18052 From: Sarah Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 7:07pm Subject: Peter Da Costa Messages All, We have no idea what has happened - I imagine some computer glitch or bug at Peter's end which I'm sure he doesn't realize. We've sent him a message and just put his account under moderation (only just seen). We'll also erase the posts on the website. Apologies to all who have got all these in their in boxes. If Kom or anyone else has any idea, pls contact Peter or Jon. Sarah ====== 18053 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:02pm Subject: What exactly IS metta? Dear Group, In the past, there has often been discussion about Metta and whether it was meant to be directed towards oneself, oneself first and then others , or only toward others. This post is asking the question "what exactly IS metta?" Is it prayer? Is it a healing energy that actually reaches the intended recipient? Can it alter situations that the person who is the object/target of metta is experiencing? Should one announce to the person who is the object of metta, or publicly, that one is radiating it to them? Or is it something that benefits and changes only the person radiating it? Do the scriptures give a clear indication either way? metta, :-) Christine 18054 From: Peter Da Costa Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Peter Da Costa Messages Respectfully to All I guess I wasn't carefull when 'messing around' with my system. I was endevoring to send all the last batch of posts, using Eudora, to a pop3 forwarding address to as to post it back to myself on another client, Turnpike, which has a rather nice feature for threading mailing list messages. As I sent them off, I realised that I had inadvertantly sent them back to the dsg address, oops! My tail is well between my legs, my head is both bowed and hidden is shame. My apologies seem inadequate, but it is all I can offer. But more important from a practical pov I will endevour to ensure that it never happens again. I will abandon all attemps to try to thread my downloaded dsg mesages, and instead make do with the facilities offered at the dsg web site, no matter how awkward it seems at the present time. Respects Peter At 11:07 21/12/2002 +0800, you wrote: >All, > >We have no idea what has happened - I imagine some computer glitch or bug >at Peter's end which I'm sure he doesn't realize. We've sent him a message >and just put his account under moderation (only just seen). We'll also >erase the posts on the website. > >Apologies to all who have got all these in their in boxes. > >If Kom or anyone else has any idea, pls contact Peter or Jon. > >Sarah >====== Peter Da Costa peterd@p... 18055 From: James Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:57pm Subject: The Anatta of a Baseball Hey All, Okay, I have been honing down onto this concept of `anatta' and I feel I need some input at this point. Historical analysis points to so many interpretations of this concept that I am beside myself in trying to pin down the correct one…or perhaps more than one is correct. It seems to me that many people proclaim that they understand anatta, and they don't understand anything of the sort. Some actually proclaim that such understanding is easy to reach…then I really know that they have no clue of the concept. Anatta is more difficult to comprehend than all of the theories of Einstein and Hawkings combined. Those who say it comes easy are not even up to bat. They are just sitting in the stands bragging about how easy they could hit a homerun or strike out a batter, as they swig down their third beer. I would like some input from those who don't overestimate their understanding and don't take for granted the depth of the Lord Buddha's teachings. Rather than dealing with the anatta of people, too complicated a subject to begin with, let me address the anatta of a baseball. Okay, there are different theories, even among those directly taught by the Lord Buddha, about anatta. Using a baseball as the subject, let's go through some of the major theories, as I perceive them: Theory One: A baseball is anatta because it is composed of many things that aren't `baseball'. It is composed of a hard, rubber core wrapped tightly in many strands of rubber. This is covered with two pieces of leather, pieced together similar to a ying-yang symbol, and stitched together with reinforced thread. So `baseball' is not really `baseball' at all; it is a collection of rubber, leather, and thread. This is the anatta of a baseball. Theory Two: A baseball is anatta because the materials that compose it, the rubber, leather, and thread, when examined at the most microscopic level, are unstable and constantly phasing in and out. All of the substances of the baseball, when examined closely, don't exist at all. Some call this the `emptiness' or `void' of the baseball. What appears to be a solid object is not really solid for any one moment…and doesn't really exist for any one moment. This is the anatta of a baseball. Theory Three: A baseball is anatta because the materials that hold it together as `baseball' do not last. Even if the baseball was put into a time capsule and untouched for several millenniums, it would still break apart into other elements. While this may seem related to `impermanence', it is different because it applies to the concept and object of `baseball' rather than elements. Impermanence relates to elements and anatta relates to conceptual objects, but the two go hand-in-hand. This is the anatta of a baseball. Theory Four: A baseball is anatta because even though several people may look at the same baseball, and even think of it as `baseball', they will not all see it the same way. If asked to draw it, they would each draw it differently. If asked what they thought of it, they would each think of it differently. While some things would be similar, the majority of the `viewings' of the baseball would be different. This shows that there is no concept of `baseball' that can be universally pinned down. Therefore, a `baseball' has no self which all can agree to. This is the anatta of a baseball. Okay, which of these is the correct interpretation for anatta? Or is there one that I haven't listed which is correct? Is anatta all of the above interpretations because they are somehow linked? Or are they entirely different? This is where I am stuck. If anyone can nudge me in the correct direction with a good reason as to why that is the correct direction, I would be most appreciative. Metta, James 18056 From: azita gill Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 9:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: just chatting - to Nina and Lo dewijk --- Jaran Jainhuknan wrote: > Hi Nina and Lodewijk: > > Sorry to hear about the loss. As I heard A. Sujin > (and probably > Rob K) said once, when someone was sad because of > the death of a > loved one, that they're already reborn, we should be > happy for that. > > ` Dear Nina & Lodewijk, I also am sorry to hear of your loss. The above comment is so very true, while we mourn and weep that being is already born again somewhere else. I discussed death with my daughters one time, and told them that it is really only our attachment that makes us cry when we lose someone we love. That being has gone, but we still cling to our memories of that being. " there are many different things found in the world, Nagasena, but tell me what is not to be found in the world" " there are 3 things O King, that are not to be found in the world. Anything either conscious or unconscious, that does not decay or perish; that formation [sankhara] or conditioned thing that is permanent is not to be found, and in the ultimate sense, there is no such thing as a being" I really enjoy Nagasena and the King's discussions. May we all have patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 18057 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 9:38pm Subject: Re: just chatting --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jaran Jainhuknan wrote: > Hi Nina and Lodewijk: > > Sorry to hear about the loss. As I heard A. Sujin (and probably > Rob K) said once, when someone was sad because of the death of a > loved one, that they're already reborn, we should be happy for that. > > With Sympathy, > jaran ____________ Dear Jaran, Nice to meet you for the first time last month, I really enjoyed the time with you, Num and Sukin driving down to Kaeng Krachan . Lots of joking and dhamma discussion as well. I want to explain a bit more about what Acharn Sujin said: One saturday ( 6 weeks back), just before meeting with A. Sujin , I got an email saying one of my best and oldest friends had just being crushed to death while working on a bus (he was a mechanic). I happened to mention this at the discussion and Sujin said he was now born again. I think this wasn't meant to imply that birth was a happy event but rather that birth is just as unpleasant as death because without birth there can be no death. I found it a very helpful thing to say. Thinking about the death of friends and family it may be we attach to the concept of "my friend," and then there wil be aversion and unpleasant feeling. Unfortunately many people imagine that compassion should come with sad feeling but this is never compassion in the true sense - instead it is citta rooted in moha (ignorance) and dosa(aversion), productive of more of the same. But one can also reflect about the death of those we know in ways that come without attachment , with wisdom . RobertK 18058 From: James Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 9:51pm Subject: Re: What exactly IS metta? Hi Christine, Good question. From my perspective, Metta must surely be a mental energy that is directed from one person to another or others. Metta doesn't even have to be completely selfless, as in dana, because the Buddha advised his monks to generate metta as a way to protect themselves: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-067.html Since metta is a mental energy, it can only affect others mentally. It cannot heal sickness (unless such is mentally-based), bring good luck, or anything else along those lines. It is the energy and influence from one stable and happy mind directed toward other minds to make them stable and happy. Of course the most pure metta is from one who has realized anatta, selflessness. Then it is a wish for the other to attain all that life has to offer…a wish for the absolute best...anatta. But even wishes of metta from corrupted minds are beneficial. We often can do for others what we sometimes cannot do for ourselves. But if done enough, it may rub off. Just my interpretation from my readings; there is mental and physical interconnectedness. Metta, James 18059 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:32pm Subject: Name was (Re: Dualism/Non-Dualism) Hi Victor, Here is my best guess at answers to your questions plus a little help from Bhikkhu Bodhi. Victor: 1. How is the word "name" used in everyday life? C: "Name" is used to to facilitate communication by using a commonly agreed sound (in speech), or group of letters which point to that sound, indicating a particular object. ---------------------------- Victor: 2. What does it mean by the word "name" in the context of "my name is Victor" or "my name is Christine"? C: In this context, it allows identification of a particular object (an individual human) out of very many similar ones. -------------------------- Victor: In Samyutta Nikaya XII.2, Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta, Analysis of Dependent Co-arising, feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention is called name. 3. What do feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention have in common such that they are called name? C: I don't think they are called 'name'. I think they are part of the combination 'name-and-form', often rendered by translators as the combination 'mentality-materiality'. The full verse is "And what, bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called name. The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form. Thus this name and this form are together called name-and-form." (6) In the general introduction to the Samyutta Nikaya p, 47 - 49 Bhikkhu Bodhi says (in part): "Though I render nama as name, this should not be taken too literally. Nama is the assemblage of mental factors involved in cognitiion: feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention (vedana, sanna, cetana, phassa, manasikara; II 3, v.34-35). These are called name because they contribute to the process of cognition by which objects are subsumed under conceptual designations." The note (6) to the verse quoted above on p. 727 Samyutta Nikaya (Bodhi) states: "nama denotes the three aggregates - of feeling, perception, and volitional formations - which are called thus because of their "bending" (namana) on to an object (in the act of cognizing it). Volition, contact, and attention belong to the aggregate of volitional formations and, according to Spk, have been selected to represent that aggregate here because they are operative even in the weakest classes of consciousness." metta, Christine 18060 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:58pm Subject: Re: What exactly IS metta? Hi James, Thanks James - I think you are right. In 'Metta - The Philosophy and Practice of Universal Love' by Acharya Buddharakkhita. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel365.html "The Pali word metta is a multi-significant term meaning loving- kindness, friendliness, goodwill, benevolence, fellowship, amity, concord, inoffensiveness and non-violence. The Pali commentators define metta as the strong wish for the welfare and happiness of others (parahita-parasukha-kamana). Essentially metta is an altruistic attitude of love and friendliness as distinguished from mere amiability based on self-interest. Through metta one refuses to be offensive and renounces bitterness, resentment and animosity of every kind, developing instead a mind of friendliness, accommodativeness and benevolence which seeks the well-being and happiness of others. True metta is devoid of self-interest. It evokes within a warm-hearted feeling of fellowship, sympathy and love, which grows boundless with practice and overcomes all social, religious, racial, political and economic barriers. Metta is indeed a universal, unselfish and all-embracing love. Metta makes one a pure font of well-being and safety for others. Just as a mother gives her own life to protect her child, so metta only gives and never wants anything in return. To promote one's own interest is a primordial motivation of human nature. When this urge is transformed into the desire to promote the interest and happiness of others, not only is the basic urge of self-seeking overcome, but the mind becomes universal by identifying its own interest with the interest of all. By making this change one also promotes one's own well-being in the best possible manner. Metta is the protective and immensely patient attitude of a mother who forbears all difficulties for the sake of her child and ever protects it despite its misbehavior. Metta is also the attitude of a friend who wants to give one the best to further one's well-being. If these qualities of metta are sufficiently cultivated through metta- bhavana -- the meditation on universal love -- the result is the acquisition of a tremendous inner power which preserves, protects and heals both oneself and others." ------------------------------ In the chapter on The Power of Metta, its affect on others is explained. There are stories here of Metta being sensed by and affecting others. e.g. The Buddha stopped an enraged elephant in its tracks by radiating metta towards it. One wonders why though, In the suttas below, the benefits of metta are indicated as belonging to the person practicing it - there is no indication that another benefits, or can be helped by it. Anguttara Nikaya XI.16 Metta Sutta 'Discourse on Advantages of Loving- kindness' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an11-016.html Sutta Nipata I.8 Karaniya Metta Sutta 'Good Will' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp1-08.html metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > Hi Christine, > > Good question. From my perspective, Metta must surely be a mental > energy that is directed from one person to another or others. Metta > doesn't even have to be completely selfless, as in dana, because the > Buddha advised his monks to generate metta as a way to protect > themselves: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-067.html > > Since metta is a mental energy, it can only affect others mentally. > It cannot heal sickness (unless such is mentally-based), bring good > luck, or anything else along those lines. It is the energy and > influence from one stable and happy mind directed toward other minds > to make them stable and happy. Of course the most pure metta is from > one who has realized anatta, selflessness. Then it is a wish for the > other to attain all that life has to offer…a wish for the absolute > best...anatta. But even wishes of metta from corrupted minds are > beneficial. We often can do for others what we sometimes cannot do > for ourselves. But if done enough, it may rub off. > > Just my interpretation from my readings; there is mental and physical > interconnectedness. > > Metta, James 18061 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 2:41am Subject: [dsg] Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman Sarah, Thanks for this additional information on right livelihood; I'm so far out of my depth with this, that I'm not even sure if my questions make sense: What is the `opportunity' (for wrong speech, action, livelihood), that has to be present before an abstention (virati) can arise? E.g., is it a dhamma or a concept? Is it an object of consciousness? Does the virati arise in the same citta viti as the opportunity? (Perhaps these and other questions, should wait until I know more about what the `opportunity' is.) I cannot follow the quote you have given from "Sammohavinodani1 (PTS transl by Nanamoli,p.142): > ". . . 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" > What is the meaning of `speech door' and `body door' in this context? To what do `the multiple moments' and `the prior stage' refer? What are the `seven courses of action?' Perhaps it would be simpler if you could just set some homework for me(?); thanks in advance, Ken H PS Ken O (KC), thank you for the compliments and for the good will; the same to you and to all other dsg members who are not averse to a little Xmas cheer :-) 18062 From: Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 9:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Anatta of a Baseball Hi, James - Good job, I think! I'd say that all your "theories" apply. Moreover, there is the impersonality of the baseball, perhaps the aspect most strongly stressed in Theravada, where, by the impersonality of something, I think is meant the fact of it and all of its aspects and components being unrelated to any so-called "I" or personal self. (We impose personal associations on all sorts of things - my baseball, my wife, my feelings, my thoughts, but they, and every aspect of them, are neither me nor mine.) With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/20/02 11:59:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Hey All, > > Okay, I have been honing down onto this concept of `anatta' and I > feel I need some input at this point. Historical analysis points to > so many interpretations of this concept that I am beside myself in > trying to pin down the correct one…or perhaps more than one is > correct. It seems to me that many people proclaim that they > understand anatta, and they don't understand anything of the sort. > Some actually proclaim that such understanding is easy to reach…then > I really know that they have no clue of the concept. Anatta is more > difficult to comprehend than all of the theories of Einstein and > Hawkings combined. Those who say it comes easy are not even up to > bat. They are just sitting in the stands bragging about how easy > they could hit a homerun or strike out a batter, as they swig down > their third beer. I would like some input from those who don't > overestimate their understanding and don't take for granted the depth > of the Lord Buddha's teachings. > > Rather than dealing with the anatta of people, too complicated a > subject to begin with, let me address the anatta of a baseball. > Okay, there are different theories, even among those directly taught > by the Lord Buddha, about anatta. Using a baseball as the subject, > let's go through some of the major theories, as I perceive them: > > Theory One: A baseball is anatta because it is composed of many > things that aren't `baseball'. It is composed of a hard, rubber core > wrapped tightly in many strands of rubber. This is covered with two > pieces of leather, pieced together similar to a ying-yang symbol, and > stitched together with reinforced thread. So `baseball' is not > really `baseball' at all; it is a collection of rubber, leather, and > thread. This is the anatta of a baseball. > > Theory Two: A baseball is anatta because the materials that compose > it, the rubber, leather, and thread, when examined at the most > microscopic level, are unstable and constantly phasing in and out. > All of the substances of the baseball, when examined closely, don't > exist at all. Some call this the `emptiness' or `void' of the > baseball. What appears to be a solid object is not really solid for > any one moment…and doesn't really exist for any one moment. This is > the anatta of a baseball. > > Theory Three: A baseball is anatta because the materials that hold > it together as `baseball' do not last. Even if the baseball was put > into a time capsule and untouched for several millenniums, it would > still break apart into other elements. While this may seem related > to `impermanence', it is different because it applies to the concept > and object of `baseball' rather than elements. Impermanence relates > to elements and anatta relates to conceptual objects, but the two go > hand-in-hand. This is the anatta of a baseball. > > Theory Four: A baseball is anatta because even though several people > may look at the same baseball, and even think of it as `baseball', > they will not all see it the same way. If asked to draw it, they > would each draw it differently. If asked what they thought of it, > they would each think of it differently. While some things would be > similar, the majority of the `viewings' of the baseball would be > different. This shows that there is no concept of `baseball' that > can be universally pinned down. Therefore, a `baseball' has no self > which all can agree to. This is the anatta of a baseball. > > Okay, which of these is the correct interpretation for anatta? Or is > there one that I haven't listed which is correct? Is anatta all of > the above interpretations because they are somehow linked? Or are > they entirely different? This is where I am stuck. If anyone can > nudge me in the correct direction with a good reason as to why that > is the correct