etc. etc ... I think the basis for all my uncomfortable emotions > was Conceit. > > It is said that Conceit is only eradicated when one becomes an > Arahat, it is one of the Fetters so-called because they fetter > aggregates [in this life] to aggregates [of the next], or kamma to > its fruit, or beings to suffering. For as long as the ones exist > there is no cessation of the others. Vis. XXII.48f > > I was wondering if anyone has other references for Conceit, and if > anyone can think of other examples in everyday life that show conceit > in action? Does it join with other factors that disguise it? - I ask > this because most people, even those well versed in Dhamma, don't > seem to realise when mana is a large part of their speech or actions. > > metta, > Christine 17745 From: Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 2:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi again, Larry - In a message dated 12/14/02 7:09:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Sorry I lost you. Let's try again. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. I'll try to be clearer. -------------------------------------------- > > Larry: What I am asking about is the > logic of the kamma doctrine as we have it. Is it a correct > interpretation to say kamma function controls the rupa of the universe? > Howard: Yes. (Well, I guess I have to add "as I see it"!! ;-) > > L: aHA! So the old vedic priests were right. Rites an rituals > (intentions) do make a difference. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'll try to clarify my last reply. Conventional world events are conditioned in the usual conventional ways. (We can wish to fly, but that won't do it unless we board an airplane or some such vehicle.) Generally, belief in the efficacy of mere intention is a belief in magic. Mere intention is generally not an adequate condition for most effects. Of course intention can have a desired effect psychologically, on oneself, due to belief in the efficacy of intention, and it could also effect others in the same way provided that they are also telepathic. Rites and rituals, however, are actions intentionally carried out, but not intention themselves. They also can have certain anticipated effects due to the belief of the performer of the rites and rituals or of another intended "recipient" of benefits of those rites and rituals. But generally, intention alone won't hack it. For example, we can intend to attain jhanas, to develop wisdom, and to achieve enlightenment until we are blue in the face, but without taking the proper steps (volitionally, of course), the results will not be achieved. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > H: Consciousness of rupa is not rupa - it is discernment. I take rupa to > be whatever can be object of the so-called physical-sense > consciousnesses: visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, and gustatory. > > L: Are you saying there is a direct experience of rupa but we can't > verify its accuracy with panna? > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: My answer remains the same: no, I'm not saying that. I don't understand how you infer that from what I have said. --------------------------------------------------------- > > Larry > ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 17746 From: Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 2:33pm Subject: Re: Contemplating Aging ([dsg] Re: Take Care of Yourself) Hi, Christine - Thanks for the great post! I particularly like your emphasis near the end. Yes, recollection of aging, and illness, and most of all, death, is a kind of blessing for us. The Buddha pointed this out, but like all that he taught, we have to come to see the truth of it directly, for ourselves. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/14/02 7:17:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > Hi Howard, (and all), > > I was going to say "you young whippersnapper" but I'm not quite sure > what one is. :-) > You can tell from her remarks that Nina's dad at 102 yrs of age and > still a loved and vital presence within the family. > > Your comments about your health and the fascination at considering > your own aging process, started me musing about my own. This happens > quite regularly especially this last year - I think because > unavoidable reminders of aging - having to get reading glasses, and > the first grey hairs - were such a shock. I too look back at myself > in earlier years and wonder who that person was, full of passionate > causes, so sure she was right, valuing only intellect and ethics, > agitating for justice and equality, no excuses accepted, believing > the world could be set to rights by good will, self-sacrifice and > reason ... Can one feel compassion for a younger 'self'? :-) Because > the 'stories' of the world go on and on, at home the family and love > stories of joy and grief, the getting and spending, in the political > arena the rhetoric, the brinkmanship and demonstrations and, at work > the meetings, the plans and the grievances, and very few things > change permanently - happiness and suffering cycle around - samsara > rolls on. > I am reminded of how little humanity changes by this quote which may > ring true for those in bureaucratic organisations and businesses: > "We trained hard .. but every time we were beginning to form up into > teams we would be re-organised. I was to learn later in life that we > tend to meet any new situation by re-organising .. and a wonderful > method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while > producing inefficiency and demoralisation". > (Petronius A.D. 66 > The old saying is still true 'The more things change, the more things > stay the same'. > > But the body doesn't stay the same, and the changes cannot be > ignored. They can be ameliorated but are ultimately irreversible and > relentless. Maybe the contemplation of the physical changes is a > blessing in disguise. i.e. It prevents one ignoring the idea of > eventual death, 'my' death, any longer. That gets a lot of things in > perspective don't you think? e.g. what's important (hearing and > reflecting on the Dhamma, talking with admirable friends) and what's > not (who wins, who loses, who's 'important', who's not), and when > will I ever really understand anatta? > > metta, > Christine > /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) 17747 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 7:59pm Subject: Contemplating Aging ([dsg] Re: Take Care of Yourself) Hi Christine, You can understand the teaching of anatta now. It is a simple teaching, not a complicated one. The teaching itself is not difficult to understand. However, sometime it is hard to accept something that is simple. Metta, Victor > not (who wins, who loses, who's 'important', who's not), and when > will I ever really understand anatta? > > metta, > Christine 17748 From: Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 8:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi Howard, Now I'm totally confused. Since we are discussing two different issues I'll just label them 1 & 2: 1: When I asked if you thought kamma function controls the rupa of the universe you said yes. Your response below doesn't seem to reference that "yes". As an example of kamma function controlling the rupa of the universe, if a meteor hit me in the head that would be due to kamma. Or, our meeting is due to kamma. What did you mean when you agreed that kamma function controls the rupa of the universe? 2: Is there such a phenomenon as sense consciousness? Does sense consciousness have an object? Is consciousness of that object accurate? Larry ---------------------------------- Howard wrote: Conventional world events are conditioned in the usual conventional ways. (We can wish to fly, but that won't do it unless we board an airplane or some such vehicle.) Generally, belief in the efficacy of mere intention is a belief in magic. Mere intention is generally not an adequate condition for most effects. Of course intention can have a desired effect psychologically, on oneself, due to belief in the efficacy of intention, and it could also effect others in the same way provided that they are also telepathic. Rites and rituals, however, are actions intentionally carried out, but not intention themselves. They also can have certain anticipated effects due to the belief of the performer of the rites and rituals or of another intended "recipient" of benefits of those rites and rituals. But generally, intention alone won't hack it. For example, we can intend to attain jhanas, to develop wisdom, and to achieve enlightenment until we are blue in the face, but without taking the proper steps (volitionally, of course), the results will not be achieved. 17749 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 8:50pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Bhikkhunis Dear Peter, thank you for explaining to all the members this rules. If I was a woman, under no circunstances I will humiliate myself to be treaty that way. Many times I have to shut and bite my tonge when I see in the temples where I go ( this afternoon for example) the Sri Lanka monk is in SriLanka so at 5 pm I am conducting by myself the entire ceremony, allthe men will kneel in the front and the women at the back. It looks like the 21st century has not reach Buddhism. Ven. Yanatharo -----Mensaje original----- De: peterdac4298 [mailto:peterdac4298@y...] Enviado el: Domingo, Diciembre 15, 2002 12:21 p.m. Asunto: [dsg] Re: Bhikkhunis Hi Christine, Sarah, and all In my previous post on this thread I used the expression "intimidating and demeaning" in brief reference to the original, historic Bhikkhuni Sangha, and how this was absent from the more democratic Amaravati style DSM Sangha of today. I feel I aught to expand this so as to avoid any misunderstanding. As most of us are aware, at the time of the Buddha, when Ananda thrice requested the admittance of women to the Sangha, the Buddha replied in what could be seen by todays standards as rather a derogatory, if not paranoid manner. He spoke about the Sasana lasting only half the time it originally would have. And also insisted on eight restrictions ('capital points', ~Naa.namoli) to be imposed on the nuns as a condition for their admittance. One of which was that a nun of advanced seniority would be junior to a monk newly admitted that very day. Another spoke of Bhikkhunis not being allowed to find fault with Bhikkhus nor admonish them at all. A Bhikkhuni must never address discourses to Bhikkhus, but Bhikkhus may address discourses to Bhikkhunis. In the matter of grave offences a Bhikkhuni must do penance before both Sanghas. Additionally to these eight capital points, a Bhikkhuni must be given the admission by both Sanghas (and is why the lineage could not be restored once broken: hence the need to find an unbroken branch elsewhere). The Buddha gave his reasons for insisting on these eight conditions of acceptance. He unflatteringly likened women in the Sangha to a rice field being infected by various kinds of fungus or mildew. A clan with too many women and too few men is vulnerable to robbers and bandits is likened to the Sangha with women admitted. "...As a man might construct in advance an embankment so that the waters of a great reservoir should not cause a flood, so I too have made known in advance these eight cardinal points..." (~Naa.namoli) Now this can't be explained as some kind of slip of the tongue, or even playing to contemporary sensibilities. These are powerful and systematic statements. What are we to make of them? The Buddha, having willingly recognised their equal ability to fully penetrate and realize the Dhamma, is more than creating an historic precedent by granting women the admission. This is virtual revolution by the standards of that time. But he goes to great lengths to ensure that there is no mistaking his view on female admission. It's always possible the Buddha, being a mere mortal, had some kind of a blind spot and got this bit wrong! Either way, the Amaravati DSM's evade this whole issue, and seem quite happy having equal rank with Bhikkhus even though it is only within the Amaravati Sangha. They enjoy the holy life, exhibit a mature understanding of the Dhamma and are much sought after for teaching engagements. Cheers Peter --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Sarah, and all, > > You are correct - any discussion of this matter on this list, > particularly between you and I, has been respectfully conducted. > The rest is probably my subjective interpretation. Implacability, > though, has been evinced by people taking the 'the scriptures say > it's impossible to reinstate' line. e.g. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/15646 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/15653 > > Of great interest to me is this article which states: 'There is > permission in the Vinaya Chullavagga for monks to ordain nuns." > and, "the Bhikkhuni Sasana has been revived in Sri Lanka According > to full Theravada ceremonial." > http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/nunorder.htm > > metta, > > Christine > > > --- Sarah wrote: > > Dear Christine, > > > > --- "christine_forsyth " > > wrote: > Dear Peter, > > > > > > On a number of lists (including this one) and over a period of > time, > > > I have found the topic of the Bhikkuni Sangha, and especially > the > > > issue of its Restoration in terms of the original, to be > > > uncomfortable to many posters. 17750 From: James Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 10:42pm Subject: Re: Mana (conceit) Hi Christine, Good topic. One I was thinking about today due to a line in the letter from Nina to me about accumulations. I agree with the Abhidhamma in regards to its application of accumulations and how accumulations will affect insight. However, I believe that many Buddhists, even a few on this list, see this fact in the wrong light. They see accumulations as demonstrating that one person is more important than another person. In other words, `I appreciate the Abhidhamma because I have more accumulations than you do. If you had as many accumulations, and high accumulations, you would appreciate it like I do.' (Note: This doesn't apply to Nina…I won't mention names.) This thinking really makes me smile. The more accumulations a person has, and the greater in quality those accumulations, the more he/she will realize how unimportant he/she is as an individual. Adolf Hitler just `knew' he was the most `important' person in the world; while the Lord Buddha `knew' he was the least `important' person of everyone. I strive to be as unimportant as possible. That is the main reason I don't like to see my name in the subject headings of posts in this group or other groups. Having my name displayed so prominently makes me too `important'. I am not important; the dhamma is what's important. Metta, James 17751 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 10:55pm Subject: Contemplating Aging ([dsg] Re: Take Care of Yourself) Hi Victor, I think I understand anatta intellectually. I'm happy with the everchanging process idea. It's the personal identity bit that keeps intruding. I seem to remember, though, that you didn't agree entirely with Nyanatiloka's definition. When I say I don't understand anatta - I mean I still feel that this 'me' is all I know, it pervades my whole awareness. It IS my awareness of being. Unless I am reading about anatta or bringing its definition to mind, I don't feel any different now to how I have felt all my life, before I heard about the Anatta. I feel no different to when I thought my consciousness was a Soul. I am 'that'. I was reading a recent post by Prof. Richard Hayes elsewhere entitled 'Yes Virginnia,there is a soul'. After a discussion around what is the meaning of the word 'soul', he ends with a view that he feels is both good Buddhism and good Jungianism. 'The soul is not of a fixed nature but rather is always a work in progress. It is never complete, never perfected. Also, to say that the soul is not the self is to say that the soul is not autonomous, that it is conditioned, that it is empty.' This is not so different to Nyanatiloka's definition, no? metta, Christine (Thanks for the Tanha and Pema suttas re Mana - I've read them and I'll think them over.) --- "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Hi Christine, > > You can understand the teaching of anatta now. It is a simple > teaching, not a complicated one. > > The teaching itself is not difficult to understand. However, > sometime it is hard to accept something that is simple. > > Metta, > Victor > > > > not (who wins, who loses, who's 'important', who's not), and when > > will I ever really understand anatta? > > > > metta, > > Christine 17752 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 11:29pm Subject: Re: Mana (conceit)) Hi James,and All, Thanks for your post. I am interested in finding out more about accumulations. My understanding is that there is no point in being conceited about one's accumulations - they just are. There is no-one who should feel conceited about having an interest in and ability to understand abhidhamma, anymore than one should feel conceited about having brown eyes. They came with the package. Regarding accumulations, I thought kusala and akusala mind moments accumulated, and made certain tendencies and behavioural traits stronger more likely to resurface. I don't quite understand how skills accumulate or where to find the scriptural support for this. Can anyone help out with more info on accumulations? James, on the recent topic of suffering/happiness, I was reading an article, thought of you, and wondered if you might like to read it. It's by Thanissaro Bhikkhu and is called "Life isn't just Suffering". http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/lifeisnt.html with metta, Christine --- "James " wrote: > Hi Christine, > > Good topic. One I was thinking about today due to a line in the > letter from Nina to me about accumulations. I agree with the > Abhidhamma in regards to its application of accumulations and how > accumulations will affect insight. However, I believe that many > Buddhists, even a few on this list, see this fact in the wrong > light. They see accumulations as demonstrating that one person is > more important than another person. In other words, `I appreciate > the Abhidhamma because I have more accumulations than you do. If > you had as many accumulations, and high accumulations, you would > appreciate it like I do.' 17753 From: nidive Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 11:47pm Subject: Why does a sotapanna has only at most 7 remaining rebirths? Why is it that a sotapanna has only at most 7 remaining rebirths? Does this mean that even if he doesn't practice the Dhamma in the 7 remaining lifetimes, he will still become an arahat eventually at the 7th rebirth? Does this mean that once a person becomes a sotapanna, there is really "no point" in practising further to achieve arahatship in fewer lifetimes (because arahatship is guaranteed at the 7th rebirth anyway) ? Is there any explanation why this is so (at most 7 more rebirths)? 17754 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 11:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Forgiveness Chris --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: ... > Jon, > Thanks for this reminder "As regards wrong done by others to > oneself, the Buddha explained on many occasions the need to > understand that people act the way they do because of their > accumulated nature, that one is reaping the results of one's own > previous deeds...'. > Also please see my remarks above to Howard regarding the Kakacupana > Sutta. I hope I'm not wrong. > Having the expectation from the Buddha that his followers not feel > aversion when under horrific physical torture would be 'setting the > hurdle too high' for me and for most beings, I think. > ----------------------------------- Yes, I agree with this. The Kakacupama Sutta (M.21) is not setting an ideal by which we should try to act, but rather is saying, to put it in words that Nina has just used, that there is no limit to metta, that is, that there is never an occasion on which metta would not be an appropriate mind-state when another being is the object of consciousness, as far as the teaching is concerned. Even not to feel aversion when people are doing nothing 'wrong' at all would be too high a hurdle for us ;-)). Jon PS Thanks for all the interesting posts from the Cooran weekend. 17755 From: jonoabb Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 0:11am Subject: Re: Fear of Rupas Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > That's quite possibly so. Do you have a sutta (ot other) reference for > that? (I do think there is a temporal, predecessor relation implied, but not > necessarily that of immediate predecessor. The relationship among vi~n~nana, > namarupa, and salayatana, however, might be more of a logical- dependency > realtion than a temporal one. I'm not very sure about that. > ----------------------------------------------------- The paticca-samuppada (dependent origination) is a vast and complex subject. I do not pretend to understand it, other than at a very superficial level. I prefer to take the view that it will become apparent as necessary as and when (if ever) understanding is developed (that's a cop-out on my part, I know;-)). However, there's a useful introduction in Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary (too lengthy to post in full here), with Abhidhamma and Sutta references, at the link below. I would be happy to discuss further if you find anything of interest there. http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic3_p2.htm. > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't see that as an alternative view. It is my position as well. We > open our eyes and what appears is visual object. As it is, there is no lamp > or table or anything else. These "things" arise later and are > mind-constructed. > --------------------------------------------- Another of our rare moments of agreement, Howard ;-)). The visible object that is experienced at moments of seeing is 'real' in a sense that the later, mind-constructed objects can never be. It has a characteristic that is independent of the "things" that are so constructed from it. It is different in nature and characteristic from the consciousness by means of which it is experienced. To my understanding of the teachings, visible object is one of the dhammas the direct experience of which leads to the development of insight. I would contrast this with, say, an understanding of the process by which bare experiences through the sense-doors are 'transformed' into the mind constructs that create the world as we conventionally perceive it, an understanding that must necessarily remain a mostly intellectual one, since it all happens much too fast ever to be fully experienced directly, even by enlightened beings (other than a Buddha and the great disciples). Useful (indeed, very useful) information, but not a necessary prerequisite to the direct experience of dhammas appearing now. Jon 17756 From: James Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 0:15am Subject: Re: Why does a sotapanna has only at most 7 remaining rebirths? --- "nidive " wrote: > Why is it that a sotapanna has only at most 7 remaining rebirths? > > Does this mean that even if he doesn't practice the Dhamma in the 7 > remaining lifetimes, he will still become an arahat eventually at > the 7th rebirth? > > Does this mean that once a person becomes a sotapanna, there is > really "no point" in practising further to achieve arahatship in > fewer lifetimes (because arahatship is guaranteed at the 7th rebirth > anyway) ? > > Is there any explanation why this is so (at most 7 more rebirths)? NEO, I am not sure about the number 7 rebirths for a Sotapanna or even where you get that information; but the number isn't important really. You ask, "Does this mean that even if he doesn't practice the Dhamma in the 7 remaining lifetimes, he will still become an arahat eventually at the 7th rebirth?" This question is moot because it would be impossible for such a person not to practice the Dhamma for those remaining births. Just as I wrote to Christine about accumulations, and her response, when certain tendencies build up, and certain insights are reached, there is no going back and no way to stop the eventual progression. I speak from personal experience. I am not sure if I am a Sotapanna, and, as Rhett Butler said, "Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn." But I do know that I was born with an insatiable appetite to know the meaning of life from a very young age. While other children read `Hardy Boys', I read books on religions and Haiku Zen poetry. This was not something that I chose or could control. And believe me, I tried many times to forget the whole thing and be like the people around me, but it never worked. I always gravitated back to the larger questions of life and Buddhism. Probably most everyone in this group is the same way… including you. Once you taste that Forbidden Apple of Dhamma, there is no going back. Metta, James 17757 From: nidive Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 1:09am Subject: Re: Why does a sotapanna has only at most 7 remaining rebirths? Dear James > I am not sure about the number 7 rebirths for a Sotapanna or even > where you get that information; but the number isn't important > really. Samyutta Nikaya XIII.1 Nakhasikha Sutta The Tip of the Fingernail Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then the Blessed One, picking up a little bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monks, "What do you think, monks? Which is greater: the little bit of dust I have picked up with the tip of my fingernail, or the great earth?" "The great earth is far greater, lord. The little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail is next to nothing. It's not a hundredth, a thousandth, a one hundred- thousandth -- this little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail -- when compared with the great earth." "In the same way, monks, for a disciple of the noble ones who is consummate in view, an individual who has broken through [to stream- entry], the suffering & stress that is totally ended & extinguished is far greater. That which remains in the state of having at most seven remaining lifetimes is next to nothing: it's not a hundredth, a thousandth, a one hundred-thousandth, when compared with the previous mass of suffering. That's how great the benefit is of breaking through to the Dhamma, monks. That's how great the benefit is of obtaining the Dhamma eye." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn13-001.html > You ask, "Does this mean that even if he doesn't practice > the Dhamma in the 7 remaining lifetimes, he will still become an > arahat eventually at the 7th rebirth?" This question is moot > because it would be impossible for such a person not to practice > the Dhamma for those remaining births. Just as I wrote to > Christine about accumulations, and her response, when certain > tendencies build up, and certain insights are reached, there is > no going back and no way to stop the eventual progression. Somehow I agree with you. But I am interested in how the Abhidhamma explains why it's at most 7 rebirths. > I speak from personal experience. I am not sure if I am a > Sotapanna, and, as Rhett Butler said, "Frankly, Scarlett, I don't > give a damn." But I do know that I was born with an insatiable > appetite to know the meaning of life from a very young age. While > other children read `Hardy Boys', I read books on religions and > Haiku Zen poetry. This was not something that I chose or could > control. And believe me, I tried many times to forget the whole > thing and be like the people around me, but it never worked. I > always gravitated back to the larger questions of life and > Buddhism. Probably most everyone in this group is the same way… > including you. Once you taste that Forbidden Apple of Dhamma, > there is no going back. My appetite to know the meaning of life came when I was a teenager. The path from Christianity to Theravada Buddhism was long and arduous and painful and sad, but it's very worthwhile. NEO Swee Boon 17758 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 1:29am Subject: Re: Why does a sotapanna has only at most 7 remaining rebirths? Hi Swee Boon, I have always wondered about that wording too, particularly the words 'at most' which indicate the number of lives could be a lot less. Nyanatiloka's dictionary throws some light on the matter. There are three kinds of sotapanna, as seen below. I think the characteristic qualities of a Stream Winner, the sotápannassa angáni, mean that they would, by accumulations, be compelled by an interest in the Dhamma, the Sangha, and the Buddha to continue forward on the Path. No choice, no control. :-) metta, Christine http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm sotápanna: the 'Stream-winner', is the lowest of the 8 noble disciples (s. ariya-puggala). Three kinds are to be distinguished: the one 'with 7 rebirths at the utmost' (sattakkhattu-parama), the one 'passing from one noble family to another' (kolankola), the one 'germinating only once more' (eka-bíjí). As it is said (e.g. Pug. 37-39; A. III, 87): (1) "If a man, after the disappearance of the 3 fetters (personality- belief, skeptical doubt, attachment to rules and ritual; s. samyojana), has entered the stream (to Nibbána), he is no more subject to rebirth in lower worlds, is firmly established, destined to full enlightenment. After having passed amongst the heavenly and human beings only seven times more through the round of rebirths, he puts an end to suffering. Such a man is called 'one with 7 births at the utmost' (sattakkhattu-parama). (2) "If a man, after the disappearance of the 3 fetters.... is destined to full enlightenment, he, after having passed among noble families two or three times through the round of rebirths, puts an end to suffering. Such a man is called 'one passing from one noble family to another' (kolankola). (3) "If a man, after the disappearance of the 3 fetters.... is destined to full enlightenment, he, after having only once more returned to human existence, puts an end to suffering. Such a man is called 'one germinating only once more' (eka-bíjí). See Sotápatti- Samyutta (S. LV). sotápannassa angáni: the 'characteristic qualities of a Stream- winner' are 4: unshakable faith towards the Enlightened One, unshakable faith towards the Doctrine, unshakable faith towards the Order, and perfect morality. Explained in S. LV, I, D. 33, in S. XLVII, 8 and in Netti-ppakarana these 4 qualities are called sotápattiyanga (q.v.). sotápattiyanga: the 4 (preliminary) 'conditions to Stream-entry' are: companionship with good persons, hearing the Good Law, wise reflection, living in conformity with the Law (S. LV, 5; D. 33). Cf. sotápannassa angáni. --- "nidive " wrote: > Dear James > > > I am not sure about the number 7 rebirths for a Sotapanna or even > > where you get that information; but the number isn't important > > really. > > Samyutta Nikaya XIII.1 > Nakhasikha Sutta > > NEO Swee Boon 17759 From: nidive Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 1:59am Subject: Psychic Experiences Dear Everybody, I don't know whether this is off-topic or not. But since the Buddha talked about abhinna powers, I would like to discuss about my own 'psychic experiences' which I could still remember. I had my first psychic experience at age 15/16. At that time, I had bought a book on psychic trainings. It taught how one could know about something through the 'third-eye'. After some practice, I had my first psychic experience. I focused the 'third-eye' on the 4-D lottery outcome for that weekend. And guess what? 4 digits appeared in my 'third-eye' vision. Did that number appear in the lottery outcome? Yes, it did. But it appeared only for the next weekend as the first prize but it was not in sequence. This happened not only once, but a few times, including hearing a generic voice (by focusing on the clairaudience reception area) telling me about a 4-D number that came up the same weekend. It was pretty scary hearing such a generic voice. But it only occurred once. As I grew up, these ability died down. Sometimes, just before going to sleep, I have this kind of experience. I would hear some sort of funny