direction, I would be most appreciative. > > Metta, James > > /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) 18063 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 3:01am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samvega and Pasada Dear Sarah, and All, Thanks for your post, Sarah - there were many things I liked and learned, but I have a few queries and comments, if you or anyone else would like to give some further input. They mainly seem to revolve around 'emotions'. Point 1 - I am uncertain about your comment that seems to mean emotional states don't condition samvega. My personal experience is that intense mental/emotional suffering can trigger samvega. I don't see a difference between feeling driven by suffering to understand the Dhamma and so find a way to escape from the greater Suffering, and "having a sense of urgency to escape the round of meaningless existence"(samvega). Point 5 - Wouldn't 'experiencing' samvega be entirely different to 'understanding' it initially? Wouldn't the experience, the feeling of urgency, be a condition for seeking to understand what caused it and what was the resolution that would bring calm? Comments on Thanissaro Bhikkhu's article: I don't think 'anxiety, weariness, pointlessness or intense desire for things to be different' are seen as "justified'. They just seem to me to be the motive power that sometimes produces samvega. I think I don't seem to be understanding your point on emotions. So, therefore, I find myself disagreeing with " I'd suggest the `sense of urgency' is a prompting of uplifting, wholesome states, not an "oppressive sense of shock, dismay, and alienation that comes with realizing the futility and meaningless of life as it's normally lived" as Thanissaro suggests." I agree with Thanissaro - the jolt of strong, oppressive emotions can be just what impels one to look at life, throw away stale, dogmatic 'answers' and find answers that work and point to the way out. Thank goodness KenH has asked about 'Right Livelihood' - I didn't understand your comment in the same paragraph where it is mentioned. It seems that the meaning I understood for Samvega 'an urgent need to escape the meaningless round of existence', has changed to being 'an urgent need to keep the sense faculties restrained which cannot be considered apart from this moment of seeing or hearing.' I'm treading water here .... metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Christine, > > Thank you for all the helpful references you provided and I also like > B.Bodhi's translation of the verse from the Bhadekeratta sutta and find it > very inspiring. I also enjoyed looking at the `urgent' and `rousing' > Suttas and I always find the reminders from `Future Dangers'. Now we're > comfortable, healthy and able to listen, discuss and consider. We don't > know what the future will bring. > > I knew little about the meaning of sa"mvega (sense of urgency) which > you've helpfully reminded me about a few times, but nothing about pasaada > (clearness, purity -here as in composure, serenity) which is not common at > all, as far as I know. I've been doing a little research, so please bear > with me. > > Let me start by adding a few quotes from texts using the terms with some > of my own comments (bound to be controversial to some;-)). > ==================================================== <<>> > I'll be glad to hear any of yours or others' comments. I'm aware that I > may have taken some of Thanissaro's comments too literally or out of > context. I apologise if this is so and don't wish to suggest any > disrespect for his interesting article which many may find helpful. > > Sarah > ======= 18064 From: James Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 3:48am Subject: Re: The Anatta of a Baseball --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > > Good job, I think! I'd say that all your "theories" apply. Moreover, > there is the impersonality of the baseball, perhaps the aspect most strongly > stressed in Theravada, where, by the impersonality of something, I think is > meant the fact of it and all of its aspects and components being unrelated to > any so-called "I" or personal self. (We impose personal associations on all > sorts of things - my baseball, my wife, my feelings, my thoughts, but they, > and every aspect of them, are neither me nor mine.) > > With metta, > Howard Hi Howard, Wow! Thanks. That is hard to swallow that anatta is ?ll of those things. But at least now I know I am on the right track. Metta, James 18065 From: James Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 4:56am Subject: Re: What exactly IS metta? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > One wonders why though, In the suttas below, the benefits of metta > are indicated as belonging to the person practicing it - there is no > indication that another benefits, or can be helped by it. > > Anguttara Nikaya XI.16 Metta Sutta 'Discourse on Advantages of Loving- > kindness' > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an11-016.html > Sutta Nipata I.8 Karaniya Metta Sutta 'Good Will' > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp1- 08.html > > metta, > Christine > Hi Christine, Actually, the second sutta you cite does stress metta for others; but I think in the first sutta the Buddha was describing the process for the general listener. He is giving both a description of the benefits that one will receive by practicing metta, and also a checklist that one can use to see if it is being practiced completely. For example, the Buddha states these benefits: "One sleeps easily, wakes easily, dreams no evil dreams. One is dear to human beings, dear to non-human beings. The devas protect one. Neither fire, poison, nor weapons can touch one. One's mind gains concentration quickly. One's complexion is bright. One dies unconfused and -- if penetrating no higher -- is headed for the Brahma worlds" So if a monk wasn't sleeping easily, was dreaming evil dreams, getting hurt, disliked by fellow monks…he could reach the conclusion that he needed to work on metta. I don't think the Buddha was encouraging a person to be selfish because just look at these benefits. A truly selfish person couldn't care less about being liked, sleeping well, or dying unconfused. A selfish person wants power, power now, and power at all costs. These benefits described by Lord Buddha would only be benefits to the wise and selfless. Metta, James Ps. Since there is no self, generating metta toward oneself would be the same as generating metta toward another. True?? 18066 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 5:27am Subject: Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Hi James, In Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html the Buddha taught that each and every aggregate is not self. He instructed that each and every aggregate is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." The teaching and instruction itself is simple, yet profound and liberating in the sense that: "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.'" When mind is busy theorizing and complicating, it has not much room seeing thus. Seeing thus is not the same as theorizing. All four theories are interesting. All four are to be abandoned. That is what's difficult. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > Hey All, > > Okay, I have been honing down onto this concept of `anatta' and I > feel I need some input at this point. Historical analysis points to > so many interpretations of this concept that I am beside myself in > trying to pin down the correct one…or perhaps more than one is > correct. It seems to me that many people proclaim that they > understand anatta, and they don't understand anything of the sort. > Some actually proclaim that such understanding is easy to reach… then > I really know that they have no clue of the concept. Anatta is more > difficult to comprehend than all of the theories of Einstein and > Hawkings combined. Those who say it comes easy are not even up to > bat. They are just sitting in the stands bragging about how easy > they could hit a homerun or strike out a batter, as they swig down > their third beer. I would like some input from those who don't > overestimate their understanding and don't take for granted the depth > of the Lord Buddha's teachings. > > Rather than dealing with the anatta of people, too complicated a > subject to begin with, let me address the anatta of a baseball. > Okay, there are different theories, even among those directly taught > by the Lord Buddha, about anatta. Using a baseball as the subject, > let's go through some of the major theories, as I perceive them: 18067 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 5:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dualism/Non-Dualism Hi Christine, Thanks very much for pointing out these verses. I checked them in the book and have been pondering over them.... Metta, Victor > Hi Victor and all, > > I'm just on my way out but thought this may be of interest. > > In the Samyutta Nikaya, p. 130 (B. Bodhi) Book with Verses > (Sagathavagga) VII. Weighed Down. 61 (1) 'Name' > > 203 "What has weighed down everything? > What is most extensive? > What is the one thing that has > All under its control?" > > 204 "Name has weighed down everything; > Nothing is more extensive than name. > Name is the one thing that has > All under its control." > > Note 121 says, in part, There is no living being or entity that is > free from a name, whether the name be natural or fabricated. Even a > tree or stone with no known name is still called "the nameless one". > > metta, > Christine 18068 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 7:00am Subject: Name was (Re: Dualism/Non-Dualism) Hi Christine, I find your answers to the first two question reasonable, that they agree with the definition found in dictionary: "a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of a person or thing" (www.webster.com) About question #3, this is what I feel/think: I feel that the meaning of the term "name" is further abstracted. What is retained is the meaning designation. And what is common in feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention such that they are called name? Designation. The world is known/felt/perceived through designation. Thus: 203 "What has weighed down everything? What is most extensive? What is the one thing that has All under its control?" 204 "Name has weighed down everything; Nothing is more extensive than name. Name is the one thing that has All under its control." Form is what is being designated. The term "name-&-form" represented the relation of designation and designated. This relation comes to be only when there is consciousness. Metta, Victor > Hi Victor, > Here is my best guess at answers to your questions plus a little help > from Bhikkhu Bodhi. > > Victor: 1. How is the word "name" used in everyday life? > C: "Name" is used to to facilitate communication by using a commonly > agreed sound (in speech), or group of letters which point to that > sound, indicating a particular object. > ---------------------------- > Victor: 2. What does it mean by the word "name" in the context of "my > name > is Victor" or "my name is Christine"? > C: In this context, it allows identification of a particular object > (an individual human) out of very many similar ones. > -------------------------- > Victor: In Samyutta Nikaya XII.2, Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta, > Analysis > of Dependent Co-arising, feeling, perception, intention, contact, and > attention is called name. > 3. What do feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention > have in common such that they are called name? > > C: I don't think they are called 'name'. I think they are part of > the combination 'name-and-form', often rendered by translators as the > combination 'mentality-materiality'. The full verse is "And what, > bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, > attention: this is called name. The four great elements and the form > derived from the four great elements: this is called form. Thus this > name and this form are together called name-and-form." (6) > > In the general introduction to the Samyutta Nikaya p, 47 - 49 > Bhikkhu Bodhi says (in part): > "Though I render nama as name, this should not be taken too > literally. Nama is the assemblage of mental factors involved in > cognitiion: feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention > (vedana, sanna, cetana, phassa, manasikara; II 3, v.34-35). > These are called name because they contribute to the process of > cognition by which objects are subsumed under conceptual > designations." > > The note (6) to the verse quoted above on p. 727 Samyutta Nikaya > (Bodhi) states: "nama denotes the three aggregates - of feeling, > perception, and volitional formations - which are called thus because > of their "bending" (namana) on to an object (in the act of cognizing > it). Volition, contact, and attention belong to the aggregate of > volitional formations and, according to Spk, have been selected to > represent that aggregate here because they are operative even in the > weakest classes of consciousness." > > metta, > Christine 18069 From: Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 2:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Name was (Re: Dualism/Non-Dualism) Hi, Victor - Something's very wrong, here, Victor! Something's making me very uneasy! Mmm, yeah, I think I know what it is - I agree with this entire post of yours!! ;-)) (Uh, well, one disclaimer - among the things that can be designated are namas as well. But that is a secondary issue. You are exactly right with regard to the meaning and importance of nama - it is designation.) With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/21/02 10:02:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Christine, > > I find your answers to the first two question reasonable, that they > agree with the definition found in dictionary: > > "a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of a > person or thing" (www.webster.com) > > About question #3, this is what I feel/think: > I feel that the meaning of the term "name" is further abstracted. > What is retained is the meaning designation. And what is common in > feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention such that they > are called name? Designation. > > The world is known/felt/perceived through designation. Thus: > > 203 "What has weighed down everything? > What is most extensive? > What is the one thing that has > All under its control?" > > 204 "Name has weighed down everything; > Nothing is more extensive than name. > Name is the one thing that has > All under its control." > > Form is what is being designated. The term "name-&-form" represented > the relation of designation and designated. This relation comes to > be only when there is consciousness. > > Metta, > Victor > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 18070 From: Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 8:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Name was (Re: Dualism/Non-Dualism) Hi Victor (Christine & Howard), Victor, I agree with your findings, but there is more to it. I did some research (and speculation) and found out that namarupa is a very old word, having its roots in the Vedas. "Rupa" originally meant "appearance" and "nama" meant "name", but "name" meant a lot more then than it does now. "Name" was the invocation of a being's spirit. People, animals, gods, demons, spirits, rocks, trees, waters and everything else that had a name was a being with a spirit. Speech was a powerful magic that a skilled person could use to control, or at least influence other beings. We still have a little of this today. A boat or ship has a name and that name is an invocation of the boat's personalty. The name is not just a pointer, it is nama, personality, spirit. By the time of the abhidhamma people didn't see spirit in things so much. Instead they saw the elusive wholeness of a compound, as with "city" or "carriage". Today we call that wholeness a concept. So in the abhidhamma we say "nama" has two meanings: concept and personality. One way of understanding "namarupa" is as "who/what". Larry 18071 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 8:48am Subject: [dsg] Name was (Re: Dualism/Non-Dualism) Hi Howard, Glad that we agree on something. Indeed, designation can also be designated. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > Something's very wrong, here, Victor! Something's making me very > uneasy! Mmm, yeah, I think I know what it is - I agree with this entire post > of yours!! ;-)) > (Uh, well, one disclaimer - among the things that can be designated > are namas as well. But that is a secondary issue. You are exactly right with > regard to the meaning and importance of nama - it is designation.) > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 12/21/02 10:02:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > > > Hi Christine, > > > > I find your answers to the first two question reasonable, that they > > agree with the definition found in dictionary: > > > > "a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of a > > person or thing" (www.webster.com) > > > > About question #3, this is what I feel/think: > > I feel that the meaning of the term "name" is further abstracted. > > What is retained is the meaning designation. And what is common in > > feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention such that they > > are called name? Designation. > > > > The world is known/felt/perceived through designation. Thus: > > > > 203 "What has weighed down everything? > > What is most extensive? > > What is the one thing that has > > All under its control?" > > > > 204 "Name has weighed down everything; > > Nothing is more extensive than name. > > Name is the one thing that has > > All under its control." > > > > Form is what is being designated. The term "name-&-form" represented > > the relation of designation and designated. This relation comes to > > be only when there is consciousness. > > > > Metta, > > Victor 18072 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:01am Subject: [dsg] Name was (Re: Dualism/Non-Dualism) Hi Larry, Thank you for the findings. I think it is very helpful to understand the root meaning of the term "name". Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor (Christine & Howard), > > Victor, I agree with your findings, but there is more to it. I did some > research (and speculation) and found out that namarupa is a very old > word, having its roots in the Vedas. "Rupa" originally meant > "appearance" and "nama" meant "name", but "name" meant a lot more then > than it does now. "Name" was the invocation of a being's spirit. People, > animals, gods, demons, spirits, rocks, trees, waters and everything else > that had a name was a being with a spirit. Speech was a powerful magic > that a skilled person could use to control, or at least influence other > beings. We still have a little of this today. A boat or ship has a name > and that name is an invocation of the boat's personalty. The name is not > just a pointer, it is nama, personality, spirit. By the time of the > abhidhamma people didn't see spirit in things so much. Instead they saw > the elusive wholeness of a compound, as with "city" or "carriage". Today > we call that wholeness a concept. So in the abhidhamma we say "nama" has > two meanings: concept and personality. One way of understanding > "namarupa" is as "who/what". > > Larry 18073 From: James Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 10:22am Subject: Re: The Anatta of a Baseball --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Hi James, > > In Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html > the Buddha taught that each and every aggregate is not self. He > instructed that each and every aggregate is to be seen as it actually > is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. > This is not my self." > > The teaching and instruction itself is simple, yet profound and > liberating in the sense that: > > "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.'" > > When mind is busy theorizing and complicating, it has not much room > seeing thus. Seeing thus is not the same as theorizing. > > All four theories are interesting. All four are to be abandoned. > That is what's difficult. > > Metta, > Victor > Hi Victor, Well, of course you are correct that a theory isn't the end of insight. A theory only prepares the mind for true understanding. That is why it is called a theory and not a reality or fact. A theory is like tilling the soil to prepare it for summer harvest. It is not the soil or the abundance of the crop. But I am afraid your platitudes do you even less. They lead you to believe they are the soil, the tilling, and the crops; but they exist only in the thin air of imagination. They fill your imagination full, but your belly will grow hungry. Which is better? A starving man who knows he is starving or a starving man who thinks he is full? The Lord Buddha wanted us all to realize how much we are starving; but I can understand why it is more comfortable to believe oneself to be full. Metta, James 18074 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 10:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samvega and Pasada Dear Sarah, Thank your for your kind words of sympathy which Lodewijk also appreciated very much. I like your post on samvega, always good to be reminded of the moment, the moment again. Especially: op 20-12-2002 10:02 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > Comment: restraint of the sense faculties and development of understanding > again. This is satipatthana and the real understanding of samvega. We can > read other examples in which monks and lay people were impelled by the > urgency’ to develop insight and attain arahatship. Of course these > examples always need to be understood in the light of no beings, no > selves, but confidence and understanding in the value of insight and the 4 > right efforts. And: < < Just as right livelihood’ cannot be defined apart from this very moment > of abstention from that which is wrong, neither can the urgent need to > keep the sense faculties restrained’quoted above from Sammohavinodani be > considered apart from this moment of seeing or hearing, regardless of > whether we are Xmas shopping and listening to carols or sitting quietly in > a temple. > Thank you, with appreciation, Nina. 18075 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 10:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] DSG: to Dion, books, chanting, etc. Hi Dion, I just answer that part of your letter referring to me, O.K.? op 20-12-2002 18:47 schreef Dion op dionpeoples@y...: > To Nina: I meant no offense, I'm sure the new sect of righteously > practicing Shortcut Buddhists and their Sangha find it valuable, as do > newcomers to Buddha's Dhamma, but I prefer the Tripitika, and I > meditate on the difficult points and find other pieces of advice within > potentially relating Sutta's. THE POINT I WANT TO TEACH HERE IS NOT > TO BE AFRAID OF THE TRIPITIKA. Do you have other publications > available, I would be interested in knowing other topics away from the > Abhidhamma that you might have written on Buddhism. Nina: On Zolag web, http://www.zolag.co.uk/ and also on Rob K's web, http://www.abhidhamma.org/ you could find some of my other writings. Never mind about Abhidhamma. You could try: Buddhism in Daily Life. You can see that I am not afraid of the suttas :-) I translated from Acharn Sujin: Taking Refuge in Buddhism. By the way, do you know Thai? Do you still live in Thailand? I appreciate it that you are so interested in the Commentaries. I have some in Pali and many in Thai, because my Pali reading is o so slow. Could you tell me more about the monk's chanting, I know so little about it and I am interested which texts they usually chant. A monk in Cambodia told me that they chant the satipatthana sutta every day. You meditate on difficult points of suttas, would you share your meditations with us? Best wishes, Nina. 18076 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 2:40pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Hello Dear Beth, Welcome to DSG, and thanks for the introduction. There are some useful links associated with the group including: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_ Posts http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossar y_of_pali_terms kom > -----Original Message----- > From: Beth [mailto:An_Morrigna@B...] > Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 4:03 AM > To: dhamma study group > Subject: [dsg] Hello 18077 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 4:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Peter Da Costa Messages Hi Peter, No worries ... you added some excitement to a dull day. Being a non- tech type, I vaguely understand your explanation of the anatta, conditions, no-control, and kamma-vipaka of compter systems. The undeclared war with my computer only results in skirmishes, attacks and dastardly deeds occurring within this Study (since Norton came to stay). Through the practice of equanimity I have managed to ignore all the abuse it hurls, usually beginning with messages stating " This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down". I sail on regardless, and think of verses such as: "Yesterday it worked. Today it is not working. Windows is like that." -------------------- "Chaos reigns within. Reflect, repent, and reboot. Order shall return." -------------------- Dr. Seuss Explains Why Computers Sometimes Crash, and do other incomprehensible things. (I think this is fun to read out loud.) "If a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port, and the bus is interrupted at a very last resort, and the access of the memory makes your floppy disk abort, then the socket packet pocket has an error to report. If your cursor finds a menu item followed by a dash, and the double-clicking icon puts your window in the trash, and your data is corrupted cause the index doesn't hash, then your situation's hopeless and your system's gonna crash! If the label on the cable on the table at your house says the network is connected to the button on your mouse, but your packets want to tunnel to another protocol, that's repeatedly rejected by the printer down the hall, and your screen is all distorted by the side effects of gauss, so your icons in the window are as wavy as a souse; then you may as well reboot and go out with a bang, 'cuz sure as I'm a poet, the sucker's gonna hang! When the copy of your floppy's getting sloppy in the disk, and the macro code instructions cause unnecessary risk, then you'll have to flash the memory and you'll want to RAM your ROM then quickly turn off the computer and be sure to tell your Mom!" WELL! That certainly clears things up for ME! Cheers, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Peter Da Costa wrote: 18078 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 8:56pm Subject: Re: What exactly IS metta? Hi James and all, James wrote: "Since there is no self, generating metta toward oneself would be the same as generating metta toward another. True??" C: This is an interesting thought. Actually, there have been long running, intermittent discussions on dsg, under different thread names, about 'pervading metta to oneself'. Some discussions (42 posts) on this point, are archived on escribe. Meththa Meditation, beginning on escribe at: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m5350.html (Click on 'View this Thread' at the top of the message.) Other threads on the same point, Understanding metta, Some more about metta, Four Sublime states A few random quotes: In dsg 9342 Mike Nease had said: "As I understand it, the brahma viharas aren't 'directed' towards 'oneself' or 'others'. The pre-eminent characteristic of all of them is that they are directed to absolutely all beings without exception in every direction and to the entire cosmos, rather than being directed at someone in particular." In dsg 9461 Sarah said to RobK: "And so, I think the first line you quote that metta should first of all `..be developed only to oneself' is explained by the following ones that `it does not conflict' with the other texts which clearly show metta is never towards oneself because here it `refers to (making oneself) an example." In dsg 10520 I concluded that "In the end, the vast majority of sitting meditators were on one side of a line drawn in the sand, directing metta to oneself (as well as others)...and the minority who stated that metta can only be directed outwards to others, and that it was difficult to be certain it was really Metta anyway, were on the other side of the line." metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " 18079 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello Hi, Beth, and welcome to the list from me. --- Beth wrote: > Hello all, > I'm very new to Buddhism. I began taking an interest in > Buddhism when > a local TV forum had various guest in which the topic was related > to or > about Buddhism. I've since attended some online chats in buddhist > rooms > (mostly yahoo) and have downloaded the Dhammapada from Access To > Insight. > I've been meditating in some form for most my life and have been > working on > awareness for the past few years. > I look forward to reading your post. > > ~peace, > Beth Please feel free to share with us your understanding or experience about awareness, which is such an important aspect of Buddhism. We could all benefit from more discussion about this. Jon 18080 From: Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 10:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Hi Victor, You wrote, "He instructed that each and every aggregate is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." You are right this doesn't take any philosophy and applying it to a moment of experience is satipatthana. It is simple, direct, and obvious. Ideas and understanding are not me. I used to think this implied there _was_ a me doing the practice but I looked and there was no one there. Larry 18081 From: antony272b2 Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 10:58pm Subject: Re: What exactly IS metta? > James wrote: "Since there is no self, generating metta toward oneself > would be > the same as generating metta toward another. True??" Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote: Note 19. This might appear to contradict what we said earlier, that metta is free from self-reference. The contradiction is only apparent, however, for in developing metta towards oneself one regards oneself objectively, as a third person. Further, the kind of love developed is not self-cherishing but a detached altruistic wish for one's own well-being. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/waytoend.html 18082 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 0:26am Subject: Last chance for 2002 Dear Group, Anyone who is wondering what gift they can give their dear Dhamma friends this holiday season - you all do remember that Giving is one of the Perfections leading to Enlightenment, don't you? - I ask you to consider giving us the gift of your countenance i.e. your photo.:) With all the holiday photos being taken - surely one of them will catch your best side. :-) New or Updated versions, all are welcome. We have 58 photos currently in the album, many are group photos, so there are literally scores of us (and some of our beautiful children) hanging out in there. A huge variety of multi-cultural humanity... Any new members, or long time members who have been meaning to grace our Album, please feel free to put a photo in now. (Not wishing to put too much pressure on anyone, but just suppose someone wanted to make up for their computers' over-enthusiastic accidental postings, well, a photo might just about square the ledger. :-)) Victor, great to see you've put an Update in. Thank you, it's very nice. :-) Hopefully, others may follow suit. We can all be viewed at: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst (click on 'show all') Anyone with technical problems regarding uploading photos, please contact Kom (or myself) off-list. metta, Christine 18083 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 1:56am Subject: Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > > > I would like some input from those who don't > overestimate their understanding and don't take for granted the depth > of the Lord Buddha's teachings. > I'm probably guilty of the first part, who isn't, but not of the second; the depth of the Buddha's teaching is certainly, inestimable. We can all teach about conventional reality but only a Buddha teaches conditioned reality and the escape therefrom. Theory one. This is like the simile of the chariot is it not? The point of that simile, however, was not that chariots and baseballs are anatta, but rather that the five khandhas are anatta. Just as the parts of a baseball, when properly assembled, are conventionally designated, "baseball," so too, the five khandhas, arising together, are conventionally designated, "living being" (or self). Theory two I think scientists say that matter is ultimately, energy arising in discrete packages (quanta), and disappearing again with incredibly high frequency. But even these quanta are not what the Buddha described as ultimate realities. They are concepts. When certain absolute realities (visible object, tangible object, etc.), present themselves at the sense doors, memories and thoughts work at relating to them. Concepts such as baseball are formed. By the time a concept has been formed, the realities that prompted it have been and gone. It was those realities that the Buddha realised as anicca, dukkha and anatta, not the concepts. Theory three What if scientists could produce a diamond baseball so hard and indestructible that it was guaranteed to last forever? It is my guess that this type of hypothesis is the reason for it being said [somewhere in the Tipitaka], that even concepts should be regarded as anatta. There is no reason to regard them as anicca and dukkha but IMHO, it is to forestall any desperate attempts at seeing self in things that don't exist, that we say, "even concepts are anatta." Theory four Yes, baseball is a concept. It is the conventional designation given to certain rupas that appear fleetingly, one at a time, at the six doorways. The anatta of `baseball' is that it is an illusion. The anatta of things that are real is something different again. It is a characteristic that can be directly known but only at very highly developed levels of satipatthana. Until these [inestimably deep] levels are reached, we can but listen and learn. Kind regards Ken H 18084 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 2:03am Subject: Re: Commentaries are papanca-like? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > > > > While I agree that samsara is the rise and fall of the khandas, I do > not agree that samsara has ended upon the parinibbana of any arahat; > samsara may have ended for the arahat, but samsara 'at large' is > still not ended yet. > > > Hi Swee Boon, Perhaps it can be both. Perhaps samsara `at large' can be ended for the arahat and at the same time, not ended for the rest of us. I like to think that everything is contained in the present moment. If we were the Tathagatha, we would be able to see how the present namas and rupas were conditioned by certain previous namas and rupas. We could go back a step further and see what conditioned the conditions and so on and so on, right back to the beginning of samsara. Likewise, we could see how the present namas and rupas, both our own and of others, can condition future namas and rupas and how they can condition others right up to the end of samsara. In this way, it might be said that the five khandhas of the present moment contain the beginning of samsara, the end of samsara and every dhamma that has existed [or will exist], in between. So the parinibbana of all arahats, past and future, [including ourselves], and the total end of samsara, is contained in this present moment, if only we could see it. This may be pure speculation; corrections welcome. Ken H 18085 From: Sarah Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 2:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Last chance for 2002 Hi Christine & All, Thanks for the prompts for pix and so nicely packaged;-) --- "christine_forsyth " > Any new members, or long time members who have been meaning to grace > our Album, please feel free to put a photo in now. ..... A few Star Kids pix are wandering around in cyberspace as we speak but hopefully will be in the album very soon (just those who have posted)....Apologies in advance for the combination of my poor photography skills combined with a few kids determined to make the task as difficult as possible;-) ..... >(Not wishing to > put too much pressure on anyone, but just suppose someone wanted to > make up for their computers' over-enthusiastic accidental postings, > well, a photo might just about square the ledger. :-)) ..... Here, here.... I also enjoyed the poetry and explanation of the little panic attack I had yesterday;-): “.... the anatta, conditions, no-control, and kamma-vipaka of compter systems.” .... The reminders on patience are also a much-appreciated gift at any time: ***** “Patience should be further fortified by reflection: "Those who lack patience are afflicted in this world and apply themselves to actions which will lead to their affliction in the life to come." And: "Although this suffering arises through the wrong deeds of others, this body of mine is the field for that suffering, and the action which is its seed was sown by me alone." And: "This suffering will release me from the debt of that kamma." And: "If there were no wrong-doers, how could I accomplish the perfection of patience?" “ (Thanks, Nina for sharing the translations with us - no limit to patience either). ***** Many thanks to all who have either helped test our patience (and allowed us to see our own shortcomings in this regard) or who have shown great examples of patience when tested ;-) Sarah ====== 18086 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 2:13am Subject: Letter from Kimmy Dear James, Your reply was really long and thank you very much. It makes me think of many things and always remember what you told me. You are right, Humans shouldn't try to guess and don't know what God thinks. Also, it is real that I would feel worse if someone says I'm going to get trouble with my teacher or parents. The story about Patty and Dominique is really interesting. I am glad that my view towards myself is not the same as neither Patty or Dominique. I think we should look at ourself in a way of always encouraging ourself to do better, right? Really thanks for your reply. Kimmy 18087 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 2:18am Subject: letter to Kiana Hey Kiana!!! =) Im really glad to write letters to you! Exactly,thats why in life, nothing is peaceful. You only grow when you experience sad stuff and happy stuff.Pretend, there was an earth quake or a volcano eruption and you never experienced it then you would never know what to do right? Unless you learned a bit about safety during the earth quake of the eruption. But you usually get really scared and you wont do anything because you never experienced it. Or if you never try going out by your self, you would never grow. You would always want to go out with someone you know and you trust forever and ever. Sure of course I learned a lot about Buddhism! It sure is really interesting!! Well, in Buddhism, if somebody dies, will they be put in a coffin and the coffin gets put in the graveyard like Christians do? Love, Joanne ===== 18088 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 2:23am Subject: Letter to James Hi James, This is Joanne again~ Thanks for your letter number 17118. Im sorry, Im sure Philip has good points as well. Everybody is different. True, when we walk right, he walks left. Its just a different direction everybody is going. Thanks for telling me all these stuff about other people. Im sure It is really different from all the other religions. Well, I dont have much to say. So talk to you later! *~!!MERRY CHRISTMAS!!~* Love, Joanne P.S. How long do you spend on writing all these letters when you receive them?? 18089 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 2:26am Subject: About Christmas Dear Robert, Are you getting excited about Christmas. Will you spend Christmas with your family and do you have a Christmas tree. Have you decorated it yet? Yes I do think you should get Alex game cubes. Plus I'm getting a game cube too. Please tell me more about kamma. I read and understood everything you said it seemed very senseble and what present have you recived (please say after Christmas) From Charles 18090 From: Sarah Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 3:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman Hi Ken H, Always good to see you posting;-) --- "kenhowardau " wrote: > Sarah, > > Thanks for this additional information on right > livelihood; I'm so far out of my depth with this, that > I'm not even sure if my questions make sense: .... Let me tell you I’m also often out of my depth and one never knows when 'a Ken H' may come along and test it all out;-) Seriously, this is the best gift of all for me.....knowing someone is reading, considering and questioning (even disagreeing with, is very fine) . .... > What is the `opportunity' (for wrong speech, action, > livelihood), that has to be present before an abstention > (virati) can arise? E.g., is it a dhamma or a concept? > Is it an object of consciousness? ..... I’d say the moments of consciousness preceding the virati (abstention). Eg in a business setting, someone asks if one leaked the information to the client. There is the hearing, reflecting and then the abstention from wrong speech. ..... > Does the virati arise in the same citta viti as the > opportunity? (Perhaps these and other questions, should > wait until I know more about what the `opportunity' is.) .... I think as Rob M was discussing, there are so many citta-vithi (processes) rapidly following each other. There are bound to be the hearing of sounds in the ear door processes, the reflections, considerations in subsequent mind door processes and then the moments of abstention following these. It’s also common to refrain from wrong speech one moment and then blurt out with it the next. I'm not sure we need to (is helpful to) try to 'work out' the processes. .... > I cannot follow the quote you have given from > "Sammohavinodani1 (PTS transl by Nanamoli,p.142): > > > ". . . 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" > > > > What is the meaning of `speech door' and `body door' in > this context? To what do `the multiple moments' and `the > prior stage' refer? What are the `seven courses of > action?' .... Just my ideas - no guarantees;-) Speech door - through using speech -abstaining from lying, slandering, harsh speech and idle talk. Body door - through an action - abstaining from killing, stealing and sexual misconduct Both whilst carried out for one’s livelihood. These are the ‘seven courses’ of action (akusala kamma patha) as I understand - the 4 wrong speech and 3 wrong action whilst carried out in the livelihood context. Prior to the sotapatti magga citta of the sotapanna, there have to be ‘multiple’ mind door processes with abstention, accompanied by right understanding. There cannot be abstention from wrong speech and wrong action at the same time - different processes. However at the Path moment, all the 3 viratis arise together with the other 5 eightfold path Factors. By this stage, there are no longer any conditions for some of these kinds of speech and action (lying, killing, stealing, sexual misconduct) to arise, so this is the final eradication and the end of these kinds of virati. There continue to be opportunities for the virati with regard to the other kinds of wrong speech not yet eradicated. .... > Perhaps it would be simpler if you could just set some > homework for me(?); thanks in advance, ... These are very good questions and not easy to answer. OK homework (I’m a little busy and distracted right now) - do some digging and checking and let me know what you think or how it sounds (or if I'm leading you astray) and also the other comments on livelihood, lawyers and trees;-) Also, pls continue helping with other questions raised on list as you're doing....;-);-). Others may have ideas (or corrections) too on anything I've written. .... > PS Ken O (KC), thank you for the compliments and for the > good will; the same to you and to all other dsg members > who are not averse to a little Xmas cheer :-) ... Kids and Starkids now on holiday, so I’ll be enjoying a little Xmas cheer this week for sure....KC , great to see you around and in such good form. Sarah ====== 18091 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 7:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: about death Dear Azita, Thank you for your words and the quote. I am also impressed by Rob K.'s explanation: it is not so happy to be reborn, this is another way of looking at things, but hard if it is a loved one. I quote Rob K: I had not looked at it that way. It is hard to swallow because we cling to the idea of the dear person who has died, cannot accept it. But it is as you quoted from Questions of Milinda, unavoidable. Azita, how can we console others? Thus, not by telling them about rebirth. I really have to ponder on this. Lodewijk said, all her good accumulations of kindness, hospitality, compassion are never lost. She took care of their mother in an eminent way. These accumulations condition the next life, which is different. Nina. op 21-12-2002 06:28 schreef azita gill op gazita2002@y...: > I also am sorry to hear of your loss. The above > comment is so very true, while we mourn and weep that > being is already born again somewhere else. 18092 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 7:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 28,the three characteristics, stages of insight Hi Larry, and Victor op 20-12-2002 21:34 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: One thought that came to mind