conversations going on, with different kind of voices. Often I couldn't understand what is being said, but I just could hear people talking, even though my physical surroundings is as quiet as a mouse. These mind voices can be very interesting and I know I am not talking to myself. They are voices that are not mine. Another experience was while riding in a friend's car. All of a sudden, I just had this premonition/pre-knowledge that we are going to get into some accident. And sure enough, we got into an accident not long afterwards. I felt befuddled by the experience. And my last vivid experience was about one/two weeks before the Sep 11 tragedy last year. I was taking a light afternoon nap when I had this sudden vision of an airline plane slamming into the middle of a tall building. Immediately I woke up. I thought I was dreaming about some movie I had saw. But I could not recollect any movie that I had seen that had such an image. After some time, I forgot about it. Several days later, I watched the very tragedy live on television. Also, when I was young, I had this habit of watching and noticing the clouds pass by the window while I lay down on my bed. It is kind of a meditation in that the whole mind is fixated on the movement of the clouds. Somehow, this appears to be practising some form of concentration although I am not sure. Sometimes, when I am walking around the house and thinking deeply about some aspects of the Dhamma, I would experience momentary 'goose-bumps' all over the body. It is like having electricity running through the body. It last only for a few seconds each time. But I also recall that when I was a Christian, I experience this kind of 'goose-bumps' when I think deeply about some aspects of the Holy Trinity. I don't know if any of you had such experiences or not. I know people seldom discuss such things because it is uncommon. But since this is Theravada Buddhism, I find it alright to talk about them. If I had talked such things to a Christian, they would think that I am the Devil. Or that I am crazy. But I know I am not crazy. These are my real experiences. NEO Swee Boon 17760 From: Sarah Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 2:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mana (conceit) Hi Christine, I appreciated your post on mana very much......the supermarket checkout scenario (or queues for check in at Brisbane airport;-)) are familiar scenarios......in fact I could probably add a book of scenarios in a day ;-(. Nina gave some simple little examples in the India series at Sarnath, I recall but I am a bit rushed to find now. It can be just little things like the way someone dresses, susceptibility to the sun or sickness, how someone walks ..... it sneaks in all the time. I find it particularly helpful to reflect on how it it prevents metta from arising, esp. as we've been discussing metta so much. when there is conceit, there is concern for oneself, no kindness or consideration for others. In K.Sujin's book on "Metta' (I don't think it's on the net ) , in the first paragraph in ch 1, she discusses how when there is metta: "At such moments the citta is gentle, there is no conceit, mana, which is the condition for asserting oneself, for showing one's own importance and for disparaging others." Just a little later, she says "Conceit is a defilement which is an impediment to metta. When there is metta we think of the well-being of someone else, whereas when there is conceit we find ourselves important..." It is followed by the Atthasalini quote about "Flaunting a Flag". --- "christine_forsyth " < >topic > on Mana please? Just imagine if I could have clicked on that, I > wouldn't have had to do all the considering and reflecting ... ahh! .... Perhaps that would have been too easy and we've have missed out on all your very helpful considering and reflecting;-) You mentioned timing.....maybe now you might like to look in U.P. under conceit: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts ***** Conceit (mana) 4072, 4405, 7594, 11570, 11650, 11866, 12931, 13626, 13674 Conceit vs wrong view of self 11868 ***** Thanks again for all your contributions, Sarah ====== 17761 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 2:26am Subject: About Trees Dear Janet Chui, I really think that your right that we need fresh air and because if we cut all the trees down they might not be able to reproduce seeds. Is Philip a good brother? Yes,I do speak French and what do you think about Buddhism? From Charles (C.B.) 17762 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 2:28am Subject: About Alex Dear Robert, Does Alex know about Nintendo game cube, Nintendo, X-box, play station or playststion 2? Please tell me about kamma. From Charles (C.B.) 17763 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 2:30am Subject: A letter to..... Dear James, Thank you for teaching me about Buddhism. It reminds me about I did something wrong in school, at home...... By the way, what are simple questions? Please write to me soon. With love, Janet. 17764 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 2:34am Subject: Letter to xxxxx Dear James, I'm Kimmy, I have read through the letter from you to Janet (17595). I think Janet should listen to your advice and I am really sorry about the death of your sister. My situation is similar to Janet's. I have 2 elder brothers. They always played tricks on me when I was young. I hated their tricks very much. However, since one of them had gor married and the other one is studying in university, they don't have anytime to play with me. The worst is I like and miss their tricks and want to play with them very much now!! I hope Janet will also understand the importance of her brother. I am glad your letter leads me too think a lot about life and Buddhism. Kimmy 17765 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 2:40am Subject: Thank you > xxxxx!!! Dear James : Hello James. I am Kiana.Thank you very much for your reply, and your answer about "Life & Death". I know that is a deep question and answer for different person, but really thanks for your opinion. Actually, I could understand your letter . You are really good at explain. Your short story about the Christmas present is really nice. You are also right, everyone will have different choice, like different person will have different advanture and different choice. Finally I want to ask a question about 'life & Death" Is there any person is reborn? Thank you > James Love, Kiana. 17766 From: chase8383 Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 3:37am Subject: Letting our notions fall away (Re: If volition is conditioned)/ David Hello the Aussie Christine: "I wonder if we could both be right? :-) As I understand it, the arising of panna depends on conditions... hearing the true Dhamma, reflecting on this, and association with wise friends. Could my seeking answers fit within the 'hearing and reflecting on the Dhamma'? Perhaps with an emphasis initially on the 'hearing' part. And could your letting concepts fall away fit within the 'hearing and reflecting on the Dhamma' ... perhaps with an emphasis initially on the reflecting part?" I would say that that is true. It's kind of like a beginner, going to their first teaching and, hearing all this talk about no-self, they think, hey what got me here? Self did. "And, of course, after considering your post over the last couple of day, the benefit of association with wise friends goes without saying." Which is, of course, how I benefited. Leave the seeing in the seeing, the hearing the hearing, David 17767 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 4:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mana (conceit) Chris --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, ... <> I have noticed that for me there is an almost constant appraising of other people whom I encounter in the day – their ideas, speech or actions, their appearance, the reasons they do what they do, the way they behave towards me or others. This is sometimes readily apparent, at other times less so, but it is usually there bubbling away at some level or other. I believe this is an aspect of conceit -- I am judging (i.e., comparing) others by my own standards and values (i.e., to myself). Other aspects of conceit, or indications of its lurking presence, would perhaps include the aversion that arises when someone doesn't understand what I'm trying to say, is slow to respond, or for whatever reason 'gets on my nerves'. I suppose in these cases there is also at work a good dose of attachment to the way I would like things to be, but that attachment itself seems to be closely tied up with my idea of myself as compared to others. In fact, I would be inclined to think that whenever there is aversion that is not conditioned by an immediately experienced unpleasant object, there is a good chance that conceit is involved. An example of this might be the aversion that arises when I realise I am running late for an appointment. At root the concern may well be to do with how I am perceived in the eyes of others (unless it is simply a case of aversion at having made extra work for myself). Jon 17768 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 4:27am Subject: Re: About Alex --- Star Kid wrote: > Dear Robert, > > Does Alex know about Nintendo game cube, Nintendo, > X-box, play station or playststion 2? ________ Hi C.B. Yes, Alex is an authority on Playstation 1 and 2, and also has Nintendo. He asked me to buy Game Cube as well but I said no. Do you think I should? _________ > > Please tell me about kamma. __________ Well kamma is deep and hard to understand. It all depends on the mindstate. If the mind state is good then the action(kamma) is good. Sometimes it is hard to know whether the mindstate is good or not. I give you an example: I give a box of chocolates to my Thai language teacher . Is this good kamma? It depends. If I give hoping that she will give me extra marks or treat me better it is not really giving; it is more like a business deal. But if I give because I think of her enjoyment not wanting anything in return it is genuine giving and very good kamma. BTW it doesn't matter whether someone is Buddhist or not with regard to kamma. If they do good (even they don't know anything about kamma) then the result will be good. But the more we know about kamma the more we are encouraged to do good and the more we understand what 'good' really means. Best wishes RobertK > 17769 From: Date: Sat Dec 14, 2002 11:38pm Subject: Re: Contemplating Aging ([dsg] Re: Take Care of Yourself) Hi, Victor (and Christine) - In a message dated 12/14/02 11:00:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Christine, > > You can understand the teaching of anatta now. It is a simple > teaching, not a complicated one. > > The teaching itself is not difficult to understand. However, > sometime it is hard to accept something that is simple. > > Metta, > Victor > > =========================== Respectfully, I disagree. Seeing macroscopic change, and most importantly aging, illness, and death is a crucial part of the practice, but, by itself, is not the coup de grace. Seeing directly, by investigation, the radical impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, insubstantiality & impersonality of elements of experience at the microscopic level with the mind firm in powerful and unshakable concentration, mindfulness, and equanimity, with hindrances all in abeyance, is what finally does it. And this level of insight is usually difficult to reach and is difficult to grasp conceptually without the actual experience. The Buddha used dependent origination as a primary teaching tool for the tilakkhana, and when a follower told him he thought that that teaching was easily understandable, the Buddha admonished him saying that, no, it is a teaching that seems deep and is deep. 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) 17770 From: Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 0:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi, Larry - In a message dated 12/14/02 11:14:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Now I'm totally confused. Since we are discussing two different issues > I'll just label them 1 &2: > > 1: When I asked if you thought kamma function controls the rupa of the > universe you said yes. Your response below doesn't seem to reference > that "yes". As an example of kamma function controlling the rupa of the > universe, if a meteor hit me in the head that would be due to kamma. Or, > our meeting is due to kamma. What did you mean when you agreed that > kamma function controls the rupa of the universe? > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: To me, rupa is a type of content of consciousness. It is not the knowing aspect, but the known aspect, and it is either visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, or tactile. All other apparent rupa, the so-called "external objects" such as trees, cars, people, and meteors, are, as usually perceived, mere pa~n~natti, imaginary projections into a physical world of our own making, and whose actual nature is that of internal, mental constructs built by sankharic, fomational operations on more elementary elements of experience. When you speak of being hit by a meteor, this is, to me, a "story", an occurrence in the constructed, projected world which is a kind of macroscopic shorthand for an extraordinarily complex series of internal experiential events. It is this "extraordinarily complex series of internal experiential events" which arises due to kamma. The kamma having the *single* greatest effect in one mindstream is the previous kamma of that very same mindstream, but the flow of experiences within one mindstream is not a funtion only of its own kamma, but, in varying degrees, and in a stupifyingly complex manner, the actions of other namarupic streams. To paraphrase William James, Joe, in his world, extends his hand to shake hands with John in Joe's world, and John, in John's world, puts out his hand to grasp Joe's in John's world. It's a bit like Indra's net, to steal a notion from Mahayana, where there exists a vast network of mirrors each reflected in all the others, creating an infinite interactive net of multiple levels of images (and images of images). I hope you get my view on this now, for I don't really know how to clarify it further. ------------------------------------------------------- > > 2: Is there such a phenomenon as sense consciousness? ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, do we see, hear, smell, taste, and touch? Then, yes. ----------------------------------------------------- Does sense> > consciousness have an object? > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. A sight, sound, odor, taste, or texture (or temperature). ---------------------------------------------------- Is consciousness of that object accurate?> > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Could you please explain precisely what you mean by that question, and what you think the answer is? That would help me. ---------------------------------------------------- Larry> > ========================= With metta, Howard > > Howard wrote: > Conventional world events are conditioned in the usual conventional > ways. (We can wish to fly, but that won't do it unless we board an > airplane or some such vehicle.) Generally, belief in the efficacy of > mere intention is a belief in magic. Mere intention is generally not an > adequate condition for most effects. > Of course intention can have a > desired effect psychologically, on oneself, due to belief in the > efficacy of intention, and it could also effect others in the same way > provided that they are also telepathic. Rites and rituals, however, are > actions intentionally carried out, but not intention themselves. They > also can have certain anticipated effects due to the belief of the > performer of the rites and rituals or of another intended "recipient" of > benefits of those rites and rituals. But generally, intention alone > won't hack it. For example, we can intend to attain jhanas, to develop > wisdom, and to achieve enlightenment until we are blue in the face, but > without taking the proper steps (volitionally, of course), the results > will not be achieved. > > > /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) 17771 From: Dion Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 5:25am Subject: Maybe a little message to help things along Do the majority of people in this dhamma study group practice the dhamma in their everyday life, or is this just intellectual ego-stroking to measure up against other people? When I read these postings, especially about Abhidhamma being relevent, irrelevent in every day life - I cannot help but think that perhaps "you" are missing something - a piece of insight, maybe. Hmmm. As far as that Nina person is concerned, her book isn't worth much of a read. I thumbed trough it at my university library. I'm not trying to offend. The Abhidhamma is not that difficult to read. My opinion: we should read as close to the original "source" as possible, but for the non- Pali scholars (me) trying to gt as close as possible might be the edition edited by Bhikkhu Bodhi (BPS/BPE). Works by "people" trying to explain something - too much is lost. The Pali Text Society had wonderful editions of the tripitika - we should read those also. Maybe people should work on trying to get these editions more readily available to the reading public, so that revisionism will not be so obvious. Our Lord Buddha mentioned a thing or two about misrepresenting his teachings, so we shouldn't do that. What frustrates me is when a writer tries to use nine different Pali terms in a sentence, but is a non-Buddhist... again - revisionism and delusions. If people want to qoute from the jewish scriptures - there has to be another room available for that....send those comments there, instead of here. Please keep this room free of non-teachings. For those trying to claim "he is just a ________", I'm also, fairly versed in the Qu'ran....but this is not the forum to discuss this. Stick to the Dhamma, please! Maybe I shouldn't have written this. Maybe I have good intentions - hoping to see an improvement in the dialogues. Let's not talk about new toys. We can practice the Abhidhamma in real, everyday life - without the confusion of Pali terms. Shall I explain? I shall like this: If I have to explain, then chances are "you" don't have enough "diligence" in your practice, you are not resolute or ardent in your efforts - its about practice, and that seems to be what most people lack, and are looking for the shortcut method to obtain liberation, etc... practice what you are reading in your "scriptures", not just talking about them. Nothing changes if you don't practice what you preach. By the way, I left the the Thammayut Theravada Monkhood, only to complete my "university" training. I need to know more about laylife and the wrong-teachings people try to pass off to each other. When people come to the Wat, they are very respectful and often fake, seeking gratification of some sort... The same type if people are rude to you after you take off the robes of the "priest". They run you down on the sidewalks, etc... They float around the market place with no direct intention on where they intend to walk, often stopping for no reason, right in front of you. This is not what you see in the Wat. The Abhidhamma is very effective in lay life, because you can use real situations that are constantly developing, and use your trained mind to avert, or elimate...even seek the root of ignorances, etc...of all that is around you. When people say that it is irrelevant, I can only think of how ignorant they are, selling books, gaining profits... I'm only 29 - about 7 years into this game of defending the dhamma from capitalistic exploiters. Practice, practice is what we must do - read about it in your suttas, or where ever you recieve your dhamma instruction. Its more than just breathing meditations....practice, practice... Just trying to help, -Dion 17772 From: peterdac4298 Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 6:46am Subject: Re: Bhikkhunis Hi Christine --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Your post is a crucially important one to me. I guess I've been > operating under false ideas of what underpinned Buddhism and the > Buddha's view of women. I guess I assumed he was trying not to create > alarm in a chauvinist society, so as to get the Sangha firmly > established. This may well have been the case, it has long been my own view too. He had compassion for all beings and structured training to suit each individual. At that time, and for centuries after, probably up until the industrial revolution or even the first world war, women en-mass never had an opportunity to experience the world out side their immediate home environs as men did. Alowing them into the Sangha, at that time, could have been as disastrous for them as it could have been for the institution itself. > I guess I thought the Buddha really saw no difference in > the value of males and females, but was constrained by the mores of a > conservative culture. He unhesitatingly and immediately agreed that they had an equal ability to penetrate the doctrine: maybe he wasn't so sure about their ability to adapt to the conditions of the homeless life. The Buddha was taking a very long term view. If there is one thing that can kill off a monastic community, it is lay gossip. It is probably the richest source of gossip there is, and in the absence of any competing media (not even written), was sure to have been richly elaborated and embellished: you sure don't want any of that establishing itself into the folklore of a new religious movement. The integrity of the Sangha in the eyes of the supporting communities was of paramount importance to the Buddha, not just so that most yogis could eat most days, but perhaps, more importantly, for the lay folk's practice to be open to the Dhamma too. The Tibetan monastery Samye Ling, that started up in Scotland during the sixties, suffered for years due to an incident where there was some careless nude bathing in a nearby river. Sixties style hippies saw nothing wrong with such a thing, but in spite of an immediate ban, it put up the backs of the local council and community for decades. Perhaps the Buddha anticipated something like this, and thus placed his eight cardinal points first. Perhaps "paranoia" (used in my previous post) was too strong a word, but if a Self Enlightened Being is to have any hypersensitivity at all it must surely be towards protecting his new community of disciples from malicious gossip: there latter being several instances of this, some against himself, in spite of all this. > I agree that these words "can't be explained > as some kind of slip of the tongue, or even playing to contemporary > sensibilities. These are powerful and systematic statements." > First though, I'll try to find the original Suttas that you allude to. According to "The Life of the Buddha", ~Naa.namoli:- Vinaya Pitaka Cullavagga 10:1 ; Anguttara Nikaaya 8:51. Also a reading of many of the stories behind the rules from the Bhikkhu and Bhikkhuni Vinaya may throw some useful light on the subject too. Also bear in mind that while Bhikkhunis could never criticize a Bhikkhu, there was plenty of scope for lay women to do so. > > Gratitude, > Christine Cheers Peter > > --- "peterdac4298 > " wrote: > > Hi Christine, Sarah, and all > > As most of us are aware, at the time of the Buddha, when Ananda > > thrice requested the admittance of women to the Sangha, the Buddha > > replied in what could be seen by todays standards as rather a > > derogatory, if not paranoid manner. > > > > He spoke about the Sasana lasting only half the time it originally > > would have. And also insisted on eight restrictions ('capital > > points', ~Naa.namoli) to be imposed on the nuns as a condition for > > their admittance. > > Cheers > > Peter 17773 From: ajahn_paul Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 6:47am Subject: I'd got my first Pali Dictionary Hi all, Just want to share with all of u that i'd got my first Pali dictionary. this is the only one i can find in Hong Kong, its a Pali- English-Chinese-Sanskrit, well, its not a good one, but its the only one with Chinese! (There is another 2, one is Pali-English, the other one is English-Pali, i think those r good! ^^) I'd tried to look for a Pali-Chinese Dictionary on internet,,,, yes, i'd found one, but not enough for me. In Southern Buddhism, im just one of the satrkids! hehehehe btw, i think its a good start! ^^ 17774 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 7:13am Subject: Contemplating Aging ([dsg] Re: Take Care of Yourself) Hi Christine, What is that everchanging process idea? Where did you get that idea from? Allow me to quote (again) from Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59, Anatta- lakkhana Sutta. The Buddha's instruction is stated as following: "Thus, monks, any body whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every body is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' "Any feeling whatsoever... "Any perception whatsoever... "Any fabrications whatsoever... "Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is depleted, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" There is nothing wrong with being aware of yourself. Note that in the last paragraph of the quote, the Buddha's teaching on each and every aggregate being not self is not meant to deny self-awareness. You wrote that: I am reading about anatta or bringing its definition to mind, I don't feel any different now to how I have felt all my life, before I heard about the Anatta. I feel no different to when I thought my consciousness was a Soul. I am 'that'. This is how I see it, and I might be wrong: You feel no different because you have not been following the Buddha's instruction. Whatever 'that' is, be it conscsiousness or awareness, 'that' is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' Regarding what Prof. Richard Hayes wrote, I think you might find the article "Romancing the Buddha" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu in the Winter 2002 issue of Tricycle interesting. Here is the link to the excerpt http://www.tricycle.com/currentissue/thanissaro_bhikkhu.html Metta, Victor (I hope you find Tanha and Pema suttas relevant) --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Victor, > > I think I understand anatta intellectually. I'm happy with the > everchanging process idea. It's the personal identity bit that keeps > intruding. I seem to remember, though, that you didn't agree > entirely with Nyanatiloka's definition. When I say I don't > understand anatta - I mean I still feel that this 'me' is all I know, > it pervades my whole awareness. It IS my awareness of being. Unless > I am reading about anatta or bringing its definition to mind, I don't > feel any different now to how I have felt all my life, before I heard > about the Anatta. I feel no different to when I thought my > consciousness was a Soul. I am 'that'. > > I was reading a recent post by Prof. Richard Hayes elsewhere > entitled 'Yes Virginnia,there is a soul'. After a discussion around > what is the meaning of the word 'soul', he ends with a view that he > feels is both good Buddhism and good Jungianism. 'The soul is not of > a fixed nature but rather is always a work in progress. It is never > complete, never perfected. Also, to say that the soul is not the > self is to say that the soul is not autonomous, that it is > conditioned, that it is empty.' This is not so different to > Nyanatiloka's definition, no? > > metta, > Christine > (Thanks for the Tanha and Pema suttas re Mana - I've read them and > I'll think them over.) 17775 From: nidive Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 7:41am Subject: Re: Maybe a little message to help things along Hi Everybody, > Do the majority of people in this dhamma study group practice the > dhamma in their everyday life, or is this just intellectual > ego-stroking to measure up against other people? Maybe we should start a Dhamma Practice Group (DPG) to discuss about experiences encountered during our practices? NEO Swee Boon 17776 From: James Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 8:24am Subject: To Sandy and Kiana Hi Star Kids Sandy and Kiana! Sandy, you ask me, "Do Buddhists believe that there would be spirit after death?" and Kiana, you ask me, "Is there any person is reborn?" Both of these questions are similar so I going to write a letter to the both of you to answer. I hope you both don't mind. Thank you both for your questions and letters. It is good to hear from you again. Buddhists view the process of life and death as one of `rebirth' and not `reincarnation'. If you can understand the difference between these two things, you will understand a lot about Buddhism. Most religions in the world believe that we all have a soul, or spirit, that is unique to each of us, will go to heaven or hell, or will be reincarnated into different bodies when we die. Buddhists don't believe this (or aren't supposed to anyway). Buddhists believe that the body is the only thing there is, there is no soul inside, and that when the body dies it is simply transformed into another body; and this is called rebirth. Kind of like when you go to sleep it seems that you don't exist anymore, but you still do, and when you wake up you aren't really a different person, but you are still a little different. Life and death are very similar. Most people think that death is some sort of magical, weird, and unusual experience, but it really isn't. It is just like going to sleep and then waking up again…just a bit more dramatic. There is no reason to be afraid of death anymore than there is reason to be afraid of going to sleep. And neither one can be avoided. We all have to go to sleep eventually and we all have to die eventually. So, is that the end of that? Do we all just live and die, live and die, and live and die again, forever? Buddhists don't believe so (or aren't supposed to anyway). Buddhists believe that there is an end to this life and death process, and it is called Nibbana (or Nirvana). To understand this whole process, this process of life/death/nibbana, let me use a comparison. I am sure that at some point in your lives, you two have been in a revolving door. That is the type of door you will sometimes find at hotels or office buildings that doesn't open straight out, but goes round and round in a tube. It has different sections and you have to get inside one of the sections, push forward, and that will make the door turn. Then when you get to the inside of the building, you step out of the door. It is kinda fun and kinda scary, and it is a good comparison for the process I am describing. Imagine that you are in one of these revolving doors, just pushing forward, which carries you forward because you can't go back, and you go round and round. The harder you push, the faster the door goes. You could be stuck in that door forever! Going round and round in that door is like the process of life and death; in Buddhism it is called `The Wheel of Samsara'. But the Buddhist realizes that it is just a door, not the final destination. And that with each turn of the door, there is the opportunity to get out of it and go into Nibbana. But it takes many turns of the door, some time to get un-dizzy from the entire turning, and then you learn that there is an opening and you plan to take it. It is kinda scary because being in the revolving door of life and death has been so fun and familiar, but the Buddhist realizes that he/she isn't getting anywhere! So he/she will eventually step out of that revolving door and won't be reborn again. What is on the other side of that door? I don't know right now, I am still turning in the door. But I hope to find out someday. Metta, James 17777 From: peterdac4298 Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 8:54am Subject: Re: Maybe a little message to help things along Hi Dion Perhaps a few concrete examples would be of interest to the group, maybe include a few back-ground details, circumstances or even stories. Having been a Bhikkhu myself for some five rains many years ago, I know I'd find it interesting. No group is perfect and it is always possible to criticize: the cleaver part is to contribute. Cheers Peter --- "Dion " wrote: > Do the majority of people in this dhamma study group