by the phrase > "pleasure is the stuff of suffering as suffering" is that pleasure is > not only impermanent and ungraspable, it is also the ultimate object and > cause of all grasping: "dependent on feeling craving arises". But this > was just my own thought. N: I like this thought. L:As for the three characteristics, I think we > could say due to their interconnected logic, the correct recognition of > any one of the characteristics will include the other two. "Anatta" is > confusing for many people, but I think the correct perception of > impermanence will carry one to path insight. Any object of satipatthana > could be contemplated as anicca, or dukkha, or anatta, or all three. N: again, the first stage of insight comes first: knowing the hardness as rupa, different from seeing which is nama. Already very difficult. The fourth stage realizes the impermanence of nama and rupa, and it brings more detachment, letting go. I was reminded in Thailand again and again that panna leads to detachment. Thus, it is not helpful to think: I should know this quickly, how can I try very hard to know the three characteristics? Then there is clinging. Victor brings up an important point, how to realize the three characteristics. We read about them in the scriptures time and again. We may wonder about non-self: did the Buddha teach this or not, what is meant by this? We may reason about this but then we get stuck with theoretical knowledge, there is no development of panna which can directly realize the truth. In the scriptures, there is no extensive description of all the stages of insight knowledge. We find them in the Path of Discrimination and the Visuddhimagga, but they are only described shortly. When panna develops to the stage of insight knowledge, no words are needed, it is the direct realization of the truth. We read in Kindred Sayings IV, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Ch 3, § 26, Comprehension: Without fully knowing, without comprehending the all, brethren, without detaching himself from, without abandoning the all, a man is incapable of extinguishing Ill... In Pali: sabbam (the all) bhikkhave anabhijaana.m(not fully knowing) aparijaana.m (not comprehending) aviraajaya.m (not detaching) appajaha.m (not abandoning) abhabbo (unable) dukkhakkhayaaya (khaaya, extinguishing). It is explained that the all are: the eye, visible object, seeing, eye-contact, etc. It is then explained that by fully knowing the all dukkha can be extinguished. Now the Commentary: end quote. Actually, in these few words all stages of insight are included. The Visuddhimagga explains (Ch XX, 3) about the three kinds of full understanding: ~naata-pari~n~naa (full understanding of the known), begins at the first stage of insight knowledge (knowing the difference between nama and rupa) up to the second stage (knowing them as conditioned realities). The specific characteristics of nama and rupa are penetrated. The second pari~n~naa, full understanding as investigation : begins at the third stage (comprehension by groups, beginning to see rise and fall) until the fourth stage which is the first stage of principle insight (mahaa-vipassana ~naa.na): realizing the arising and falling away of realities. Here the general characteristics are penetrated. The third pari~n~naa, pahaana-pari~n~naa, full understanding as abandoning, begins at the contemplation of dissolution, bhanga ~naa.na, the second stage of principal insight. Thus we see that in the sutta very few words are used, describing all stages of insight. We also see that as panna develops it leads to detachment, to abandoning. But panna develops stage by stage. If the specific characteristics of nama and rupa are not fully penetrated (the all: seeing, etc), the three characteristics cannot be penetrated. The development of panna evolves according to a specific order. Nina. 18093 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 8:57am Subject: RE: [dsg] Music produces mental feelings. Why? Dear Swee Boon, > -----Original Message----- > From: nidive [mailto:nidive@y...] > > Dear Everybody, > > Why does music produce mental feelings? The dependent origination explains this: name & form -> the 6 sense base -> contact -> feeling -> tanha [attachment] -> grasping... What about visible objects, smell, taste, hot & cold, hardness and softness? Don't these produce mental feelings also? When pleasant objects appear to us, we often (or invariably) have pleasant feeling associated with attachment (tanha). > Even though what I hear is a sound at a time, yet > when many sounds > at a time conjoin together in some musical > fashion, there arises > pleasant mental feelings; there arises imagination... The tika explains that after paramatha objects appear to the sense door and the mind door, we are bound to conjoin what appeared together and conceptualize on them. After we hear a sound, we conceptualize its pattern (like phrases of music, or speech), its origination (like being music, or a person's voice), and its meaning, each involving more elaborate conceptualization / mind-constructs about the sound that we just heard. A person yet untrained in the conceptualization, or differently trained in the conceptualization may conceptualize on the sound very differently. A baby hears a sound, but might not have associated the sound with music, may not be able to associate the sound with a person or its meaning. A person of a different culture may interpret the sound differently. A person hit by a hard object may say "ouch" in English, but certainly wouldn't say that in Thai. I think how we conceptualize the sound is mostly based on our accumulations / training that has been going on in the past and in the present. When you hear about Tchikvosky's Chinese dance the first time, it may take you a while to think of it as being a comedy. But after repeated association, this thinking becomes automatic. The on-going mental states that are going on right now influence the mental states (reaction to similar situations) that would arise in the future. I hope this isn't more confusing, and I hope others say something more on this topics. kom 18094 From: Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 4:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Music produces mental feelings. Why? Hi, Kom (and Swee Boon) - All that I would like to add is my opinion that the conceptual operation performed on a sequence of notes creating a "melody" is not completely arbitrary nor is it conditioned only by our accumulations. Rather, it is based on the existence of an actual pattern of relations holding among the notes that comprise the sequence we call "melody". That is, the pa~n~natti that is determined by our sankharic construction is well-grounded and not constructed from whole cloth, and its creation does truly provide useful information to the mind. Concepts should not be seen for more than the are ... but also not for less than what they are. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/22/02 11:58:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, kom@a... writes: > > Dear Swee Boon, > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: nidive [mailto:nidive@y...] > > > >Dear Everybody, > > > >Why does music produce mental feelings? > > The dependent origination explains this: > name &form -> the 6 sense base -> contact -> feeling -> > tanha [attachment] -> grasping... > > What about visible objects, smell, taste, hot &cold, > hardness and softness? Don't these produce mental feelings > also? When pleasant objects appear to us, we often (or > invariably) have pleasant feeling associated with attachment > (tanha). > > >Even though what I hear is a sound at a time, yet > >when many sounds > >at a time conjoin together in some musical > >fashion, there arises > >pleasant mental feelings; there arises imagination... > > The tika explains that after paramatha objects appear to the > sense door and the mind door, we are bound to conjoin what > appeared together and conceptualize on them. After we hear > a sound, we conceptualize its pattern (like phrases of > music, or speech), its origination (like being music, or a > person's voice), and its meaning, each involving more > elaborate conceptualization / mind-constructs about the > sound that we just heard. > > A person yet untrained in the conceptualization, or > differently trained in the conceptualization may > conceptualize on the sound very differently. A baby hears a > sound, but might not have associated the sound with music, > may not be able to associate the sound with a person or its > meaning. A person of a different culture may interpret the > sound differently. A person hit by a hard object may say > "ouch" in English, but certainly wouldn't say that in Thai. > > I think how we conceptualize the sound is mostly based on > our accumulations / training that has been going on in the > past and in the present. When you hear about Tchikvosky's > Chinese dance the first time, it may take you a while to > think of it as being a comedy. But after repeated > association, this thinking becomes automatic. The on-going > mental states that are going on right now influence the > mental states (reaction to similar situations) that would > arise in the future. > > I hope this isn't more confusing, and I hope others say > something more on this topics. > > kom > /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) 18095 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 9:52am Subject: Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Dear James and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: < snip > Anatta is more difficult to comprehend than all of the theories of Einstein and Hawkings combined. KKT: Just drop in and read this thread and like to add some thoughts: Anatta is difficult to comprehend because it is not a theory but a reality to realize, to live with ! The difficulty is because people live with << an atta in full functioning >> and with this atta like to speculate about anatta. One is either anatta or atta, there is no << in-between >> (i.e. more or less atta or anatta :-)) Peace, KKT 18096 From: Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 28,the three characteristics, stages of insight Dear Nina, A slight quibble, or difference of opinion: Is this email who you are? If you say no, then, congratulations, that is the satipatthana of anatta. Of course, it might be more useful to focus on what actually seems to be oneself: thinking, or any one of the root cittas (passion, aggression, bewilderment), for example. The principle is the same. Is this thought who you are? Is it who I am? No. It is just a thought. I would go so far as to say the mere correct naming or clear identification of an object is the automatic recognition of anatta. Anger is not self because anger is anger. We mustn't forget satipatthana is a mundane path. There is no great realization but there could be lots of recognition (sati). Best wishes, Larry 18097 From: Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 6:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 28,the three characteristics, stages of insight Hi, Larry - I like this. In a message dated 12/22/02 2:21:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Dear Nina, > > A slight quibble, or difference of opinion: Is this email who you are? > If you say no, then, congratulations, that is the satipatthana of > anatta. Of course, it might be more useful to focus on what actually > seems to be oneself: thinking, or any one of the root cittas (passion, > aggression, bewilderment), for example. The principle is the same. Is > this thought who you are? Is it who I am? No. It is just a thought. I > would go so far as to say the mere correct naming or clear > identification of an object is the automatic recognition of anatta. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Excellent. At the least, this clear identification is the recognition of the impersonality aspect of anatta (though not necessarily also the insubstantiality/conditionality aspect). ----------------------------------------------- > Anger is not self because anger is anger. We mustn't forget satipatthana > is a mundane path. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: As I see it, the "path of satipatthana" is a graduated one, moving from mundane to supermundane. ------------------------------------------------- There is no great realization but there could be lots> > of recognition (sati). > > Best wishes, 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) 18098 From: James Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 0:18pm Subject: Re: Letter to James --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > P.S. How long do you spend on writing all these > letters when you receive them?? Hi Star Kid Joanne, Hehehe…I don't spend that long writing these letters at all. If it is a really long one, I will spend 20 to 30 minutes. If it is short letter, I will spend 5 to 10 minutes. I write very fast because I compose the words in my head and can type very fast. It just comes with practice. I had a friend tell me that when she gets an e-mail from me she knows that she can't read it until she has the time. She said that she waits until night time, gets in a comfortable chair, has something to drink, and soaks her feet in hot water. And by the time she is finished reading my letter, the hot water has turned to ice! :-) I write something every single day. I hope my letters aren't too long for you, but if the subject is complicated I like to explain in different ways so that you can understand. Merry Christmas to you too! Love, James ps. I wrote this letter in six minutes. 18099 From: James Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 0:47pm Subject: Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Ken H., KKT, Victor, All, Okay, I am not sure how you are thinking about the word `theory', but I think you have a different idea than I do. www.dictionary.com defines theory as: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't know anatta first-hand. I am still walking around in `James' most of the time and seeing my thoughts, my car, my house, etc. as mine. I also see them as permanent. On a few rare moments, I have seen otherwise. But those moments were fleeting and probably only a small taste of the real thing. I don't see anything wrong with calling speculations about the nature of anatta `theories'. If you have a problem with that, don't do it for yourself. We all don't have to think the same way. Unless I am significantly off the dhamma trail, I don't see what all the fuss is about. I think in more concrete terms. I also like to have something to compare my experiences against. Anatta can be explained cognitively or the Buddha wouldn't have done it. Unfortunately, he didn't explain with too many different positions or details. His senior monks often had to explain the details of something after he spoke. That was his style (that he would have composed the Abhidhamma is highly unlikely given that). So, if you know more about Anatta than I do, explain to me in concrete terms so that I may understand. Or use metaphors..or use examples. But use something other than it is `an experience'…what the heck kind of experience? If you know, throw me some kinda bone please! :-) Metta, James 18100 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 2:04pm Subject: Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Dear James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: Ken H., KKT, Victor, All, Okay, I am not sure how you are thinking about the word `theory', but I think you have a different idea than I do. www.dictionary.com defines theory as: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't know anatta first-hand. I am still walking around in `James' most of the time and seeing my thoughts, my car, my house, etc. as mine. KKT: Same thing here :-)) ----------- I also see them as permanent. KKT: Same thing here :-)) ----------- On a few rare moments, I have seen otherwise. But those moments were fleeting and probably only a small taste of the real thing. KKT: The << I, Me, Mine, Myself >> is the background. Always there and very solid or just palpable sometimes :-)) ------------ I don't see anything wrong with calling speculations about the nature of anatta `theories'. KKT: Agree. Nothing wrong with theories. ------------ If you have a problem with that, don't do it for yourself. We all don't have to think the same way. Unless I am significantly off the dhamma trail, I don't see what all the fuss is about. I think in more concrete terms. I also like to have something to compare my experiences against. Anatta can be explained cognitively or the Buddha wouldn't have done it. Unfortunately, he didn't explain with too many different positions or details. His senior monks often had to explain the details of something after he spoke. That was his style (that he would have composed the Abhidhamma is highly unlikely given that). So, if you know more about Anatta than I do, explain to me in concrete terms so that I may understand. Or use metaphors..or use examples. But use something other than it is `an experience'…what the heck kind of experience? If you know, throw me some kinda bone please! :-) Metta, James KKT: According to my many readings about this question of Anatta (a very fascinating question indeed, it is my << main >> obsession :-)) in Buddhism as well as in other traditions, Anatta is a reality. Often, << it >> happens suddenly and the person finds that he/she has no more ego, no more this center which is central to all activities, no more this << feeling of I, Me, Mine, Myself >> And the experience should be irreversible. Otherwise, it is merely << fake >> :-)) One could easily delude oneself with an experience of enlightenment. This is the case of many spiritual Masters. Peace, KKT 18101 From: Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 9:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Hi, KKT - In a message dated 12/22/02 5:06:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > Often, <>happens suddenly > and the person finds that > he/she has no more ego, > no more this center which is > central to all activities, > no more this <> > > And the experience should be irreversible. > Otherwise, it is merely <>:-)) > > One could easily delude oneself > with an experience of enlightenment. > This is the case of many spiritual Masters. > > > =========================== The experience need not be irreversible. First of all, the person may not be properly prepared for the experience and recoil in fear. Secondly, if this is an initial such experience, say even of full stream entry, the atta *sense* is not normally irradicated (though *belief* in self is irradicated). 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) 18102 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 2:27pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Hi, KKT - In a message dated 12/22/02 5:06:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > Often, <>happens suddenly > and the person finds that > he/she has no more ego, > no more this center which is > central to all activities, > no more this <> > > And the experience should be irreversible. > Otherwise, it is merely <>:-)) > > One could easily delude oneself > with an experience of enlightenment. > This is the case of many spiritual Masters. > > > =========================== The experience need not be irreversible. First of all, the person may not be properly prepared for the experience and recoil in fear. Secondly, if this is an initial such experience, say even of full stream entry, the atta *sense* is not normally irradicated (though *belief* in self is irradicated). With metta, Howard KKT: Agree with you, Howard. The sense of self is only completely irradicated once one becomes Arahat. Metta, KKT 18103 From: chase8383 Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 7:07am Subject: Are these two teachings the same? Hi All From the Pali: "(Contact) "'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes contact.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how, from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes contact. If the qualities, traits, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group (mental activity) were all absent, would designation-contact with regard to the form-group (the physical body) be discerned?" "No, lord." "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of form-group were all absent, would resistance-contact with regard to the name-group be discerned?" "No, lord." "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group and form-group were all absent, would designation-contact or resistance-contact be discerned?" "No, lord." "Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for contact, i.e., name-and-form. " From Dzogchen: "In the heart of winter, the chill freezes lakes and rivers; water becomes so solid it can bear men, beasts, nd carts. As spring approaches, earth and water warm up and thaw. What then remains of the hardess of the ice? Wateris soft and fluid, ice hard and sharp, so we cannot say they are identical; but neither can we say they are different, because ice is only solidified water, and water is only melted ice. The same applys to our perception of the world around us. To be attached to the reality of phenomena, to be tourmented by attraction and repulsion, by pleasure an pain, gain and loss, fame and obscurity, praise and blame, creates a solidity in the mind. What we hav to do, therefore, is to melt the ice of concepts into the living water of the freedom within." Thank you, David 18104 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 7:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Hi Larry > If, with insight, we see the conventionally beautiful as ugly (foul in the satipatthana sense) that is not sanna vipallasa but sati, a higher form of understanding than sanna. If we perceive the conventionally beautiful as not self, that is panna (sampajanna), a still higher understanding. KC- With sati, there is no distinction something conventionally beautiful as ugly. Sati is just seeing as it is, there is no discrimination or changing a sanna to another sanna. This is not a correct application of sati. kind regards KC 18105 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 7:55pm Subject: The Jataka Tales Dear Kiana, I'm Kimmy and I have read through your letter. In fact I wanted to borrow "The Jakata Tales" last week, however, that time I had already borrowed another book. I have never seen this book and so I would like to ask you some questions about this book. First, since you have said that the tales are full of meaning, so is the meaning easy to understand? Second, since you have said "The Noble Horse" is about a horse which died for protecting the country, then I would like to ask, why a horse's death can save a country? Can you tell me more about this tale? At last, hope your exam result would be good. Kimmy 18106 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 7:58pm Subject: About your sister's death Subject: About your sister's death To: starkidsclub@y... Dear James, Im fine thanks, your asking am I excited in Christmas? Yes I am, how about you? It is very sad about your sister's death. Hope you have a nice holidays. By the way, thanks for telling me about Eightfold Path and what makes your mind "sharp" in the right way? Please write to me. Love Janet 18107 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 8:01pm Subject: Revolving Doors Dear James, Thankyou for your long letter, it really helped me to understand rebirth. I really liked the part where you explained about the revolving doors, I think you're a really good writer! Thank you for explaining my questions, it really helped me to understand how life goes. Do you believe that there is heaven and hell? Do you know the difference between Buddhism and Christianity? Merry Christmas Thankyou for replying to my letter Sandy 18108 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 8:06pm Subject: A lot of Q. ! Dear James : Hello! I am Kiana. Sandy and i are good friends. We met in Mrs.Abbott's class. You really wrote a long letter to us, thanks a lot. I want to ask that how can you get those informations? Are those true ? Is there any evidence? From my point view, i don't believe people could reborn(or maybe they could), because the people who were dead and they reborn, means they didn't die, so why do we have "Life & Death"? But each person have their own opinion and really thank you for your answering! I look forward to hearing from you soon. Love, Kiana. 