practice the > dhamma in their everyday life, or is this just intellectual ego- stroking to > measure up against other people? When I read these postings, > especially about Abhidhamma being relevent, irrelevent in every day > life - I cannot help but think that perhaps "you" are missing something - > a piece of insight, maybe. Hmmm. > > > I'm only 29 - > about 7 years into this game of defending the dhamma from capitalistic > exploiters. Practice, practice is what we must do - read about it in your > suttas, or where ever you recieve your dhamma instruction. Its more > than just breathing meditations....practice, practice... > > Just trying to help, > -Dion 17778 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 8:59am Subject: May the Force be with you, Obi-Wan Hi Howard, Sorry for being off-line for the past day and a half. After being on the road for five days a week for the past few weeks, my wife insisted that I do some Christmas shopping with her for the day and a half that I was home. I am now in an airport getting ready to take an overnight flight to Beijing. I will return home next Friday night. I'm going to take a stab at simplifying the similarities and differences between our views and then ask some questions. I will structure the post along the lines of the paramattha dhammas. Rupa ==== Rob and Howard are both phenomenologists. The only rupas on our radar screens are those that touch our mind. We make no statements about the rupas that do not touch our minds. Citta / Cetasika ================ I group these together as I consider them to be inseparable. Rob is a phenomenologist. The citta / cetasika of another person are not on my radar screen because they do not touch my mind. Conditions touch my mind and those conditions may have been caused by another person's citta / cetasika, but that doesn't count because it is indirect. Howard is a non-phenomenologist. You have said that kammic streams interact and influence each other. The Buddha said that volition is kamma and when reading analysis of Dependent Origination, it is clear that kamma is treated as the cetasika cetana. When you say that kammic streams interact, you are therefore saying that different people's cetasikas interact (at least the cetana cetasika) and because the cetana cetasika is inseperable from citta, this implies a collective consciousness. In contemporary terms, "The Force" from Star Wars (I chose Obi Wan, because he is the character whom you most closely resemble :-), as for me, I look more like Yoda). Nibbana ======= Rob is a phenomenologist. I see Nibbana as a purely personal experience. This topic has not come up. Howard, do you see Nibbana as pure personal or does it have a "collective" element? Howard, I am probably putting words in your mouth. Please correct me if I am wrong. If I am correct, could you give me some direct or indirect support for your view from the Tipitaka? Gotta run! Plane is boarding. Metta, Rob M :-) 17779 From: ajahn_paul Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 9:03am Subject: Re: May the Force be with you, Obi-Wan Dear Rob, is that funny that u still celebrating x'mas but u r already a buddhist? ^_~ --- "robmoult " wrote: > Hi Howard, > > Sorry for being off-line for the past day and a half. After being on > the road for five days a week for the past few weeks, my wife > insisted that I do some Christmas shopping with her for the day and > a half that I was home. I am now in an airport getting ready to take > an overnight flight to Beijing. I will return home next Friday night. > 17780 From: chase8383 Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 9:08am Subject: Re: Maybe a little message to help things along Hi swee boon "Maybe we should start a Dhamma Practice Group (DPG) to discuss about experiences encountered during our practices?" I would like to think that's what most, who are here to practice the Dharma, are discussing. But as the Dalai Lama says, "If there is something here of interest to you, fine. If not, that's fine to." 17781 From: Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 5:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] May the Force be with you, Obi-Wan Hi, Rob - I'll need time to properly respond to this. My first thought is that, indeed, I do take a phenomenalist position, quite similar, in fact, to the Radical Empiricism of William James. But, hey, if that's not so, well that's okay. Just one little point here, if there is no interaction among namarupic streams, then we are not even communicating! Please look at my recent posts to Larry in this regard. Perhaps that will clarify my position. I will get back to you on this. (Nibbana is something I'd rather skip talking about. It is too remote from my experience for me to comment on in any useful way.) With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/15/02 12:00:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Sorry for being off-line for the past day and a half. After being on > the road for five days a week for the past few weeks, my wife > insisted that I do some Christmas shopping with her for the day and > a half that I was home. I am now in an airport getting ready to take > an overnight flight to Beijing. I will return home next Friday night. > > I'm going to take a stab at simplifying the similarities and > differences between our views and then ask some questions. I will > structure the post along the lines of the paramattha dhammas. > > Rupa > ==== > Rob and Howard are both phenomenologists. The only rupas on our > radar screens are those that touch our mind. We make no statements > about the rupas that do not touch our minds. > > Citta / Cetasika > ================ > I group these together as I consider them to be inseparable. > > Rob is a phenomenologist. The citta / cetasika of another person are > not on my radar screen because they do not touch my mind. Conditions > touch my mind and those conditions may have been caused by another > person's citta / cetasika, but that doesn't count because it is > indirect. > > Howard is a non-phenomenologist. You have said that kammic streams > interact and influence each other. The Buddha said that volition is > kamma and when reading analysis of Dependent Origination, it is > clear that kamma is treated as the cetasika cetana. When you say > that kammic streams interact, you are therefore saying that > different people's cetasikas interact (at least the cetana cetasika) > and because the cetana cetasika is inseperable from citta, this > implies a collective consciousness. In contemporary terms, "The > Force" from Star Wars (I chose Obi Wan, because he is the character > whom you most closely resemble :-), as for me, I look more like > Yoda). > > Nibbana > ======= > Rob is a phenomenologist. I see Nibbana as a purely personal > experience. > > This topic has not come up. Howard, do you see Nibbana as pure > personal or does it have a "collective" element? > > > Howard, I am probably putting words in your mouth. Please correct me > if I am wrong. If I am correct, could you give me some direct or > indirect support for your view from the Tipitaka? > > Gotta run! Plane is boarding. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 17782 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 10:50am Subject: RE: [dsg] Maybe a little message to help things along Dear Dion, Welcome to DSG. I am glad to hear about your interests in the Buddha's teachings. > -----Original Message----- > From: Dion > > Do the majority of people in this dhamma study > group practice the > dhamma in their everyday life, or is this just > intellectual ego-stroking to > measure up against other people? For the mind to be wholesome (kusala), it must have one of the 10 possible groups of objects as its object, starting from giving, abstention from wrong deeds, etc. Two of the objects include: 1) Listening to the dhamma 2) Explaining the dhamma to other people. Do you consider these activities to be fruitless? > As far as that Nina person is concerned, her book > isn't worth much of a > read. I thumbed trough it at my university > library. I'm not trying to > offend. I am not sure if you know. She's one of the participants of this group. She might eventually see this. > The Abhidhamma is not that difficult to > read. The Buddha's teachings are both profound and subtle. Dhamma is hard to know because even right now, when dhammas are appearing, we hardly know what it truly is. Visible object is appearing right now, but do we see directly (not just thinking) that it is just a rupa, that it is conditioned, that it doesn't last, that it is not self? All these things that the Buddha teaches, in the Vinaya, Sutta, and Abhidhamma is appearing now. Do we know for ourselves its characteristics as the Buddha has taught? For most people (which is why we are non-ariyans, and not an ariyan), the answer is no. I think many people in this group read/post the messages because it is a chance to discuss what one hears in order to verify one's understandings, or at least get different perspectives on what one has heard. Also, it is good to hear reminders about how the Buddha's teachings are relevant in our daily life. > My opinion: we > should read as close to the original "source" as > possible, but for the non- > Pali scholars (me) trying to gt as close as > possible might be the edition > edited by Bhikkhu Bodhi (BPS/BPE). I agree that reading close to the source has a better chance of it being close to what the Buddha teaches. > Works by > "people" trying to explain > something - too much is lost. On the other hand, people with the right understandings may be able to explain points that we wouldn't get for ourselves. Even in the Buddha's time, laypeople explains the dhamma to both laypeople and monks (even if most, if not all, of them are ariyans). > Our Lord > Buddha mentioned a thing or two about > misrepresenting his teachings, > so we shouldn't do that. I agree that we should do our best not to misrepresent the Buddha's teachings in anyway. > We can practice the Abhidhamma in real, everyday > life - without the > confusion of Pali terms. Shall I explain? I > shall like this: If I have to > explain, then chances are "you" don't have enough > "diligence" in your > practice, you are not resolute or ardent in your > efforts - its about > practice, and that seems to be what most people > lack, and are looking > for the shortcut method to obtain liberation, > etc... practice what you > are reading in your "scriptures", not just > talking about them. Nothing > changes if you don't practice what you preach. I think most people agree that without knowing directly for oneself the dhammas that the Buddha has taught, understanding intellectually the Buddha's teachings wouldn't help much. On the other hands, some people think having heard the Buddha's teachings, and resolving the difficult passages what one has heard, is a pre-requisite to the right practice. > you see in the Wat. The > Abhidhamma is very effective in lay life, because > you can use real > situations that are constantly developing, and I very much agree that the teachings of Abhidhamma is about daily life. I think many of us need all the help we can get in order to understand the dhammas, that would bring one to the right practice (the Buddha talked about the wrong practice too, and misunderstanding the teachings would bring one to the wrong practice). I think it would be useful to many people if you would share what you understand about the teachings and the practice, that is, if you are inclined to. Respectfully, kom 17783 From: Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 0:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi Howard, Thanks for your reply. I think I now see where I was misunderstanding you. I thought you were saying there was no way to verify the reality of rupa, but, instead, you are saying rupa exists as a reality, separate from nama but usually "made sense of" by concepts. Correct? I have no problem with that. Actually I don't even have a problem with the questionable reality of rupa. I just couldn't follow your argument. So, where do we go from here? Abandon concepts, keep silent, and just be real or try to make sense out of "it"? If we try to make sense of it we have to make up stories and talk about good deeds and bad deeds, good fortune and bad fortune and why these happen. Don't we? If so, my contention is that all the rupa in anyone's life, including stuff that isn't either ultimately experienced or conceptually known, arose because of kammic intention. Is this what the Buddha taught? Isn't all rupa only kamma result? If you say only the touch of hardness on my head is kamma result, not the meteor flying through space, then I would say the hardness _is_ the meteor. Oddly enough, this thread has led me to the conclusion that rites and rituals are good. Rites and rituals are formalized intentions and intentions produce kammic results. In the practice of the Brahma Vihara all beings are pervaded with metta, for example. That is a formal intention that would benefit not only oneself, but also "all beings", to a limited extent, because the intention establishes a kammic connection. It must be that the reason rites and rituals are abandoned is because they don't lead directly to the cessation of the hindrances, taints, etc. Actually, I don't think there is such a thing as private values. When we sit in a certain way in the perceived imitation of the Buddha, even without explicitly thinking so, we are pervading all beings with this value because we think, at least subconsciously, we are being exemplary. Larry 17784 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 0:27pm Subject: Letting our notions fall away (Re: If volition is conditioned)/ David Hi David, Thanks for your post. A perennial thread in one form or another in this group is Anatta (no self) and its concomitants - Conditions, No-control, No Choice/Free- will. I would be interested if at any time you care to join in on any of these topics, or any other. We may not necessarily have the same take on everything, coming from different backgrounds, but I find your way of expressing things refeshing and it makes me think. I remember your great post on how you came to buddhism (dsg. no. 17442). Coming to the Dhamma out of suffering, gives one more sticking power I think (and you seem to have found the Dhamma long before you found Buddhism, as I remember) - we know what the alternative is, because dukkha caused us to look for the answers in other places, but we were lucky enough to stumble on our true home. You're 'a yank' I assume, David - from the Eastcoast, Westcoast or the Heartland? metta, Christine --- "chase8383 " wrote: > Hello the Aussie > > Christine: "I wonder if we could both be right? :-) > As I understand it, the arising of panna depends on conditions... > hearing the true Dhamma, reflecting on this, and association with wise friends. Could my seeking answers fit within the 'hearing and reflecting on the Dhamma'? Perhaps with an emphasis initially on the 'hearing' part. And could your letting concepts fall away fit within the 'hearing and reflecting on the Dhamma' ... perhaps with an emphasis initially on the reflecting part?" > > I would say that that is true. It's kind of like a beginner, going to their first teaching and, hearing all this talk about no-self, they think, hey what got me here? Self did. > > > "And, of course, after considering your post over the last couple of day, the benefit of association with wise friends goes without saying." > > Which is, of course, how I benefited. > > Leave the seeing in the seeing, the hearing the hearing, David 17785 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 1:41pm Subject: Contemplating Aging ([dsg] Re: Take Care of Yourself) Hi Howard, What is it that you disagree? Metta, Victor --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor (and Christine) - > > In a message dated 12/14/02 11:00:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > > > Hi Christine, > > > > You can understand the teaching of anatta now. It is a simple > > teaching, not a complicated one. > > > > The teaching itself is not difficult to understand. However, > > sometime it is hard to accept something that is