18109 From: Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 8:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Hi KC, you wrote: L: "If, with insight, we see the conventionally beautiful as ugly (foul in the satipatthana sense) that is not sanna vipallasa but sati, a higher form of understanding than sanna. If we perceive the conventionally beautiful as not self, that is panna (sampajanna), a still higher understanding." KC- "With sati, there is no distinction something conventionally beautiful as ugly. Sati is just seeing as it is, there is no discrimination or changing a sanna to another sanna. This is not a correct application of sati." L: According to sati there are no beautiful bodies (see below), according to ordinary, conventional perception (sanna) there are beautiful bodies. The result of kamma is conventionally desirable or undesirable. The cause of kamma is consciousness which is wholesome or unwholesome in the ultimate sense. Perceiving the beautiful as ugly is sanna vipalassa, a perversion of sanna. Sati definitely sees the conventionally beautiful as ugly. Sati is definitely not a perversion of sanna. There are three levels of understanding: sanna, citta, and panna. It makes a neat package to think of this as anupassana, sati, sampajanna. Maybe this is a little simplistic. I will conceed we could say sati is panna. Be that as it may, sati is a higher level of understanding than sanna. So when we look at a conventionally beautiful kamma result we could see beauty with sanna or ugliness with sanna or the foul (ugliness) with sati. I agree sati sees things as they are, but sanna often sees things according to convention. If it makes you uncomfortable to say sati sees the body as ugly, we could say sati sees the body as dukkha. What do you think? Larry ------------------- Way 17: Or it may be said that these Four Arousings of Mindfulness are taught for casting out the illusions [vipallasa] concerning beauty, pleasure, permanence, and an ego. The body is ugly. There are people led astray by the illusion that it is a thing of beauty. In order to show such people the ugliness of the body and to make them give up their wrong idea, the First Arousing of Mindfulness is taught. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html "The Way of Mindfulness" The Section of the Synopsis 18110 From: Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 9:50pm Subject: Way 29, Synopsis "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, The Section of the Synopsis http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html Further, just all feelings should be contemplated with the thought: "These are suffering, indeed." [Tika] Suffering is what it is because of the ill natural to the constituents of life [sankhara dukkhataya dukkha]. For this has been said by the Blessed One: "All that is felt is in suffering, I declare [yam kińci vedayitam tam sabbam dukkhasminti vadami." [T] "All that is in suffering" = Everything experienced is plunged, included, in suffering [sabbantam vedayitam dukkhasmim antogadham pariyapannam], because the ill natural to the formations, the constituents in life, cannot be conquered [sankhara dukkhata nativattanato]. And pleasure should also be contemplated upon as suffering. All should be explained according as the Arahant-nun Dhammadinna spoke (to her former husband Visakha, in the Cula-vedalla Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya): Pleasant feeling, friend Visakha, is agreeable while it lasts and is disagreeable when it changes; painful feeling is disagreeable while it lasts and agreeable when it changes; the neither pleasant nor painful feeling is agreeable when there is a knowledge of its existence and disagreeable when that knowledge is wanting. [T] The three feelings should be contemplated upon as pleasant and painful. When the first occurs, the second changes and the third is known, then, feeling is pleasant. When the first changes, the second occurs and the third is not known, then feeling is painful. The feelings should also be seen according to the seven contemplations beginning with that of impermanence, mentioned above (p. 37). The remaining division beginning with the worldly and spiritual feelings in the classification of pleasurable feeling and so forth, in feeling-contemplation, will become clear in the analytical exposition [niddesavara]. 18111 From: Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 10:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 29, Synopsis Way 29: The feelings should also be seen according to the seven contemplations beginning with that of impermanence, mentioned above (p. 37). L: Hi all, this is a typo. It should read (p.34), at least for my edition. The seven contemplations are: (1) as something impermanent; (2) as something subject to suffering; (3) as something that is soulless; (4) by way of turning away from it and not by way of delighting in it; (5) by freeing himself of passion for it; (6) with thoughts making for cessation and not making for origination; (7) and not by way of laying hold of it, but by way of giving it up. 18112 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 10:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Hi Larry Sati does not perceive, it is sanna that perceives. Sati don't even see things as dukkha. If preception will to receive an object as ugly it is sanna that function and we "thought" it is sati. The practise of sati is to be objective, it does not discriminate, it does not have any bias or prejudice or like or dislike. Then why do the satipathana sutta state to notice see pleaseant and unpleasant feelings. Bc if we are not in sati, when sanna perceive feelings, it will condition lobha, moha and dosa to arise. By practising with feelings we are learning to be objective. We learn they are just feelings, nothing more and nothing less, no right or wrong, less buggage to carry in our conditional mind. When we are able to see things objectively, then the strength of lobha and dosa will not accumulate further in strength. But it does not eliminates the three roots. The role to see things as dukkha or anatta or anicca is the job of panna. Sati guards the mind, where panna develops it further to cure the three roots. Only through the sati and understanding of anicca, then panna will growth and eliminates the three roots. Hence this is the practise of satipathana in my own interpretation. Thus sati is not the higher level of sanna neither does panna is the higher level of sati. They perform different roles. kind regards KC --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi KC, you wrote: > > L: According to sati there are no beautiful bodies (see below), > according to ordinary, conventional perception (sanna) there are > beautiful bodies. The result of kamma is conventionally desirable > or > undesirable. The cause of kamma is consciousness which is wholesome > or > unwholesome in the ultimate sense. Perceiving the beautiful as ugly > is > sanna vipalassa, a perversion of sanna. Sati definitely sees the > conventionally beautiful as ugly. Sati is definitely not a > perversion of > sanna. There are three levels of understanding: sanna, citta, and > panna. > It makes a neat package to think of this as anupassana, sati, > sampajanna. Maybe this is a little simplistic. I will conceed we > could > say sati is panna. Be that as it may, sati is a higher level of > understanding than sanna. So when we look at a conventionally > beautiful > kamma result we could see beauty with sanna or ugliness with sanna > or > the foul (ugliness) with sati. I agree sati sees things as they > are, > but sanna often sees things according to convention. If it makes > you > uncomfortable to say sati sees the body as ugly, we could say sati > sees > the body as dukkha. What do you think? > > Larry > ------------------- > Way 17: Or it may be said that these Four Arousings of Mindfulness > are > taught for casting out the illusions [vipallasa] concerning beauty, > pleasure, permanence, and an ego. > The body is ugly. There are people led astray by the illusion that > it is > a thing of beauty. In order to show such people the ugliness of the > body > and to make them give up their wrong idea, the First Arousing of > Mindfulness is taught. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html "The Way of > Mindfulness" The Section of the Synopsis 18113 From: James Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 10:54pm Subject: Re: About your sister's death --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Subject: About your sister's death > To: starkidsclub@y... > Dear James, > > Im fine thanks, your asking am I excited in Christmas? > Yes I am, how about you? It is very sad about your > sister's death. Hope you have a nice holidays. > > By the way, thanks for telling me about Eightfold Path > and what makes your mind "sharp" in the right way? > Please write to me. > > Love Janet > Hi Star Kid Janet! Yes, I am excited about Christmas. I like to give a gift to each member of my family and hope that they will like it. It is a good time. But I would have to say that I enjoyed it more when I was a little boy. Christmas is more for kids than adults; but it always reminds us adults of what it is like to be a kid again. You ask, `what makes a mind sharp in the right way'? Well, believe it or not, you have to train your mind to make it sharp. Have you ever seen a puppy? They are really cute aren't they? Well, a puppy will just wander around all over the place with no direction at all. Does a puppy ever sit still? No usually. It will poke its nose into one thing and then poke its nose into something else. It is easily distracted with any sound or new toy; but it will lose interest quickly and move on to something else. If you let a puppy out of your sight, he/she can get into a lot of trouble because a puppy pays not attention to what is going on and can hurt itself. An untrained, un-sharp mind is very much like a puppy. It will focus on one thing and then focus on another thing quite quickly. It is always moving and won't sit still for any length of time. Have you ever walked into a room and forgot why you went into that room? Ah, your puppy mind wandered off didn't it? Have you ever went up to your teacher to ask a question and forgot what question you were going to ask? Again, your puppy mind was to blame. Some people call this ignorance of the mind, but I think that is too harsh. A puppy and a puppy mind are just untrained, they aren't ignorant. They are actually quite loving and innocent. They just need to be trained how to behave. How do you train a puppy? With love, patience, and repetition, repetition, repetition! Puppies have to be shown over and over and over again how to act because they forget. Well, a person's mind is the same way. If you are reading a book, and your puppy mind starts to wander off, you just bring it back to the book again. You do this as many times as it takes. And do it with a smile on your face. If your teacher is teaching, and your puppy mind wanders off, you bring it back again. It is cruel to punish a puppy for being a puppy, and it is cruel to punish yourself for having a puppy mind. We all have puppy minds; just some people have trained their puppy minds with patience and love. When your mind is finally sharp, finally trained, it is like a diamond. It is clear, and brilliant, and sparkly and it will be the hardest thing in the world. You will be able to focus your mind on difficult problems until they are solved. You are able to tell your mind what to focus on and how long to focus. You will know what is going on around you at all times and people will come to you to solve problems and answer questions. You will have control of your mind…it isn't a puppy wandering all over the place anymore. I hope this answers your question. Maybe Santa will bring you a puppy for Christmas?? :-) Love, James 18114 From: Sarah Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman Dear Ken H & All, I have some more quotes which I hope are useful on the theme of the 3 virati cetasikas (3 abstentions from wrong action, speech and livelihood) and Right Livelihood in particular. My comments are interspersed: ***** 1. CMA (B.Bodhi transl of Abhidamatthasangaha Guide to #6 p.890 “The three viratis have the respective characteristics 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.” ***** Comment: this gives detail of the proximate causes, i.e the preceding consciousness which ‘prompts’ the wholesome mental factors to arise. ***** 2. CMA Guide to #15 p.97f “The three abstinences: In the supramundane path and fruition cittas the abstinences are always present together as the right speech, right action, and right livelihood of the Noble Eightfold Path. But in mundane cittas they are only present, as explained earlier, on occasions when one deliberately refrains from wrongdoing. Since one deliberately refrains from an evil deed with a consciousness that is aware of the opportunity for transgression, the mundane abstinences can occur only in the sense-sphere wholesome cittas; they cannot occur in sublime cittas, which take the counterpart of the jhana as their object, nor do they occur in resultant sense-sphere cittas , which do not exercise the function of restraint. They also do not occur in the great functional cittas of an Arahant, since an Arahant has altogether overcome the disposition towards transgression and thus has no need for abstinence. In the supramundane cittas the three abstinences are necessarily present (niyata). In the path cittas they are present as the three moral factors of the eightfold path, performing the functions of eradicating the inclinations to wrong speech, wrong action, and wrong livelihood respectively. In the fruition cittas they reappear representing the moral purity of speech, action, and livelihood accomplished by the work of the path. Since transgressions in speech, action, and livelihood each have a different sphere, in mundane consciousness the three abstinences are mutually exclusive: if one is present, the other two must be absent. Moreover, any abstinence that arises can arise only in part, as determined by the type of transgression one refrains from: if one meets the opportunity to take life, then right action arises as abstinence only from taking life; if one meets the opportunity to steal, then it arises as abstinence only from stealing. However, when the abstinences arise in the supramundane cittas they always occur together (ekato), all three being present simultaneously. And as present, each one functions in its entirely (sabbathaa); that is, right speech eliminates the dispositions to all forms of wrong speech, right action to all forms of wrong action, and right livelihood to all forms of wrong livelihood.” ***** Comment: no opportunities for these mental factors to arise in the arahant. For one engaged in a way of life or profession where there are many opportunities for wrong speech and action as discussed, there are also the most opportunities for right speech, action and livelihood;-) ***** 3. CMA Guide to #22 Unwholesome Kamma “Generally occurring through the door of the body (kaayadvaara): In relation to action, the doors (dvaara) are the medium through which kamma is performed. The door of the body is bodily intimation (kaayavi~n~natti), a type of mind-produced material phenomenon by which a person expresses, through the medium of the body, a volition arisen in the mind. The expression “generally occurring” (baahullavuttito) is used because such actions as killing and stealing can also be done by speech, i.e by command, yet even in such cases these actions are still consdiered bodily kamma. The door of speech (vaciidvaara), similarly, denotes vocal intimation(vacivi~n~natti), the mind-originated material phenomenon by means of which volition is expressed verbally. Though such actions as false speech, etc, may also be done bodily, i.e. by writing or by hand signals, because their main medium of execution is the door of speech, they are still considered verbal kamma. ***** Comment: I hope this clarifies your question on doors. This is interesting - wrong speech by email and restraint from this would thus be classified as speech door action. ***** 4. CMA Guide to #24 Wholesome Kamma “According to the doors of action: By way of door of action, ten courses of wholesome kamma are enumerated. The three of body are abstinence from the three unwholesome bodily deeds; the four of speech are abstinence from the four unwholesome verbal deeds; the three of mind are non-covetousness, non-ill will, and right view. In terms of ultimate realities, the first seven are identified as two of the abstinences, i.e. the cetasikas of right action and right speech, and also the volitions arisen along with those abstinences. The last three are modes of the three wholesome roots, non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion.” ***** Comment: these are the 10 kusala kamma patha often occurring in the suttas too. ***** 5. Atthasalini, transl as The Expositor (PTS) Path Consciousness <219ff>, p.296ff “..So he who commits the fourfold misconduct of speech by any volition is said to trespass over the boundary. When the abstinence belonging to this supramundane Path has arisen, it does not allow (this volition) to trespass over the boundary - hence ‘not to trespass over the boundary’....Finally. ‘to destroy the causeway.’ that is ‘he breaks down the causeway.’ the meaning is that it destroys the base, the cause of the fourfold misconduct of speech; for that condition is here intended by causeway.......” ***** Comment: Having been brought up in an old castle town, the examples of ‘boundary’ and ‘causeway’ are good reminders for me. ***** 6. Atthasalini p.298ff on Right Livelihood “..And there is no such separate thing as ‘livelihood’. It is understood, together with speech and action, from being part and parcel of them. But by way of a constant dependence on the four requisites , it has been taken out from them and so taught. This being so, right livelihood has no (separate) function of its own, and does not complete the eight path-factors (by any new increment).....for livelihood, in failing, fails at the door of body and speech; it cannot fail at the mind-door. In succeeding, it succeeds at these two doors; it cannot succeed at the mind-door. And transgression at the body-door is, or is not conditioned by livelihood. Likewise at the vocal door............... This right livelihood is obtainable in the various conscious experiences previous to the Path. For by one conscious experience one abstains from the transgression in the door of body; by another, from that in the door of speech. but it is obtained in one moment of consciousness at the moment of the transcendental path; for then there arises only one abstinence, cutting off the base of the volition of wickedness called wrong livelihood, produced by way of the seven courses of action in the doors of body and of speech, and fulfilling the path factor.” ***** Comment: there is a lot more interesting detail which I had to snip. I think the Atthasalini references conform with those in CMA and the Sammohavinodani ones quoted before. (I pulled out the texts today to double-check as my comments yesterday were a bit rushed;-) ***** Nina’s book “Cetasikas’ has a helpful chapter on the 3 virati cetasikas as well. She adds further helpful quotes. She reminds us “that there are many kinds and degrees of the three abstinences. There is abstinence without right understanding and with right understanding.”. She also writes “...when lokuttara cittas arise, all three abstinences accompany the lokuttara cittas, and then nibbana is the object. Thus the object of the abstinences which are lokutara is differnt from the object of the abstinences which are of the sense-sphere. The abstinences which are lokuttara are the right speech, right action and right livelihood of the supramundane eightfold path.” ***** In the course of a day, there are so many opportunities for the 3 viratis to arise and abstain from wrong action, speech or livelihood. I don’t think we have to be concerned about whether a moment of abstaining from rude speech would fall under right speech or livelihood. It’s more important to develop the understanding which knows the distinctions between different kinds of kusala and akusala citta and to see the value of developing the former. Likewise, I don’t think we need to try and analyse what the lokuttara cittas with nibbana as object are like. Slowly, slowly as Nina says;-) Sarah ====== 18115 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bhikkhunis Hi David, So far I have not experience censure by the moderators unless our statements are aiming at somebody or seem "insulting" (i.e. personal attacks) with our remarks when talking about Buddhism in this group. Your views could be very different is always welcome by me even it is critical about Buddhism. Even those who are critical or who doubt about Abhidhamma is not even censure in this group. We are spacious here though the focus of this group is about Thervada Buddhism. Are you sure you are saying about this group Kind regards KC --- "chase8383 " wrote: > Hi KC > > Well I'd like to respond to your post. However, after continually > being threatened about having my liberty to post removed if I don't > conform, I can't. It seems that there are certain members I'm not > allowed to speak to. It seems there are certain Buddhist thoughts > I'm not allowed to express. It seems there is a fear I won't be > respectful of the monks in here. It seems that I'm some kind of > lose cannon on the deck of the good ship Theravada. > > Being an American, I have a lot trouble with this kind of > restriction. Being a Buddhist, I weep. > > Be spacious, David > > 18116 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 27, Comm Hi Larry > but only the contemplating of feeling." > > the phrase "only a doer of feeling-contemplation" not only limits > the range of one's focus but also limits one's intentions and > ambitions, it seems to me. One thought that frequently arises in me is "okay, I've done that, what else should I do?" The"what else" is just the next moment of body, feeling, citta, or dhamma anupassana (look-see). KC - What else or what do u expect then? Nothing, just look and reflect again, Any disturbance thoughts or what else thoughts are longing for something to do or to happen? Isn't it back to square one? There is nothing to attain or obtain at all in the practise of Satipathanna. If there is a slight desire, we are still in samasara and not rooted it out yet. Honestly speaking I can't be in sati for long bc my mind is too restless and I am too restless like a wandering monkey. But what the heck, a small practise for a minute when I am aware is better than none in day to day living :) Sometimes, I totally even forgetten about it. rgds KC 18117 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 0:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samvega and Pasada Hi Christine, Many thanks for your further comments and continuing this interesting thread. --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Sarah, and All, > > Thanks for your post, Sarah - there were many things I liked and > learned, but I have a few queries and comments, if you or anyone else > would like to give some further input. They mainly seem to revolve > around 'emotions'. > Point 1 - I am uncertain about your comment that seems to mean > emotional states don't condition samvega. My personal experience is > that intense mental/emotional suffering can trigger samvega. I don't > see a difference between feeling driven by suffering to understand > the Dhamma and so find a way to escape from the greater Suffering, > and "having a sense of urgency to escape the round of meaningless > existence"(samvega). ..... Emotional states and misfortune certainly can be a condition for useful reflection or understanding. As we know, unwholesome states can condition wholesome states and vice versa by natural decisive support condition. However, in most the references I’ve followed to samvega, it is referring to a wise consideration and level of panna whether in the development of samatha or vipassana. Hence, in these references it cannot be equated with emotional states such as panic or anxiety or weariness, even though they may act as a condition or prompt. For example, if I shout abuse and this is followed by wise reflection, and a realization and sense of urgency of the need to develop Right Speech, we cannot say the abuse is either the cause or the same as the realization, even if it acts as a prompt in this case. What do you think? ..... > Point 5 - Wouldn't 'experiencing' samvega be entirely different > to 'understanding' it initially? Wouldn't the experience, the > feeling of urgency, be a condition for seeking to understand what > caused it and what was the resolution that would bring calm? ..... In the examples I gave and further ones I followed in SNV(130), BBodhi trans vol2 p1618, (134), vol2 p1621, DN (214), Walshe trans p482, the sense of urgency (samvega) seems to be conditioned purely by wholesome reflections and a level of understanding, rather than triggered by misfortune, aversion or other emotional states. There is one example I read which is interesting and raises questions for me in SN111 Khandhavagga, 78 The Lion, vol1, p913 in which the long living devas who thought life was permanent until they heard the Buddha, are overcome by fear, terror and panic and unwholesome samvega. There is no apparent suggestion that these states led to any immediate insight and samvega in this context doesn’t seem to be linked with moments of wholesome states. It does show that samvega can be used in a wholesome or unwholesome sense, however. We also know that devas who live for more than a hundred thousand years (or something like), cannot appreciate the teachings because they cannot comprehend anything about birth, aging and death. I’m sure there must be other similar references. In the Rhys Davids/Stede dictionary, sa”mvega is on p658. You may like to check the other references given here. Back to the wholesome sense of urgency/understanding for a moment - I don’t see what the use of trying to understand what caused it would be. It’s like trying to work out what brought us to hear the dhamma at this moment. We may say conventionally it was this event in life, reading this book, hearing this person or so on. In truth, conditions are so very complex and we know the accumulations for wise consideration and other wholesome and unwholesome states have been ‘building up’ over so many lifetimes. One person suffers a misfortune and takes to alcohol. Another picks up dhamma books. One person opens the dhamma book and quickly tosses it away, whilst another really considers the words. In reality, there are just moments of vipaka - seeing and hearing pleasant and unpleasant visible objects and sounds, for example, followed by the ‘responses’ according to the accumulated tendencies. ..... > Comments on Thanissaro Bhikkhu's article: I don't think 'anxiety, > weariness, pointlessness or intense desire for things to be > different' are seen as "justified'. They just seem to me to be the > motive power that sometimes produces samvega. .... I’ll agree that these states may be a condition for wholesome samvega. Perhaps I misunderstood a suggestion that these states might equate with it. ..... I think I don't seem > to be understanding your point on emotions. So, therefore, I find > myself disagreeing with " I'd suggest the `sense of > urgency' is a > prompting of uplifting, wholesome states, not an > "oppressive sense of shock, dismay, and alienation that comes > with > realizing the futility and meaningless of life as it's normally > lived" as Thanissaro suggests." I agree with Thanissaro - the > jolt > of strong, oppressive emotions can be just what impels one to look at > life, throw away stale, dogmatic 'answers' and find answers that work > and point to the way out. ..... Perhaps I should pass here. With the possible exception of the last reference from SN I checked, the ones from the other day or the others I quoted here seem to refer to samvega in the ‘uplifting, wholesome states’ rather than the ‘shock, dismay’ ones. I’m not sure that it is the ‘strong, oppressive emotions’ that do the impelling so much as the wise reflections in between and on account of these that ‘impel one to look’ etc. It’s rather like the wrong view practices we may have followed. It could seem that any undertstanding now is as a result of those practices. In truth, it is in spite of the wrong views, that there were enough wise reflections to encourage us to listen to what is useful. I appreciate that many will have different takes on this somewhat sensitive point. ..... > Thank goodness KenH has asked about 'Right Livelihood' - I didn't > understand your comment in the same paragraph where it is mentioned. > It seems that the meaning I understood for Samvega 'an urgent need > to escape the meaningless round of existence', has changed to > being 'an urgent need to keep the sense faculties restrained which > cannot be considered apart from this moment of seeing or hearing.' > I'm treading water here .... ..... Me too...keep treading. I hope the further references and posts helped. None of these points are easy and I’m learning as I write and consider too. I think in this example, samvega refers to the urgency to develop understanding at the present moment. It’s not just thinking about life and death, but by understanding realities now, a step is taken to ‘escape the meaningless round of existence’. No need to look back....all the past sorrow, grief, attachment and other emotional states have all gone. “For the past has been left behind And the future has not been reached. Instead with insight let him see Each presently arisen state;” It can be our new mantra;-) I’ll be very happy to hear any further comments/disagreements or sutta quotes....I know you’ve been considering this topic for quite a while, so there’s no hurry to reach any conclusions. It’s all pretty new for me. Sarah ====== 18118 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 2:14am Subject: Re: Are these two teachings the same? Hi David and All, I think the first quote is from the Mahanidana Sutta DN15 and is the section describing "Contact", the sixth link in the principle of Dependent Origination (Paticcasamuppada). D.O. is a description of the process of the arising and cessation of suffering. It is the doctrine of the conditionality of all physical and psychical phenomena. It explains that samsara, the process of repeated suffering and existences, is perpetuated by a chain of interconnected links of cause and effect. The links are: 1. Ignorance (avijja) 2. Volitional Activities (sankhara) 3. Consciousness (vinnana) 4. Mind & Matter (nama-rupa) 5. Six Sense Doors (salayatana) 6. Contact (phassa) 7. Sensation (vedana) 8. Craving (tanha) 9. Clinging (upadana) 10. Becoming (bhava) 11. Birth (jati) 12. Decay And Death (jara-marana) I think the second quote (skillful means, David? :-)) has elements of impermanence (anicca) when it speaks of the ephemerality of nature, in that it arises and ceases. It also touches on clinging to Concepts. But I'm not so certain it is speaking specifically of Dependent Origination. Happy to be corrected. What do others think? Is "the freedom within" speaking about voidness of the mind? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "chase8383 " wrote: > Hi All > > From the Pali: "(Contact) > "'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes contact.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how, from name- and-form as a requisite condition comes contact. If the qualities, traits, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group (mental activity) were all absent, would designation- contact with regard to the form-group (the physical body) be discerned?" > "No, lord." > "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of form-group were all absent, would resistance- contact with regard to the name-group be discerned?" > "No, lord." > "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group and form-group were all absent, would designation-contact or resistance-contact be discerned?" > "No, lord." > "Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for contact, i.e., name-and-form. " > > From Dzogchen: "In the heart of winter, the chill freezes lakes and rivers; water becomes so solid it can bear men, beasts, nd carts. As spring approaches, earth and water warm up and thaw. What then remains of the hardess of the ice? Wateris soft and fluid, ice hard and sharp, so we cannot say they are identical; but neither can we say they are different, because ice is only solidified water, and water is only melted ice. > > The same applys to our perception of the world around us. To be attached to the reality of phenomena, to be tourmented by attraction and repulsion, by pleasure an pain, gain and loss, fame and obscurity, praise and blame, creates a solidity in the mind. What we hav to do, therefore, is to melt the ice of concepts into the living water of the freedom within." > > Thank you, David 18119 From: Beth Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 3:49am Subject: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Hello all, Thank you Kom and Jon for your welcomes :-) Jon writes: "Please feel free to share with us your understanding or experience about awareness, which is such an important aspect of Buddhism. We could all benefit from more discussion about this." My experience with awarensss from what I've learned in the past few years has most to do with codependency recovery literature as well as my practice in everyday life. From what I've discerned with the readings I've done presently in the Dhammapada there are some correlations. For exapmple in Dhp 1, verses follow: 1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox. 2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow 3. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred. 4. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred. Awareness to me is being aware of what brings suffering and how to end suffering. In my understanding suffering begins in the mind. ~peace, Beth Let none find fault with others; let none see the omissions and commissions of others. But let one see one's own acts, done and undone. Dhammapada 4:50 18120 From: chase8383 Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 4:51am Subject: Re: Are these two teachings the same? Hello Christine and All Happy holidays BTW I should have identified the Pali, but your right it's dependent origination and the rise and cessation of suffering. I was wondering if this passage from the Lord Buddha: "If the qualities, traits, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group (mental activity) were all absent, would designation-contact with regard to the form-group (the physical body) be discerned?" "No, lord." "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of form-group were all absent, would resistance- contact with regard to the name-group be discerned?" "No, lord." "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group and form-group were all absent, would designation-contact or resistance-contact be discerned?" could be understood and applied to the dependent origination of our thoughts? In other words the rising of a "name-group" by mental activity, which is then either accepted or rejected by us, thus leading to suffering? Thank you, David 18121 From: chase8383 Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 4:56am Subject: [dsg] Re: Bhikkhunis Hi KC I'm sure you are right. Metta, David 18122 From: Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 1:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Hi, Ken - In a message dated 12/23/02 1:47:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Sati does not perceive, it is sanna that perceives. Sati don't even > see things as dukkha. If preception will to receive an object as ugly > it is sanna that function and we "thought" it is sati. > The practise of sati is to be objective, it does not discriminate, it > does not have any bias or prejudice or like or dislike. ======================== I think of sati as the function of non-distractedness, of not getting lost - kind of a non-forgetting. As I view matters, concentration is the operation of restricting the range of items to be attended to, and mindfulness is the operation of holding firmly on that range (not wandering off). I see both concentration and mindfulness as control operations, and I see vi~n~nana, sa~n~na, and pa~n~na as the operations that are cognitive, per se. (Vi~n~nana discerns an object [such as an image], sa~n~na carves out aspects of it for identification purposes, and pa~n~na sees through cognitive errors, serving a clarifying and corrective function.) Now, this is not according to what I may have seen in Abhidhamma or in Buddhaghosa's comments, but is just my sense of these matters. With metta, Howard P.S. I was going to write more on this, but we just got a call from the hospital - my mother-in-law is in critical condition. Must leave. /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) 18123 From: Tep Sastri Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 8:45am Subject: New Member Hello everyone! I just recently joined DhammastudyGroup and would like to introduce myself a little bit. My cyber friend at Vipassana Group, MSN.com, had done a research on Buddhism meditation study groups in the world and related topics (e.g. waht are the wesites that focus on practices of the meditation techniques taught by the Buddha, or on sharing vipassana experiences) and your study group website was found among very many others. I am interested in this group mainly because of the Tripitaka focus. I was born in Thailand (now living in College Station, Texas). Buddhism is "my religion" by family tradition and, more importantly, by my own choice. Breathing meditation is my main meditation technique. Progress has been slow, however. I hope to learn from more experienced members of this group and am looking forward to participate in several future discussions whenever my schedule allows me. Thank you. Best wishes to all of us and Happy Holidays! Ted (my cyber name) 18124 From: James Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 9:03am Subject: Re: Revolving Doors --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Dear James, > > Thankyou for your long letter, it really helped me to > understand rebirth. > > I really liked the part where you explained about the > revolving doors, I think you're a really good writer! > Thank you for explaining my questions, it really > helped me to understand how life goes. Do you believe > that there is heaven and hell? Do you know the > difference between Buddhism and Christianity? > > Merry Christmas > Thankyou for replying to my letter > > Sandy Hi Star Kid Sandy, Thank you for the compliment. I am glad that you enjoy my letters. Well, let's jump into your two BIG questions: Do you believe that there is heaven and hell? Do you know the difference between Buddhism and Christianity? Well, Sandy, I am not sure what you have in your mind when you think `Heaven' and `Hell', but, from what I have in my mind, yes I believe they exist. Actually, I believe they exist right here on Earth and in other places. Heaven and Hell can be found in the mind, which is a reflection of places that exist. I don't think that Heaven is floating around on clouds and that Hell is being on fire; those are make-believe ideas. This is what I believe: Hell is fear and Heaven is the absence of fear. Were you ever with your parents in a public place and you suddenly couldn't see them? Remember that feeling of panic and fear? That is Hell. Do you remember a time when you were in your mother or father's arms and you felt so safe and secure? That is Heaven. There are places, the Buddha said, where existence is extreme fear; and there are places where existence is extreme comfort and safety. But, unlike in Christianity, a person isn't stuck in those places for all eternity. They are just one turn of that revolving door. It is quite possible that you and I have experienced a life in Heaven and Hell many times. Perhaps that is why we all seem to naturally have some belief that they exist… somewhere. You also ask, "Do you know the difference between Buddhism and Christianity?" Well, there are many differences but you ask about `the difference', so I guess you want to know the one main difference? The main difference between the two religions is the thinking about and living of `faith'. Christians believe (or are supposed to anyway) that faith in Jesus Christ as the savior and Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, will result in salvation/eternal life. But Buddhists have faith in the Triple Gem (or are supposed to anyway) and believe that if one follows the teachings of Lord Buddha, respects Lord Buddha as a role model, and surrounds oneself with good friends, than salvation/nibbana will come about through individual effort. So, in essence, Buddhists and Christians both want to be `saved' from this human existence, which is quite confusing and painful because of the mind, but Christians look toward an outside force to save them while Buddhists look to their own efforts to save them. I know this is kind of complicated but your question is a very complicated one. Take care and do well in school…don't forget everything over the holiday vacation! :-) I hope you have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!! Love, James 18125 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 9:15am Subject: RE: [dsg] New Member Dear Ted, Welcome to DSG. I hope you find your stay here a pleasant one. There are a few Thai-speaking people in this group as well. Here are some links that may be useful to you: http://tinyurl.com/2c0k (useful post of this group) http://www.buddhadhamma.com/ (discussions / materials in both Thai and English) http://www.geocities.com/tipitaka_online/ (Thai Tipitika) http://dharma.school.net.th/buddhism/tsearch.htm (Thai tipitaka word search) kom > -----Original Message----- > From: Tep Sastri > [mailto:tepsastri@y...] > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 8:45 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] New Member 18126 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 10:04am Subject: Perfections, Patience, Ch 7, no 5 Perfections, Patience, Ch 7, no 5 We read: łWith whom, then, should you now be angry, and by whom should anger be aroused? When all phenomena are non-self, who can do wrong to whom?" If someone has listened to the Dhamma he has more understanding than those who have not listened. He should realize that it is not proper to be angry because someone else who has no understanding does something wrong. Why should he be angry with someone who lacks understanding? If someone remembers this he accumulates the perfection of patience, he is not angry and he can forgive that person. We read: łWhen the wrong-doer is endowed with noble qualities, I should not be angry with him. When he does not have any noble qualities, then I should regard him with compassion. Because of anger my fame and noble qualities diminish, and to the pleasure of my enemies I become ugly, sleep in discomfort, etc." Because of anger someoneąs good reputation and noble qualities disappear. When someone because of anger displays an improper conduct we can see the disadvantage of impatience and the benefit of the perfection of patience. We read in the Commentary to the "Basket of Conduct": "Anger is the only real enemy, for it is the agent of all harm and the destroyer of all good." And: "When one has patience one has no enemies." We still have akusala, we have defilements, and these condition the arising of displeasure. However, we should know whether the person we are angry with has good qualities. If he has, we should not be angry, because he is beneficient to us. If he has no good qualities we should have compassion with him all the more, since he lacks good qualities and he also behaves in an improper way. If kusala citta arises with sati-sampajańńa, it causes patience to increase. We read in the łBasket of Conduct˛ (Khuddaka Nikĺya), II,5, łConduct of Buffalo-King˛ that the Bodhisatta was born as a Buffalo (1. A monkey urinated four times over his shoulder, forehead and eyebrows. A yakkha advised him to kill that monkey, but the Bodhisatta did not give in to anger. He wanted to keep his purity of síla and did not kill that monkey. He aspired for omniscience. He said: Someone of wisdom, forgiving disrespect among low, medium, high, thus obtains, intent of mind, according as he aspired. If someone has pańńĺ, he will have patience and he can endure words of disdain, no matter whether these are spoken by a person who is higher in rank, who is lower in rank or by an evil person, because one should develop patience with regard to everybody. Footnote 1. I have added the contents of the story, as told in the Basket of Conduct. 