simple. > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > > > > =========================== > Respectfully, I disagree. Seeing macroscopic change, and most > importantly aging, illness, and death is a crucial part of the practice, but, > by itself, is not the coup de grace. Seeing directly, by investigation, the > radical impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, insubstantiality & impersonality of > elements of experience at the microscopic level with the mind firm in > powerful and unshakable concentration, mindfulness, and equanimity, with > hindrances all in abeyance, is what finally does it. And this level of > insight is usually difficult to reach and is difficult to grasp conceptually > without the actual experience. The Buddha used dependent origination as a > primary teaching tool for the tilakkhana, and when a follower told him he > thought that that teaching was easily understandable, the Buddha admonished > him saying that, no, it is a teaching that seems deep and is deep. > > With metta, > Howard 17786 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 3:43pm Subject: Contemplating Aging ([dsg] Re: Take Care of Yourself) Hi Victor, and All, Victor: 'What is that everchanging process idea? Where did you get that idea from?' C: Basically, I got it from the Nyanatiloka's dictionary in particular, and the Majjhima Nikaya in general. Have I misunderstood in some way, I would welcome anyone's clarification? I found Nyanatiloka's dictionary meaning of dhatus, ayatanas and khandas helpful, and his meaning for anatta also, which is posted below: anattá: 'not-self', non-ego, egolessness, impersonality, is the last of the three characteristics of existence (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) The anattá doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance. This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible. It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire Structure of the Buddhist teaching stands or falls. All the remaining Buddhist doctrines may, more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and religions, but the anattá-doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only by the Buddha, wherefore the Buddha is known as the anattá-vádi, or 'Teacher of Impersonality'. Whosoever has not penetrated this impersonality of all existence, and does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena, and that there is no separate ego-entity within or without this process, he will not be able to understand Buddhism, i.e. the teaching of the 4 Noble Truths (sacca, q.v.), in the right light. He will think that it is his ego, his personality, that experiences suffering, his personality that performs good and evil actions and will be reborn according to these actions, his personality that will enter into Nibbána, his personality that walks on the Eightfold Path. Thus it is said in Vis.M. XVI: "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; Nibbána is, but not the man that enters it; The path is, but no traveler on it is seen." "Whosoever is not clear with regard to the conditionally arisen phenomena, and does not comprehend that all the actions are conditioned through ignorance, etc., he thinks that it is an ego that understands or does not understand, that acts or causes to act, that comes to existence at rebirth .... that has the sense-impression, that feels, desires, becomes attached, continues and at rebirth again enters a new existence" (Vis.M. XVII, 117). The Majjhima Nikaya Suttas are: MN11 Culasinhanada Sutta 'The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar' The Buddha compares his teaching point by point with those of other recluses and brahmins and shows that beneath their apparent similaritiies, they finally diverge on just this one crucial point - the rejection of view of self - which undermines the agreements. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/011-culasihanada-sutta-e1.htm MN22 Alagaddupama Sutta 'The Simile of the Snake' Here the Buddha offers a series of arguments against the view of self culminating in the Buddha's declaration that he does not see any doctrine of self that would not lead to sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/022-alagagaddupama-sutta-e1.htm MN28 Mahahatthipadopama Sutta 'The Greater Discourse on the Simile of the Elephant's Footprint' The Buddha brands six views of self as "the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views." http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/028-mahahatthipadopama-sutta- e1.htm MN35 Culasaccaka Sutta 'The Shorter Discourse to Saccaka' A debate between the Buddha and Saccaka, a wandering ascetic, on the subject of atta, (Self, Soul, Ego). The Buddha pointed out that none of the khandha was atta, each being subject to impermanence, pain and change, and not being amenable to one's control and wishes. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/035-culasaccaka-sutta-e1.htm MN102 Pancattaya Sutta 'The Five and Three' The Buddha undertakes a far-reaching survey of the various propositions put forth about the self, declaring them all to be "conditioned and gross". http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/102-pancattaya-e.htm MN148 Chachakka Sutta 'The Six Sets of Six' The Buddha demonstrates by reductio ad absurdum argument that impermanence implies non-self: when all the factors of being are clearly subject to rise and fall, to identiy anything among them with self is to be left with the untenable thesis that self is subject to rise and fall. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/148-chachakka-e.htm Victor, from your current remarks, (and previous posts on this subject):""There is nothing wrong with being aware of yourself. Note that in the last paragraph of the quote, the Buddha's teaching on each and every aggregate being not self is not meant to deny self-awareness." I still get the impression that you are saying there is 'something' standing behind and separate from the khandas. Am I misunderstanding you? metta, Christine "For sweet taste - honey, For Truth - Abhidhamma! " --- "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Hi Christine, > > What is that everchanging process idea? Where did you get that idea > from? > > Allow me to quote (again) from Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59, Anatta- > lakkhana Sutta. 17787 From: jonoabb Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 4:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Emptiness? Hi, Steve --- Bodhi2500@a... wrote: ... > Does anyone know what the Abhidhamma states as Nibbana's own > charateristics(sabhava??)? Here is an answer from the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha: CMA Ch VI. Compendium of Matter "#31 Analysis ... Nibbana is onefold according to its intrinsic nature, by reference to a basis (for distinction) ... Guide to #31 Nibbana is a single undifferentiated ultimate reality. It is exclusively supramundane, and has one intrinsic nature (sabhava), which is that of being the unconditioned deathless element totally transcendent to the conditioned world. ..." I haven't come across anything in the Abhidhamma itself. Jon 17788 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 4:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi Larry, I see that you and Howard have been continuing this discussion while I was doing Christmas shopping. Rather than barge into that thread, I will respond to your original post. --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Rob (& Howard), > > In my opinion kamma must reach from javana, through vipaka and > subsequent remembering of accumulations to the next javana and must > necessarily include the object of vipaka. ===== You are correct; kamma does come from javana; specifically the cetana cetasika in the javana citta. This is the "seed", the "potential". At any one instant there are a gazilion "seeds" waiting for the right conditions to become vipaka. Once this vipaka has arisen, the arising of the subsequent javana depends on conditions (including current object) and accumulations (i.e. habits / tendencies). I am not sure about your use of the term "remembering"; thinking about accumulations is a completely separate activity, which itself will depend on accumulations to reflection (a habit of analyzing). ===== > Since that object is often > rupa then the intention of kamma must coordinate with the physical > universe in order to resolve the kamma. ===== I'm not realy clear on what you are saying here. If "resolve the kamma" means the arising of vipaka, if "intention of kamma" is the kammic potential created by a past action, if "physical universe" means conditions, then this sentence becomes, "kammic potential coordinates with conditions to allow vipaka to arise". This is a true statement. ===== > If I walk outside and get hit in > the head by a meteor it is because some javana citta in my past arranged > for a meeting between my head continuum and the meteor. How this could > happen is something only the Buddha would know. ===== If you walk outside and get hit in the head by a meteor, it is because conditions were right for an akusala "kammic potential" to ripen into a vipaka. A plant does not grow because the seed arranged for sun, rain and fertile soil to come into existence. The seed and the proper conditions arose at the same time to allow a plant to grow. ===== > > As to the reality of rupa, even if you think rupa is only immaginary, > probably you would still accept that an eye cannot see without > consciousness. That is the nama rupa distinction. ===== Rupa is not imaginary. Rupa is real; it is a paramattha dhamma. The point of the phenomenologists is the definition of "rupa". To me, something qualifies as "rupa" only when it contacts nama. To me, nama and rupa are co-dependent; nama depends on rupa (nama needs a base) and rupa depends on nama (by definition). The "stuff" that doesn't touch nama (i.e. the "sound" falling in the forest with none to hear) is not defined as rupa. This "stuff" is not on my radar screen. I don't make any statements about this "stuff" (existence / non-existence or otherwise) because it does not impact ethics. ===== > Actually, I think there are three kinds of rupa: rupa the physical > phenomenon, rupa that is translated by sensory nerves into a > consciousness-like phenomenon which is experienced by as many as 17 > cittas in a row in citta process, and rupa that is the experience of > rupa. This might entail that there are two kinds of consciousness: one > the regular consciousness that experiences objects and the other that > specifically translates physical rupa into 'mental' rupa at the senses. > Agreed? ===== There is one kind of rupa; physical phenomena which touches nama. I add in the qualification "which touches nama" because I am a phenomenologist. Others in the DSG may prefer a wider definition which includes physical phenomena which do not touch nama. I do not consider physical phenomena which does not touch nama to be a concern of Buddhism because Buddhism is concerned with ethics and physical phenomena which does not touch nama has no bearing on ethics. In the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta (the famous poison arrow sutta), Malunkyaputta asked the Buddha a lot of abstract questions; the Buddha refused to answer because the questions were outside the scope of His teaching. In this Sutta, the Buddha clearly defined the scope of His teaching, "And what is disclosed by me? 'This is stress,' is disclosed by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is disclosed by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is disclosed by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is disclosed by me. And why are they disclosed by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are disclosed by me." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn063.html I believe that physical phenomena which does not touch nama is outside the scope of the Buddha's teaching because it does not touch the Four Noble Truths (i.e. it is not concerned with ethics). Does my post help, or does it confuse the issue further? Metta, Rob M :-) 17789 From: Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 11:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi, Larry - In a message dated 12/15/02 3:28:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Thanks for your reply. I think I now see where I was misunderstanding > you. I thought you were saying there was no way to verify the reality of > rupa, but, instead, you are saying rupa exists as a reality, separate > from nama but usually "made sense of" by concepts. Correct? > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Basically yes. The conceptual level of understanding is a useful one, a needed one, but not the deepest one. The deepest level of understanding is the level of insight. ------------------------------------------------ > > I have no problem with that. Actually I don't even have a problem with > the questionable reality of rupa. I just couldn't follow your argument. > > So, where do we go from here? Abandon concepts, keep silent, and just be > real or try to make sense out of "it"? > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Concepts cannot, pragmatically, be abandoned. But their nature should be clearly seen and understood, else they will be delusive. ------------------------------------------------ > > If we try to make sense of it we have to make up stories and talk about > good deeds and bad deeds, good fortune and bad fortune and why these > happen. Don't we? If so, my contention is that all the rupa in anyone's > life, including stuff that isn't either ultimately experienced or > conceptually known, arose because of kammic intention. Is this what the > Buddha taught? Isn't all rupa only kamma result? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I believe so. It is all kamma vipaka, but not necessarily the vipaka of the kamma of a single person. The "world" is a shared, jointly created, intersubjective one, as I see it. If the positions (a) "There exists a separate, objective, mind-independent, external world of matter" (a position that I consider substantialist, and unacceptable) and (b) "There is an interaction of namarupic streams conceptually projecting a shared world" (the position I do adopt) are both false, then solipsism would be the only philosophical choice remaining. If I believed in solipsism, however, I would certainly not be spending so much time in discussions on DSG! ;-) ---------------------------------------------- > > If you say only the touch of hardness on my head is kamma result, not > the meteor flying through space, then I would say the hardness _is_ the > meteor. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: The "meteor" as external object is but a useful fiction. The meteor as concept is mind-constructed, is the basis for the projected "external-object meteor", and is a kammic result, and, thus, in a sense, the "external-object meteor" is a kammic result as well. -------------------------------------------------- > > Oddly enough, this thread has led me to the conclusion that rites and > rituals are good. Rites and rituals are formalized intentions and > intentions produce kammic results. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Rites and rituals may be carried out with intention or perfunctorily. In either case, there will be consequences. The consequences may be good or bad, and they may be intended or unintended. A rite or ritual involving applying a match to a candle wick will have the consequence of lighting the candle, and that, together with the beliefs of the participants, may lead to feelings of inspiration or awe or, if the candle is black, perhaps to terror. Actions have consequences. So what? Some actions are useful for certain purposes, and others are not. Particulary important to understand, I think, is that mere intention (or wishing) not implemented by *appropriate* actions, will not lead to intended consequences. ----------------------------------------------------- In the practice of the Brahma Vihara> > all beings are pervaded with metta, for example. That is a formal > intention that would benefit not only oneself, but also "all beings", to > a limited extent, because the intention establishes a kammic connection. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Possibly so. That does seem to be true. The primary effect, though, as I see it, is to the mind filled with metta, itself. --------------------------------------------------------- > It must be that the reason rites and rituals are abandoned is because > they don't lead directly to the cessation of the hindrances, taints, > etc. > > Actually, I don't think there is such a thing as private values. When we > sit in a certain way in the perceived imitation of the Buddha, even > without explicitly thinking so, we are pervading all beings with this > value because we think, at least subconsciously, we are being exemplary. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Heh, heh, heh! ;-)) You're a crypto-Mahayanist, Larry - just like me! ;-) --------------------------------------------- > > Larry > > ======================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 17790 From: Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 0:10pm Subject: Re: Contemplating Aging ([dsg] Re: Take Care of Yourself) Hi, Victor - In a message dated 12/15/02 4:43:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > What is it that you disagree? > > Metta, > Victor > ======================== I thought I made it rather clear, Victor. I do not believe that the teaching of anatta is a simple one or is easy to understand. In fact, the Buddha made it clear that his teaching goes against the stream of common understanding, that it is deep, and that it is not easy to understand. In particular, I disagreed that becoming aware of the suffering associated with aging, illness, and death is remotely enough to see the reality of anatta and attain the goal. If it were, the world would be filled with arahants. With metta, Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Victor (and Christine) - > > > >In a message dated 12/14/02 11:00:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, > >yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > >> > >>Hi Christine, > >> > >>You can understand the teaching of anatta now. It is a simple > >>teaching, not a complicated one. > >> > >>The teaching itself is not difficult to understand. However, > >>sometime it is hard to accept something that is simple. > >> > >>Metta, > >>Victor > >> > >> > >=========================== > > Respectfully, I disagree. Seeing macroscopic change, and > most > >importantly aging, illness, and death is a crucial part of the > practice, but, > >by itself, is not the coup de grace. Seeing directly, by > investigation, the > >radical impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, insubstantiality & > impersonality of > >elements of experience at the microscopic level with the mind firm > in > >powerful and unshakable concentration, mindfulness, and equanimity, > with > >hindrances all in abeyance, is what finally does it. And this level > of > >insight is usually difficult to reach and is difficult to grasp > conceptually > >without the actual experience. The Buddha used dependent > origination as a > >primary teaching tool for the tilakkhana, and when a follower told > him he > >thought that that teaching was easily understandable, the Buddha > admonished > >him saying that, no, it is a teaching that seems deep and is deep. > > > >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) 17791 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 1:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Maybe a little message to help things along Contextual reply below: ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 8:25 AM Subject: [dsg] Maybe a little message to help things along > Do the majority of people in this dhamma study group practice the > dhamma in their everyday life, or is this just intellectual ego-stroking to > measure up against other people? This is a fair question, however, what is the source of that question? It reads well until one continues reading. How is it that one can garner so much from mere emails? > When I read these postings, > especially about Abhidhamma being relevent, irrelevent in every day > life - I cannot help but think that perhaps "you" are missing something - > a piece of insight, maybe. Hmmm. > And what are you missing? This is a fair question, too, and there is no hidden agenda here or any attempt to make an ad hominem attack. > As far as that Nina person is concerned, her book isn't worth much of a > read. I thumbed trough it at my university library. I'm not trying to > offend. Things started to come across as possibly offensive before the above. If Nina's book is not worth much a read, what can you offer from another source/resource, or perhaps you have something to teach here? Honestly, so far there is not much to gain here from what you have written. > The Abhidhamma is not that difficult to read. This is a sharp area for disagreement. I do not agree with your statement above at all. Perhaps the words are easy to read but the depth and height of the material, i.e., Abhidhamma is very difficult. I read your statement wondering where you can express such a notion. > My opinion: Suppose you were asked to not deal in "opinion", and suppose you were told that the Dhamma (Buddhadhamma) does not deal in opinion, speculation, the hypothetical, and the like. Could you deal in relative, as well as absolute truth? Suppose further that one's opinion may, in fact, be quite tainted, and the meaning here is simply that one's opinion is "wrong view". In the same manner, suppose the opinion you give is based on this: "Ditthibhinivesa" : Firm belief induced by error. Perhaps something helpful here is to realize that many putthjana (worldlings) suffer owing to ignorance (avijja) --- which can be explained in three short references: 1.. Sanna-vipallasa: hallucination of perception; 2.. Citta-vipallasa: hallucination of thought; 3.. Ditthi-vipallasa: hallucination of views. And, "hallucination" is by no means the wrong word to use here at all! Now, add "fantasy" to that. (tanha-mannana, mana-mannana, ditthi-mannana). >we should read as close to the original "source" as possible, but for the non- > Pali scholars (me) trying to gt as close as possible might be the edition > edited by Bhikkhu Bodhi (BPS/BPE). The "we" in your statement above comes off as dictatorial. Also, I have heard that "should" can be a very tyranical word. > Works by "people" trying to explain > something - too much is lost. While the above is true to a certain extent, there is also a need for explanations. The Dhamma supports investigation of these matters, too. So, what is lost on one hand, has a complimentary position, too: look was is not lost but gained! > The Pali Text Society had wonderful > editions of the tripitika - we should read those also. "We" "should" not do anything. You might need to do just that, but when you live in a very poor country with subsistence dirt farmers who are illiterate but know the Dhamma from practice and experience, would you dictate what "they" should read? > Maybe people > should work on trying to get these editions more readily available to the > reading public, so that revisionism will not be so obvious. Our Lord > Buddha mentioned a thing or two about misrepresenting his teachings, > so we shouldn't do that. > What is before should/should not, in the middle of that, and at the end? Perhaps people need to read less and spend more time in practice. > What frustrates me is when a writer tries to use nine different Pali > terms in a sentence, but is a non-Buddhist... again - revisionism and > delusions. Can you show us specifically what you mean here and render some sources and resources for example? (I was wondering when you would share that you are frustrated!) > If people want to qoute from the jewish scriptures - there > has to be another room available for that....send those comments there, > instead of here. Let people express views. Period. The moderators know well what to do --- but constraining people will not help them on the Path --- remember, "Right View/Right Understanding" comes first. > Please keep this room free of non-teachings. Please define "non-teachings". > For > those trying to claim "he is just a ________", I'm also, fairly versed in > the Qu'ran....but this is not the forum to discuss this. Stick to the > Dhamma, please! > Suppose there are noteworthy things in other scriptures and other doctrines --- and these things lead directly to the Dhamma --- offering a kind of completion for those who want to know, experience, and gain insight and wisdom from a full understand of the Dhamma? Please do keep "freedom" in this room! > Maybe I shouldn't have written this. I have found that waiting to post something is good. It seems that quite often, people post without taking time to see if what they are sending out is the intended message. > Maybe I have good intentions - Yes, I would think that you do! > hoping to see an improvement in the dialogues. Let's not talk about > new toys. > Hope has a partner: despair; belief has a partner: doubt. What about realism? > We can practice the Abhidhamma in real, everyday life - without the > confusion of Pali terms. Shall I explain? I shall like this: If I have to > explain, then chances are "you" don't have enough "diligence" in your > practice, you are not resolute or ardent in your efforts - its about > practice, and that seems to be what most people lack, and are looking > for the shortcut method to obtain liberation, etc... practice what you > are reading in your "scriptures", not just talking about them. Nothing > changes if you don't practice what you preach. > Yes, I agree that practice is where to get the view in line and in order --- but read back your post to yourself. Do not forget that your audience is made up of all kinds of persons. I was uncomfortable with the impression of what I saw as nearly dogmatic on your part and dictatorial. > By the way, I left the the Thammayut Theravada Monkhood, only to > complete my "university" training. I need to know more about laylife > and the wrong-teachings people try to pass off to each other. When > people come to the Wat, they are very respectful and often fake, > seeking gratification of some sort... The same type if people are rude > to you after you take off the robes of the "priest". They run you down > on the sidewalks, etc... They float around the market place with no > direct intention on where they intend to walk, often stopping for no > reason, right in front of you. This is not what you see in the Wat. The > Abhidhamma is very effective in lay life, because you can use real > situations that are constantly developing, and use your trained mind to > avert, or elimate...even seek the root of ignorances, etc...of all that is > around you. When people say that it is irrelevant, I can only think of > how ignorant they are, selling books, gaining profits... I'm only 29 - > about 7 years into this game of defending the dhamma from capitalistic > exploiters. Practice, practice is what we must do - read about it in your > suttas, or where ever you recieve your dhamma instruction. Its more > than just breathing meditations....practice, practice... > Ah... the folly of youth (if I may say so?) --- you are young and I dare say you might need more practice, and well guided practice at that! First of all, defending the Dhamma is not a game. Secondly, it appears you need to be very careful with your words. Thirdly, "capitalistic exploiters"? Be careful that you are not read in terms of merely generalizing. > Just trying to help, Not to offend or be rude, but you must help yourself first. Reading your post, I have wondered how much of your own frustration and angst was/is at the root of the posting, as well as a small reflection of what is going on for you now. In the Buddhasasana, Dhammapiyo Bhante P.S. Pali is quite important owing to the fact that the Englsih language is often without denotative as well as connotative terms to correctly communicate what needs to be rightly understood about the Dhamma. 17792 From: Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 6:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi Rob, Let's go through it little by little. Also I hope you don't let this conversation preempt the one you started with Howard. Basically I think I am on a different track from the one you guys are taking. I wrote, "In my opinion kamma must reach from javana, through vipaka and subsequent remembering of accumulations to the next javana and must necessarily include the object of vipaka." What I am proposing is a full circle from javana to javana. Javana intentionality results in a value free result but in order for good intentions to reap good results the vipaka (value free result) must be experienced as good. In order for that to happen, accumulations must arise, cued by the vipaka (if not remembered). These accumulations must then elicit a reaction (in this case favorable) to the vipaka. I am calling this reaction another javana series. So there is a causal javana and a resultant javana all part of the same kammic process. Do you still think this is correct? I came up with this scenario as a way of explaining ethical behavior in terms of citta process. Assuming you don't agree with it, how do you explain ethical behavior (good intentions reap good results) in terms of javana and vipaka? The business about vipaka including the object of the vipaka citta is, for me, a doorway to the universe of physical objects outside the body. A sense organ is a door and something external passes through that door and becomes internal. A chunk of hardness doesn't interrupt the bhavanga stream and sit there while 17 cittas react to it. Rather, some thing that is hard touches the sensitive matter at the sense door. That sensitive matter converts that input into something cittas can interact with. This whatever-it-is is what interrupts the bhavanga and what 17 cittas react to. This is obviously something I made up as a way of explaining what is going on at the sense doors. How do you see it? Larry 17793 From: Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 7:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi Howard, I disagree that mind independent matter is necessarily substantialist but agree that shared kamma between individuals does create the "world", and a very complicated one. Do we agree that ethics in the buddhist sense is "do good (kusala) and avoid bad" and the reason for doing good is that good deeds usually but not always cause good results (in other words the law of kamma)? Incidentally, I think volitional mental activity is considered a "deed" in terms of volitional activity of body, speech, and mind. Larry 17794 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 9:04pm Subject: Re: May the Force be with you, Obi-Wan Hi Paul, May I give my two cents about your question to RobM? Living in a country that celebrates Christmas both in a religious and a worldly way causes strong emotions to arise when I hear the hymns or a Christian sermon on the radio. Christmas in a non-religious way is so important here that people travel home from all round the world to be with their family - "I'll be home for Christmas". Christmas no longer means what it meant to me, in a religious sense, for most of my life. But, each Christmas now I have to deal with mixed emotions - almost like grief for a lost loved one - for the simple way it used to be when I believed what I was brought up to believe. Being Buddhist doesn't stop them. I often wonder if there is a separate form of memory for emotions. At this time, I am particularly bothered by a yearning for the simple culture-wide beliefs of my pre- Dhamma life. The 'truths' of yesterday that I believed so joyfully, that I taught to my children, are just dear 'myths' to me today. But, I buy the Christmas presents, and join in family gatherings and celebrations. In this country, where the Festival of the birth of the Christ child is both a worldly Celebration and Thanksgiving for Family, as well as a consumer extravaganza, it would cause misunderstanding and hurt among my Christian family and friends (whether nominal or not) if I was to Make a Point of Being Buddhist and withdraw. metta, Christine p.s. That is you in photo 58 isn't it? :-) I can't seem to enlarge it. Will you have to stay a mini-Paul forever? :-) --- "ajahn_paul " wrote: > Dear Rob, > > is that funny that u still celebrating x'mas but u r already a > buddhist? ^_~ > > --- "robmoult " > wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > > > Sorry for being off-line for the past day and a half. After being > on > > the road for five days a week for the past few weeks, my wife > > insisted that I do some Christmas shopping with her for the day and > > a half that I was home. I am now in an airport getting ready to > take > > an overnight flight to Beijing. I will return home next Friday > night. > > 17795 From: Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 4:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi, Larry - In a message dated 12/15/02 10:28:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I disagree that mind independent matter is necessarily substantialist > but agree that shared kamma between individuals does create the > "world", and a very complicated one. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay, so we agree on the 2nd. As far as the notion of mind-independent matter being substantialist, I think so, because then such matter, taken as a whole, becomes a self-existent entity. (But perhaps thinking that way is due to insidious Nagarjunan influence! ;-)) -------------------------------------------------- Do we agree that ethics in the> > buddhist sense is "do good (kusala) and avoid bad" ------------------------------------------------- Howard: And to purify the mind. ------------------------------------------------ and the reason for> > doing good is that good deeds usually but not always cause good results > (in other words the law of kamma)? > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm, hmm. And in particular, from the 8-fold-path perspective, it leads to calm, which makes mindfulness and concentration easier. -------------------------------------------------- Incidentally, I think volitional> > mental activity is considered a "deed" in terms of volitional activity > of body, speech, and mind. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. ------------------------------------------------- > > Larry > ========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 17796 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 9:47pm Subject: Re: May the Force be with you, Obi-Wan Hi Ajahn Paul, I have two sons; eight and twelve. They go to Buddhist Sunday School each week, but they sure love to get presents and decorate the Christmas tree. My wife and I certainly don't treat Christmas as a religious holiday, but we do use this occasion to explain a bit to our kids about Christian beliefs. Metta, Rob M :-) --- "ajahn_paul " wrote: > Dear Rob, > > is that funny that u still celebrating x'mas but u r already a > buddhist? ^_~ > > --- "robmoult " > wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > > > Sorry for being off-line for the past day and a half. After being > on > > the road for five days a week for the past few weeks, my wife > > insisted that I do some Christmas shopping with her for the day and > > a half that I was home. I am now in an airport getting ready to > take > > an overnight flight to Beijing. I will return home next Friday > night. > > 17797 From: Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 5:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] May the Force be with you, Obi-Wan Hi, Rob - Okay, a bit more of a reply. In a message dated 12/15/02 12:00:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Sorry for being off-line for the past day and a half. After being on > the road for five days a week for the past few weeks, my wife > insisted that I do some Christmas shopping with her for the day and > a half that I was home. I am now in an airport getting ready to take > an overnight flight to Beijing. I will return home next Friday night. > > I'm going to take a stab at simplifying the similarities and > differences between our views and then ask some questions. I will > structure the post along the lines of the paramattha dhammas. > > Rupa > ==== > Rob and Howard are both phenomenologists. The only rupas on our > radar screens are those that touch our mind. We make no statements > about the rupas that do not touch our minds. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. And moreover, Howard, being a pragmatic phenomenalist considers that unknowable rupas are effectively nonexistent. ------------------------------------------------- > > Citta / Cetasika > ================ > I group these together as I consider them to be inseparable. > > Rob is a phenomenologist. The citta / cetasika of another person are > not on my radar screen because they do not touch my mind. Conditions > touch my mind and those conditions may have been caused by another > person's citta / cetasika, but that doesn't count because it is > indirect. > > Howard is a non-phenomenologist. You have said that kammic streams > interact and influence each other. The Buddha said that volition is > kamma and when reading analysis of Dependent Origination, it is > clear that kamma is treated as the cetasika cetana. When you say > that kammic streams interact, you are therefore saying that > different people's cetasikas interact (at least the cetana cetasika) > and because the cetana cetasika is inseperable from citta, this > implies a collective consciousness. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: A collective consciousness sounds to me like a single consciousness, almost a Brahman. That is not my idea. My idea is that of a network of dynamically interrelating mindstreams. That such a net is not a single, unitary thing is analogous to the fact that dhammas arising interdependently and being interrelated in many ways (as in the Patthana) within a particular namarupic stream fails to make them into a single thing, but simply makes them not separate, independent entities. Emptiness is neither a nothingness nor a unity nor a separateness, but is an interdependency and an interrelatedness. ------------------------------------------------------------ In contemporary terms, "The > > Force" from Star Wars (I chose Obi Wan, because he is the character > whom you most closely resemble :-), as for me, I look more like > Yoda). > ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Not my picture. ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Nibbana > ======= > Rob is a phenomenologist. I see Nibbana as a purely personal > experience. > > This topic has not come up. Howard, do you see Nibbana as pure > personal or does it have a "collective" element? > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know anything about nibbana except as heresay. So I having nothing worthwhile to add. However, I will comment that phenomenalism seems to require a highly separative individualism for you. It does not for me, nor did it for William James. That doesn't seem to be the issue from my point of view. As I see it, phenomenalism replaces objectivity by intersubjectivity (to use slightly misleading, non-Buddhist terminology). -------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard, I am probably putting words in your mouth. Please correct me > if I am wrong. If I am correct, could you give me some direct or > indirect support for your view from the Tipitaka? > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I've done about the best I can in responding to the points you raised. As far as citations are concerned, I'm afraid I have no ready ones and would find it a bit burdensome at the moment to commence a search. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Gotta run! Plane is boarding. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > ========================= 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) 17798 From: dragonwriter2 Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 10:21pm Subject: Christine (Women on the Buddhist Path) Hi Christine, Following are two books (contemporary:-) and their descriptions, authored by women about the varied experiences on the path, that may or may not be of interest. Women on the Buddhist Path by Martine Batchelor This is a collection of stories and experiences of "Western" and "Asian" women from a variety of Buddhist "traditions", ranging from a hermit to a disk jockey, and including artists, social workers, psychotherapists, nuns ans professors. What they have in common is a meditation practice that has transformed their lives. This book is an inspiration to "all" women who are seeking to integrate spirituality into their daily lives. Pb 240 pp. Reflections on a Mountain Lake: A Western Nun Talks on Practical Buddhism by Tenzin Palmo "The essential thing is to learn how to develop a practice which you can live with moment to moment in your everyday life." Tenzin Palmo, whose story is known to thousands of readers through Vicki Mackenzie's biography, Cave in the Snow, draws on her years (12ish) of solitary meditation in a Himalayan cave to bring this down to earth approach to the spiritual path. She explains how to develop a regular meditation practice and shows how meditation can help us deal with painful emotions like anger, fear and jealousy. She explores the traditions of great female practitoners and how they are being "maintained" today. Metta, Simon 17799 From: Sarah Date: Sun Dec 15, 2002 10:50pm Subject: A Christmas Ambush for Rob M:-) (Warning to New members: pls expect to be thoroughly confused if you read this post) Hi Rob M, Like you and your wife, I also like to find gifts for our mothers at least, send ‘envelopes’ to nephews and neices and cards and notes to those who particularly appreciate this (fewer each year, thankfully). So it’s a busy time for us with busy work commitments til Xmas Eve. On Xmas Day we usually take a long walk to a very remote beach;-) James would call the rest of this post an ‘ambush’, I’ll call it ‘picking up a few threads as requested’;-) I have quite a few of your posts in front of me which I've been meaning to respond to - pls excuse the point form (in no special order). 1. I really liked the way you explained (17583 to Chris) about your “Ah-ha” moment and also the one (17582 to Chris also) on “Wrong speech in Jest” with its sensible conclusion! ..... 2. An old quibble - Larry referred to a ‘citta process’ and in yr post (17584), you mention that by this you assume he means a ‘thought process’. The Pali term is ‘citta-vithi’ and it refers to both the process of cittas in the sense-door process (seeing consciousness and so on) or those in the mind-door process which follows. Most of these cittas are not concerned with any kind of thinking or thought, so to refer to a ‘thought process’ is far more misleading to me than to leave it as a ‘citta process’ as Larry does. I appreciate it's common, however and you are merely following a common usage as we do with 'perception' for sanna to Suan's dismay. You mention that the description of a ‘thought process’ does not ‘go into the issue of why each citta arises’. However, the Patthana and the detail of the 24 conditions does go into the ‘why’. We don’t have to know all the detail, but it helps to know there are very detailed combinations of conditions which form up each citta (moment of consciousness) now, just as it is. ..... 3. You had a helpful discussion on the vipallasas(perversions)while we were away and I had meant to add a couple of small comments. You referred to citta ‘on the surface’ and sanna ‘just below the surface’ (17262). This may have been borrowed from Ledi Sayadaw. I’m not sure it’s helpful. As you rightly mentioned, citta vipallasa and sanna vipallasa always arise together. They are present with every moment of akusala citta (in one form or other) as I understand. Therefore I don’t think we say ‘the citta manifestation can only be targetted once the sanna manifestation has been uprooted’ or say ‘citta is easier to penetrate than sanna, but you have to penetrate sanna first.....’. These sentences sound like they’re suggesting a self and doing again, i.e. a little ‘free-will’ and choice creeping back;-) Of course, you’ll have your supporters for it here and I appreciate that many of these points were raised by Larry in reference to quotes from Ledi Sayadaw’s “Manual of Insight”. You also refer to type D - taking the asubha (foul) for subha (beautiful) as akusala and kusala. I think this is misleading. Asubha and subha cannot be translated as akusala and kusala (wholesome and unwholesome). (It’s true that each moment of vipallasa of any kind is akusala, however). You also suggest (17253) that as vipallasa are akusala, “it is probably valid to substitute ditthi...for sanna”. I don’t think it is valid. Ditthi (wrong view) only applies to the ditthi vipallasas eradicated by the sotapanna. Maybe I misunderstood you. ..... 4. With regard to your comment about your Class Notes. I think the best thing is to keep raising on DSG anything you wish to discuss or would like anyone to give comments on. Just one point like ‘free-will’ can take many months of discussion and we’ll never all be in agreement. I like the idea of anything one writes being a 'work in progress'. It will always depend on the understanding at the time. As James pointed out, this can even change day to day;-) I’m certainly no expert (and don’t aspire to be) on Abhidhamma details - my main interest lies in clarifying what is ‘right practice’(according to how I see it) for myself and others. The details can be very helpful in this regard. (also , try to engage Kom and Num too who have great back-up resources as well). Anytime you’re in doubt, you can always just quote the Tipitaka as Dion suggests;-) ..... 5. I’m enjoying your discussions with Howard and Larry. One comment (17598): we think there is a ‘being hit’ which allows ‘a vipaka at that moment’ and think of ‘the presence of A’ as ‘one of the conditions’. This is all correct conventionally as I discussed with Swee Boon in the ‘Rain’ post. Of course, as I appreciate you realize, there is no ‘A’ and no ‘being hit’. There is only hardness (the vipaka) experienced and various namas and rupas, along with concepts of ‘a person hitting me’ acting as conditions. (side note to Howard if you’re following here: even if ‘B’ stands for the Buddha, there must be vipaka cittas experiencing hardness and other rupas at the moment of impact and being in the ‘kammic debt’ of another doesn’t make sense to me). ..... 6. I couldn’t follow the ‘gazillions of kammic seeds’ in your post to Larry (17638). Past kammic actions can bring about vipaka, but not wrong view as you suggest. If ‘kammic seeds’ are inoperative, there is no vipaka, but wrong view arises according to accumulations. hmmm I agree with your comments about nibbana being the object of citta and not applied to anything....Larry likes to test the limits of what is acceptable by definition and I’ve really appreciated all your dialogue and responses;-) ..... 7. Talking of which, you did a great job with his qus addressed to both of us and Rob K (17623) I think. I was very relieved to see your answer. I want to say ‘much better than I would have’, but that would be mana (thanks Chris for the prompt;-)). Anyway, if you continue as you are, I’ll continue giving an ‘ambush’ of any points you may like to consider further when I can - a much easier role. Just one point from that post: you mention ‘javana cittas are active. Other cittas are passive’. I’m not sure we can say that any cittas are more or less ‘active’ than others, though I understand what you are driving at. Seeing is vipaka. Does that mean it is ‘passive’? You do clarify that ‘when a javana citta arises, cetana causes the seed of a vipaka to be created’. Well, as they would say in other kinds of education, this isn’t quite the whole story.....not all cetana is kamma patha causing vipaka. I’ve tested yours and others’ patience quite enough. As always, Rob, many, many thanks for all your contributions and assistance with so many topics and points. I’m also learning from your kind and imaginative teaching approach. Hope it’s not too cold in Beijing now and hope the family like the presies;-) I'm sure your wife appreciated the help and it's a good chance to share family time together. Sarah =======