18127 From: James Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 10:33am Subject: Re: A lot of Q. ! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear James : > > Hello! I am Kiana. Sandy and i are good friends. We > met in Mrs.Abbott's class. > > You really wrote a long letter to us, thanks a lot. I > want to ask that how can you get those informations? > Are those true ? Is there any evidence? From my > point view, i don't believe people could reborn(or > maybe they could), because the people who were dead > and they reborn, means they didn't die, so why do we > have "Life & Death"? But each person have their own > opinion and really thank you for your answering! > > I look forward to hearing from you soon. > > Love, Kiana. > Hi Star Kid Kiana! Your letter really made me smile. When you ask if there is `evidence' of rebirth, it reminded me of me. I also like to have evidence and won't believe something just because someone says it or it is written somewhere and called `holy scripture'. The Buddha also told everyone that they should do that and not to believe anything until it is discovered for oneself. You are a deep thinker Kiana! You ask a lot of questions and they are all good. Let me go through them and try to answer. Question: I want to ask that how can you get those informations? Answer: Well, the analogy of the revolving door I made up out of my own head. I have never read that anywhere but thought of it when I was doing some reading about Buddhism and rebirth. I like how it captures being stuck and that they harder you push the faster you are carried along. But the idea of rebirth/reincarnation has been around for a very long time. Since early man, people discovered that their current life wasn't the only one; that they had lives in the past and they will have lives in the future. Actually, early Christian mystics, living in the desert, also believed in rebirth and wrote about it; but those writings were determined to be incorrect by `The Church' and not included in the Bible. Question: Are those true? Answer: I believe they are quite true. Kiana, I believe you have lived many other lives before your current life. We all have. Now this may seem like a weird idea to you, but it really isn't. When you think hard about it, just being alive is weird. What is it that makes us alive and rocks, water, air, etc., not alive? What does it mean to be alive? Does a rock die? No, it just changes into another form when it falls apart. So the thing that makes us alive why would that ever go away? It doesn't go away, it just changes from one live form to another. Buddhists believe that what makes us alive, and rocks not alive, is `mind'. `Mind' is a lot of things but it isn't just your brain. So Buddhists believe there are two types of things in the world: Mind and Matter, called Nama and Rupa in Pali. And just as matter never disappears, it just changes, mind also never disappears, and it just changes. Mind is different though and it can leave this existence and go into Nibbana…which I don't know what that is yet. Question: Is there any evidence? Answer: There have been examples of people who visited a place where they must have lived in another life and knew all the people in the town and where hidden items were. There are also examples of people who, under hypnosis, can speak a completely foreign language that they were never taught. This isn't scientific evidence though; it is only circumstantial evidence. There isn't scientific evidence for rebirth. Science is still too primitive. Science focuses too much on matter (rupa) and ignores `mind' (nama). But that is changing somewhat. If you don't understand this, don't worry; someday you will. Question: From my point view, i don't believe people could reborn(or maybe they could), because the people who were dead and they reborn, means they didn't die, so why do we have "Life & Death"? Answer: Right, they really didn't die in the way that we usually think `die'; they just change from one form to another. `Mind' is what continues on. But what we have to be concerned with is our `mind', that is all that we know. Matter does exist, but we only know it through `mind'. I hope this answers some of your questions. This is probably the most complicated letter I have written to you Star Kids, but you guys are now asking the deeper questions about life. I am glad about that. Never stop asking questions. Happy Holidays, Kiana!! Love, James 18128 From: Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 4:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Hi Ken and Howard, I looked it up and you guys are right. By itself, sati is just attentiveness. It doesn't understand anything. Generally speaking sati is always in the service of virtue (kusala) so it is always associated with other kusala cetasikas. In the practice of satipatthana it is associated with energy (right effort) and clear comprehension (sampajanna, same as panna, I think). Sati is rooted in memory and remembers what you are supposed to be doing and it remembers the goal. So if you guys have beautiful bodies, sati will attend to those bodies and bring in panna to see that they aren't that great. Larry 18129 From: Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 5:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Hi Again Ken, Also I forgot, sanna and sati are closely associated. So you could say sanna perceives and sati attends, or sanna remembers and sati remembers kusala. Larry 18130 From: Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 5:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Hi again Ken, I think I still want to say sati remembers what panna discovered and that amounts to recognizing anicca, dukkha, anatta. Panna is more of an original insight but it isn't necessary to rediscover dukkha once it is understood. Recognition is a kind of understanding and because sati is applying a previous panna insight to present experience it is superior understanding to sanna, which is based on accumulations in general, and is also a kind of recognition. Larry 18131 From: James Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 0:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > Actually I think this Sutta indirectly supports the position that an > Arahant does not have any defilements. You will notice in the Sutta that > the first sections that talk about giving up the defilements in part have > this paragraph before the next section ""He knows: 'I have given up, > renounced, let go, abandoned and relinquished [the defilements] in part'; > and he gains enthusiasm for the goal, gains enthusiasm for the Dhamma, gains > gladness connected with the Dhamma." Now in the notes of the MLD by Bhikkhu > Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi, it states that these sections apply to a once > returner, based on the defilements talked about. But you will notice that > towards the end of the Sutta after talking about developing the brahmavihara > there is this: > > "13. "He understands what exists, what is low, what is excellent, [13] and > what escape there is from this [whole] field of perception.[14] " > > Here we have the development of insight which leads to Arhantship and then > we get this as the result...notice the mention of "in part" is now gone... > > "14. "When he knows and sees[15] in this way, his mind becomes liberated > from the canker of sensual desire, liberated from the canker of becoming, > liberated from the canker of ignorance.[16] When liberated, there is > knowledge: 'It is liberated'; and he knows: 'Birth is exhausted, the life of > purity has been lived, the task is done, there is no more of this to come.' > Such a monk is called 'one bathed with the inner bathing."[17] " > > Thus there are no more defilements to be relinquished. Oh one note down > from the note you quoted shows which defilements are relinquished with each > path... > Ray, I got sidetracked and didn't respond to this argument. Okay, I want to go through the important part of this sutta with my comments interspersed: "And what, monks, are the defilements of the mind?[2] (1) Covetousness and unrighteous greed are a defilement of the mind; (2) ill will is a defilement of the mind; (3) anger is a defilement of the mind; (4) hostility...(5) denigration...(6) domineering...(7) envy...(8) jealousy...(9) hypocrisy...(10) fraud...(11) obstinacy... (12) presumption...(13) conceit...(14) arrogance...(15) vanity...(16) negligence is a defilement of the mind.[3] <>> 4. "Knowing, monks, covetousness and unrighteous greed to be a defilement of the mind, the monk abandons them.[4] Knowing ill will to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing anger to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing hostility to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing denigration to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing domineering to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing envy to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing jealousy to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing hypocrisy to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing fraud to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing obstinacy to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing presumption to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing conceit to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing arrogance to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing vanity to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing negligence to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. <> 5. "When in the monk who thus knows that covetousness and unrighteous greed are a defilement of the mind, this covetousness and unrighteous greed have been abandoned; when in him who thus knows that ill will is a defilement of the mind, this ill will has been abandoned;... when in him who thus knows that negligence is a defilement of the mind, this negligence has been abandoned -- [5] <> 6. -- he thereupon gains unwavering confidence in the Buddha[6] thus: 'Thus indeed is the Blessed One: he is accomplished, fully enlightened, endowed with [clear] vision and [virtuous] conduct, sublime, knower of the worlds, the incomparable guide of men who are tractable, the teacher of gods and men, enlightened and blessed.' <> 7. -- he gains unwavering confidence in the Dhamma thus: 'Well proclaimed by the Blessed One is the Dhamma, realizable here and now, possessed of immediate result, bidding you come and see, accessible and knowable individually by the wise. <> 8. -- he gains unwavering confidence in the Sangha thus: 'The Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples has entered on the good way, has entered on the straight way, has entered on the true way, has entered on the proper way; that is to say, the four pairs of men, the eight types of persons; this Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples is worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, the incomparable field of merit for the world.' <> 9. "When he has given up, renounced, let go, abandoned and relinquished [the defilements] in part,[7] he knows: 'I am endowed with unwavering confidence in the Buddha... in the Dhamma... in the Sangha; and he gains enthusiasm for the goal, gains enthusiasm for the Dhamma,[8] gains gladness connected with the Dhamma. When he is gladdened, joy is born in him; being joyous in mind, his body becomes tranquil; his body being tranquil, he feels happiness; and the mind of him who is happy becomes concentrated.[9] <> 10. "He knows: 'I have given up, renounced, let go, abandoned and relinquished [the defilements] in part'; and he gains enthusiasm for the goal, gains enthusiasm for the Dhamma, gains gladness connected with the Dhamma. When he is gladdened, joy is born in him; being joyous in mind, his body becomes tranquil; when his body is tranquil, he feels happiness; and the mind of him who is happy becomes concentrated. <> 11. "If, monks, a monk of such virtue, such concentration and such wisdom[10] eats almsfood consisting of choice hill-rice together with various sauces and curries, even that will be no obstacle for him.[11] <> "Just as cloth that is stained and dirty becomes clean and bright with the help of pure water, or just as gold becomes clean and bright with the help of a furnace, so too, if a monk of such virtue, such concentration and such wisdom eats almsfood consisting of choice hill- rice together with various sauces and curries, even that will be no obstacle for him. <> 12. "He abides, having suffused with a mind of loving-kindness[12] one direction of the world, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth, and so above, below, around and everywhere, and to all as to himself; he abides suffusing the entire universe with loving-kindness, with a mind grown great, lofty, boundless and free from enmity and ill will. <> "He abides, having suffused with a mind of compassion... of sympathetic joy... of equanimity one direction of the world, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth, and so above, below, around and everywhere, and to all as to himself; he abides suffusing the entire universe with equanimity, with a mind grown great, lofty, boundless and free from enmity and ill will. <> 13. "He understands what exists, what is low, what is excellent,[13] and what escape there is from this [whole] field of perception.[14] <> 14. "When he knows and sees[15] in this way, his mind becomes liberated from the canker of sensual desire, liberated from the canker of becoming, liberated from the canker of ignorance.[16] When liberated, there is knowledge: 'It is liberated'; and he knows: 'Birth is exhausted, the life of purity has been lived, the task is done, there is no more of this to come.' Such a monk is called 'one bathed with the inner bathing."[17] <> Ray, if everyone who reaches enlightenment, knows Nibbana, has every defilement eliminated, what is the difference between a Buddha, a Silent Buddha, and an arahant? If our whole existence is the result of ignorance, and defilements are a part of human nature, aren't they kind of hard-wired into us? Even when ignorance is removed, the mess is still there. I am not sure that all of the defilements can be completely eliminated. Side Note (Not to Ray, I forget who and lost the post): And, as far as the Buddha being sexist, he most definitely was. Look at the big picture here: Ven. Ananda had to convince him to allow women to join the Sangha. He finally agreed, with certain stipulations. Now, for people to say that the Buddha was concerned about the reputation of the Sangha, I say that is just further proof of him being sexist. He would withhold the dhamma from half of the human population just because it might look bad to his Sangha? Huh? And the fact that he finally relented to Ananda's request demonstrates that he admitted he was wrong. If he had good reasons to not allow women, he would have stuck to them. Right? The Lord Buddha was a magnificent person, but he was just a person. He wasn't a god. If we hold him up as a god, that would be against everything he taught. Metta, James 18132 From: Sarah Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 1:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path Dear Phra Piyadhammo, I meant to respond with some extra quotes from the commentary to the Vibhanga, but as you had pointed out the meaning of the Vibhanga text very clearly imho, it was left in the ‘non-urgent basket’. They are also quite difficult points of detail, but I think they now may be of interest to others following the ‘right livelihood’ thread as well. ..... --- "phrapiyadhammo " > 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. ..... As we know, there is the mundane fivefold path as discussed in the Satipatthana sutta and indeed wherever we read about the development of satipatthana. As you suggest, at the moments the supramundane consciousness realize nibbana, there are always the eight fold path factors accompanying this consciousness (lokuttara magga citta) and the sila factors have been purified according to the 'stage' of enlightenment. From the commentary to the passage you quoted (Sammohavinodani, Maggavibhanga 1565f): ..... “ ‘but these three factors occur previously purified, and at the moment of the supramundane path they become more purified. Then by the fivefold path, what purpose is taken up? The purpose of showing functions more clearly. For at the time when he abandons wrong speech and perfects right speech, at that time there are not right action and right livelihood; it is only these five action-causing factors which abandon wrong speech. Also right speech does not perfect through abstention itself..........wrong action......wrong livelihood. this is taken as the “fivefold path” in order to show the extra function of these factors that cause action. But the supramundane path is eightfold only; there is no fivefold (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 is pointed out that there are four kinds of "volition for right speech, three kinds of volition for right action and seven kinds of voition for right livelihood".The response however is: “We shall escape from plurality of volition; and we shall say that the supramundane path is eightfold only.” ..... The Commentary continues with a discussion of the Maha-cattalisaka (Last Fifty) sutta (Miii73) recently raised by Andrew and others on DSG in the Right Livelihood thread, with disussions on mundane and supramundane path factors. After quoting the sutta, we read; ..... “So here it is simply abstention from the four kinds of bad verbal conduct, from the three kinds of bad bodily conduct and from wrong livelihood that is called ‘noble, free from cankers, supramundane and a path factor’. Whence is there plurality of volition, whence a fivefold path here? The sutta shows you, who do not want it (so), that the supramundane path is eightfold.’ If he agrees with this much, it is good.” ..... >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. ..... Ok. Let me just quote one more segment which follows on from the last quote: “If he does not agree, he must be made to perceive by quoting other reasons. For this is said by the Blessed One: ‘In that law and discipline, Subhada, in which the Noble Eightfold Path is not found, thre a recluse also is not found..In this law and discipline, Subhadda, the Noble Eightfold Path is found, only here, Subhadda, is a recluse found...Devoid of recluses are other dispensations’ (Dii 151-2). And in several hundred othr suttas also the path has been handed down as eightfold.” ..... I appreciate the reminders that it is only in the Buddha’s Teachings that it is possible to develop the path factors and understand what these are. If someone does not accept these words, what should we do? ..... “If, however, he does not accept the notion even with this muc, he should be dismissed, (saying:) ‘go, enter the monastery and drink gruel!’ But it is impossible that he will give any further reason.” ..... This seems like a very practical solution and reminder that it is impossible that everyone will understand all aspects (or any!) of the teachings as we do. I remember you told us at the outset that you would be travelling to Cambodia soon. I hope this reaches you before your departure and if so, may I wish you safe and worthwhile travels. I hope you are able to continue your studies and reflections on the Abhidhamma and its applicability to life wherever you find yourself. I'll look forward to further contributions when it is convenient for you. Sarah ====== 18133 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 2:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mara No More Hi James In order to be a sexist, one has to be have perceptions as a sexist, which means he would have a certain bias towards woman. He would have the more superior image as a male or a certain mental construct as a man. If Buddha has a bias or a mental construct, he would be rooted in the three akusala cittas, this would mean he could not be a Buddha in the first instance. Worshipping him as a God will not bring us to Nibbana anyway so why make him as god in the first place. Not worshipping him will not condemn us to hell also so why bother. However, I have not seen anyone as perfect as him throughout the history of mankind. As hardworking and never may a mistake in preaching in his countless assemblies. Perhaps this could lead me to think him is God and worship him more than God. Perhaps those historical books about him that has been passed down since generations and generations and in addition we know that pple have bias hence maybe they will take out those that they think does not portray Buddha as perfect. They want to make him looks good. Who knows? :) Then we come a problem, how does one knows how to swim if he does not know it in the first place. How does one get rid of the three roots if he does not know how to do get rid in the first place. If one has got rid of three roots, will one go back again to do actions that arise from the three roots which is the cause of sufferings. Who knows? Only Buddha or perhaps his disciple knows. If he is a sexist, why would he relent to Ananda request? If he has good reasons he would stick to them. Yes he would stick to them but he do acknowledge that by admitting woman, the law of the dhamma will diminish earlier by 500 years and that is a cause of his great reluctance to admit woman. Maybe some pple may have add this so to make Buddha looks good, who knows? I don't know, but I do know if one has get rid of the three roots one will not be a sexist or make jokes or do actions that are condition from the three roots. He would not spending his 45 years of time convincing pple endlessly and without making a single mistake. Maybe it is a pretense, he is a damn great actor, maybe some pple add this again to make him look good, who knows? Gosh maybe next time I tell him not to be a human bc it creates too many doubts abt him. He should have been like God and come down to save us. That will save us a lot of trouble to dispute or to prove what makes him human, what makes him not human or a God. Cheers and merry christmas KC > Side Note (Not to Ray, I forget who and lost the post): And, as far > > as the Buddha being sexist, he most definitely was. Look at the > big > picture here: Ven. Ananda had to convince him to allow women to > join > the Sangha. He finally agreed, with certain stipulations. Now, > for > people to say that the Buddha was concerned about the reputation of > > the Sangha, I say that is just further proof of him being sexist. > He > would withhold the dhamma from half of the human population just > because it might look bad to his Sangha? Huh? And the fact that > he > finally relented to Ananda's request demonstrates that he admitted > he > was wrong. If he had good reasons to not allow women, he would > have > stuck to them. Right? The Lord Buddha was a magnificent person, > but > he was just a person. He wasn't a god. If we hold him up as a > god, > that would be against everything he taught. > > Metta, James 18134 From: Sarah Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 2:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Hi James, I’ve really been enjoying your posts to the Star kids- they’re all on holiday now, so please expect very delayed replies. Your Baseball post was very interesting (and I learnt quite a bit about a baseball, always having lived in non-baseball countries;-)). --- "James " wrote: > I think in more concrete terms. I also like to have something to > compare my experiences against. Anatta can be explained cognitively > or the Buddha wouldn't have done it. Unfortunately, he didn't > explain with too many different positions or details. His senior > monks often had to explain the details of something after he spoke. > That was his style (that he would have composed the Abhidhamma is > highly unlikely given that). ..... Not sure I follow the logic here, but I’ll try not to get side-tracked for now;-). At least there’s a glimmer of hope that you may have read my last post on the commentaries...;-) ..... >So, if you know more about Anatta than > I do, explain to me in concrete terms so that I may understand. Or > use metaphors..or use examples. But use something other than it > is `an experience'…what the heck kind of experience? If you know, > throw me some kinda bone please! :-) ..... I really appreciated the replies from Howard, KKT and Victor to your post. However, I’d particularly like you to print out Ken H’s message back to you (18083), sit in your arm chair, soak your feet in hot water and read it again and again until the water turns to ice;-). It was very carefully written (definitely not a 6mins job) and contained a goldmine of detail in response to your very fine questions. I thought it was very neat. When we think we see or touch or hear a baseball, what is really seen, touched or heard? Surely the seeing just sees its visible object, whatever it is at that moment (and never the same as at any other moment), the touching just experiences hardness or coldness and while we think we hear the bouncing baseball , really all that is heard is sound.....no ‘baseball’ at all. Who is seeing, touching and hearing? Surely, at the moment of seeing, that’s all there is. Ideas of ‘what I see’ and so on are different from moments of just seeing and so it is for touching and hearing. If there is awareness just for a moment when the visible object, hardness, seeing or touching appears, then these realities can gradually be known for what they are - merely namas (which experience but are also sometimes experienced) or rupas (which are only ever experienced) and no self -- no baseball, no James -- to be found. Like you say to the kids, you ask difficult questions, however simple they may sound, and therefore the answers will inevitably be complicated as well. I think the Buddha talked about and explained realities (i.e namas and rupas) in an incredible amount of detail. It is by understanding these realities more and more precisely, starting with the distinction between namas and rupas, that the characteristic of anatta can be known. You explained beautifully to Sandy (I think it was) about the different kinds of faith in Buddhism and Christianity. Perhaps we can also say that the heart of the Buddhist teachings is anatta. That’s why I like your questions and the replies from Ken H and the others so much. I’ll be glad to hear further what the sticking points are as I think it’s helpful for us all. Sarah ===== 18135 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 2:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Hi Larry Whether sati remembers what panna discovered, i really do not know. Bc Abhidhamma did not state a lot of things about memory. In fact there is no cetasikas about memory. I suspect the accumulations functions of cetasikas are the memory and recall function. Just a guess. If I happen to read.... (hmm this would mean a long time)...gosh honestly speaking I really do not know when I would read Abhidhamma again :) as I got eight exams to take, in a period of four months! This is suffering as I got to fulfill my desire, my dreams :) Cheers kind rgds KC --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi again Ken, > > I think I still want to say sati remembers what panna discovered > and > that amounts to recognizing anicca, dukkha, anatta. Panna is more > of an > original insight but it isn't necessary to rediscover dukkha once > it is > understood. Recognition is a kind of understanding and because sati > is > applying a previous panna insight to present experience it is > superior > understanding to sanna, which is based on accumulations in general, > and > is also a kind of recognition. > > Larry > 18136 From: nidive Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 6:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mara No More Dear James, > Side Note (Not to Ray, I forget who and lost the post): And, as > far as the Buddha being sexist, he most definitely was. Look at > the big picture here: Ven. Ananda had to convince him to allow > women to join the Sangha. He finally agreed, with certain > stipulations. Now, for people to say that the Buddha was > concerned about the reputation of the Sangha, I say that is just > further proof of him being sexist. He would withhold the dhamma > from half of the human population just because it might look bad > to his Sangha? Huh? And the fact that he finally relented to > Ananda's request demonstrates that he admitted he was wrong. If > he had good reasons to not allow women, he would have stuck to > them. Right? The Lord Buddha was a magnificent person, but he > was just a person. He wasn't a god. If we hold him up as a god, > that would be against everything he taught. That was I. I have already explained why I do not think that the Buddha was being sexist. Opinions are hard to break, so I will not further my opinions on this issue with you. But I would like you, with reference to these three questions: (1) Is 'being sexist' born out of a desire with regard to a certain sex? (2) Is 'being sexist' born out of an aversion with regard to a certain sex? (3) Is 'being sexist' born out of a delusion with regard to sex? to ponder over this sutta (note principles 6 to 9): Anguttara Nikaya IX.7 Sutava Sutta To Sutavan Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an09-007.html ------------------------------------------------------------ I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Rajagaha, on Vulture Peak Mountain. Then Sutavan the wanderer went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "One day recently when I was staying right here in Rajagaha, at Giribbaja, I heard it in the Blessed One's presence, learned it in the Blessed One's presence: 'Sutavan, an arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these five principles. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to intentionally deprive a living being of life. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to take, in the manner of stealing, what is not given. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to tell a conscious lie. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to consume stored-up sensual things as he did before, when he was a householder.' Now, did I hear this rightly from the Blessed One? Did I learn it rightly, attend to it rightly, understand it rightly?" "Yes, Sutavan, you heard it rightly, learned it rightly, attended to it rightly, & understood it rightly. Both before & now I say to you that an arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these nine principles. "[1] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to intentionally deprive a living being of life. [2] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to take, in the manner of stealing, what is not given. [3] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse. [4] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to tell a conscious lie. [5] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to consume stored-up sensual things as he did before, when he was a householder. "[6] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on desire. [7] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on aversion. [8] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on fear. [9] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on delusion. "Both before and now I say to you that an arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these nine principles." > Ray, if everyone who reaches enlightenment, knows Nibbana, has > every defilement eliminated, what is the difference between a > Buddha, a Silent Buddha, and an arahant? If our whole existence > is the result of ignorance, and defilements are a part of human > nature, aren't they kind of hard-wired into us? Even when > ignorance is removed, the mess is still there. I am not sure that > all of the defilements can be completely eliminated. Please consider carefully (it affects your future happiness) this passage from the Lion's Roar Discourse: 22. "Sariputta, the Tathagata has these four kinds of intrepidity, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma. What are the four? 23. "Here, I see no ground on which any recluse or brahman or god or Mara or Brahma or anyone at all in the world could, in accordance with the Dhamma, accuse me thus: 'While you claim full enlightenment, you are not fully enlightened in regard to certain things.'[*p.72] And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. 24. "I see no ground on which any recluse... or anyone at all could accuse me thus: 'While you claim to have destroyed the taints, these taints are undestroyed by you.' And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. 25. "I see no ground on which any recluse... or anyone at all could accuse me thus: 'Those things called obstructions by you are not able to obstruct one who engages in them.' And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. 26. "I see no ground on which any recluse... or anyone at all could accuse me thus: 'When you teach the Dhamma to someone, it does not lead him when he practices it to the complete destruction of suffering.' And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. 27. "A Tathagata has these four kinds of intrepidity, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma.[14] 28. "Sariputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me... he will wind up in hell. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel390.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18137 From: nidive Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 6:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mara No More Dear James, > Side Note (Not to Ray, I forget who and lost the post): And, as > far as the Buddha being sexist, he most definitely was. Look at > the big picture here: Ven. Ananda had to convince him to allow > women to join the Sangha. He finally agreed, with certain > stipulations. Now, for people to say that the Buddha was > concerned about the reputation of the Sangha, I say that is just > further proof of him being sexist. He would withhold the dhamma > from half of the human population just because it might look bad > to his Sangha? Huh? And the fact that he finally relented to > Ananda's request demonstrates that he admitted he was wrong. If > he had good reasons to not allow women, he would have stuck to > them. Right? The Lord Buddha was a magnificent person, but he > was just a person. He wasn't a god. If we hold him up as a god, > that would be against everything he taught. That was I. I have already explained why I do not think that the Buddha was being sexist. Opinions are hard to break, so I will not further my opinions on this issue with you. But I would like you, with reference to these three questions: (1) Is 'being sexist' born out of a desire with regard to a certain sex? (2) Is 'being sexist' born out of an aversion with regard to a certain sex? (3) Is 'being sexist' born out of a delusion with regard to sex? to ponder over this sutta (note principles 6 to 9): Anguttara Nikaya IX.7 Sutava Sutta To Sutavan Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an09-007.html ------------------------------------------------------------ I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Rajagaha, on Vulture Peak Mountain. Then Sutavan the wanderer went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "One day recently when I was staying right here in Rajagaha, at Giribbaja, I heard it in the Blessed One's presence, learned it in the Blessed One's presence: 'Sutavan, an arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these five principles. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to intentionally deprive a living being of life. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to take, in the manner of stealing, what is not given. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to tell a conscious lie. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to consume stored-up sensual things as he did before, when he was a householder.' Now, did I hear this rightly from the Blessed One? Did I learn it rightly, attend to it rightly, understand it rightly?" "Yes, Sutavan, you heard it rightly, learned it rightly, attended to it rightly, & understood it rightly. Both before & now I say to you that an arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these nine principles. "[1] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to intentionally deprive a living being of life. [2] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to take, in the manner of stealing, what is not given. [3] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse. [4] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to tell a conscious lie. [5] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to consume stored-up sensual things as he did before, when he was a householder. "[6] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on desire. [7] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on aversion. [8] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on fear. [9] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on delusion. "Both before and now I say to you that an arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these nine principles." > Ray, if everyone who reaches enlightenment, knows Nibbana, has > every defilement eliminated, what is the difference between a > Buddha, a Silent Buddha, and an arahant? If our whole existence > is the result of ignorance, and defilements are a part of human > nature, aren't they kind of hard-wired into us? Even when > ignorance is removed, the mess is still there. I am not sure that > all of the defilements can be completely eliminated. Please consider carefully (it affects your future happiness) this passage from the Lion's Roar Discourse: 22. "Sariputta, the Tathagata has these four kinds of intrepidity, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma. What are the four? 23. "Here, I see no ground on which any recluse or brahman or god or Mara or Brahma or anyone at all in the world could, in accordance with the Dhamma, accuse me thus: 'While you claim full enlightenment, you are not fully enlightened in regard to certain things.'[*p.72] And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. 24. "I see no ground on which any recluse... or anyone at all could accuse me thus: 'While you claim to have destroyed the taints, these taints are undestroyed by you.' And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. 25. "I see no ground on which any recluse... or anyone at all could accuse me thus: 'Those things called obstructions by you are not able to obstruct one who engages in them.' And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. 26. "I see no ground on which any recluse... or anyone at all could accuse me thus: 'When you teach the Dhamma to someone, it does not lead him when he practices it to the complete destruction of suffering.' And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. 27. "A Tathagata has these four kinds of intrepidity, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma.[14] 28. "Sariputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me... he will wind up in hell. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel390.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18138 From: James Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 7:36am Subject: Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " > That was I. I have already explained why I do not think that the > Buddha was being sexist. Opinions are hard to break, so I will not > further my opinions on this issue with you. > > But I would like you, with reference to these three questions: > > (1) Is 'being sexist' born out of a desire with regard to a > certain sex? > (2) Is 'being sexist' born out of an aversion with regard to a > certain sex? > (3) Is 'being sexist' born out of a delusion with regard to sex? > Hi NEO, Yes, this is just opinion, and I am probably in the minority with my opinion about this matter; but I really don't see any other explanation for the Buddha's behavior. Being sexist isn't really any of those strong defilements; it is just a case of conditioning. www.dictionary.com defines sexism as: Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender. As a prince, the Buddha predominately saw women as sex objects. His father gave him harems galore and tried to make sure his every whim was met. Women were there to please him. When he began his spiritual quest, there weren't any women role models for him to observe. Now, when he discovers that sensual desire must be abandoned, and he has always viewed women as sensual beings, he had some red flags go up. But he overcame that conditioning, a testament to his wisdom, and allowed women to join the sangha. The role and treatment of women are a dark spots on modern Buddhism. And the source should be identified and the trend reversed. But, this is just my opinion. Metta, James 18139 From: nidive Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 8:39am Subject: Re: Mara No More Dear James, > Yes, this is just opinion, and I am probably in the minority with my > opinion about this matter; but I really don't see any other > explanation for the Buddha's behavior. Being sexist isn't really > any of those strong defilements; it is just a case of conditioning. > www.dictionary.com defines sexism as: Attitudes, conditions, or > behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on > gender. How are defilements not being conditioned? Defilements are conditioned. A person who kills frequently becomes conditioned to kill without fear of evil. Being sexist is a defilement, whether it is strong or not. Now, I interpret you to be backtracking that 'being sexist' is not a defilement, but rather an effect of conditioning. If 'being sexist' is a defilement that you previously claimed the Buddha had not eradicated, please justify principles number 6 to 9 in the sutta that I quoted to you. If 'being sexist' is not a defilement, are you backtracking? Or, are there classes of defilements that are 'strong' (as being born of desire, aversion and delusion) and classes of defilements that are 'weak' (as NOT being born of desire, aversion and delusion)? Can you be sure that 'being sexist' does not involve any form of desire, aversion and delusion, however slight they may be? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18140 From: James Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 9:01am Subject: Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Dear James, > > > Yes, this is just opinion, and I am probably in the minority with my > > opinion about this matter; but I really don't see any other > > explanation for the Buddha's behavior. Being sexist isn't really > > any of those strong defilements; it is just a case of conditioning. > > www.dictionary.com defines sexism as: Attitudes, conditions, or > > behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on > > gender. > > How are defilements not being conditioned? Defilements are conditioned. > > A person who kills frequently becomes conditioned to kill without fear > of evil. > > Being sexist is a defilement, whether it is strong or not. Now, I > interpret you to be backtracking that 'being sexist' is not a > defilement, but rather an effect of conditioning. > > If 'being sexist' is a defilement that you previously claimed the > Buddha had not eradicated, please justify principles number 6 to 9 in > the sutta that I quoted to you. > > If 'being sexist' is not a defilement, are you backtracking? > > Or, are there classes of defilements that are 'strong' (as being born > of desire, aversion and delusion) and classes of defilements that are > 'weak' (as NOT being born of desire, aversion and delusion)? > > Can you be sure that 'being sexist' does not involve any form of > desire, aversion and delusion, however slight they may be? > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, No, I am not backtracking. Some defilement are conditioned, some are not. Usually the defilement is already present and it is just conditioned to grow stronger. It depends on ones accumulations I suppose as to which defilements are present at birth and which are not. You speak of `defilements' like they are some kind of exact science. Do defilements have an atomic weight? Are we now able to put them into some sort of Periodic Table? They are not that exact. Yes, sexism is a defilement. But is it the exact same in everyone? Aren't some people (including women) more sexist than others? When the Buddha says that a monk `abandons' a `defilement', what does that mean exactly? Does that mean it is eradicated? It doesn't sound like that to me. It sounds like it is left behind, but it still exists. Until the three asavas have been eradicated, the monk can still go back to those defilements, which have only been abandoned. That is why the monk must be ever vigilant. But perhaps my thinking of defilements is incorrect. But if you are referencing the Abhidhamma for your perspective, we are never going to reach agreement. I don't take the Abhidhamma literally because I cannot test it for myself. Metta, James 18141 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 10:01am Subject: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Foundation Bulletin, translated from Thai. Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Fruition Attainment, Phala-samĺpatti Issue of analysis: Can the ariyan who has not attained jhĺna enter fruition attainment, phala-samĺpatti? (1 The conclusion regarding the issue of analysis: The ariyan who has not attained jhĺna is not able to enter fruition attainment. The sources which support the conclusion of this issue: 1. Gradual Sayings, Book of the Sixes, Ch 1, § 9, Mahĺnĺma. 2. Middle Length Sayings I, 44, Lesser Discourse of the Miscellany (Cúlavedallasutta) 3. Paramatthadípaní, Commentary to the Udĺna, Khuddaka Nikĺya. Commentary to Ch 1, Enlightenment. 4. Saddhammappakĺsiní, Commentary to the Patisambhidĺmagga, Path of Discrimination, Khuddaka Nikĺya. 5. Visuddhimagga, Ch XXIII, Description of the Benefits in Developing Understanding, and Ch XI, Description of Concentration, Conclusion, XI, 120: The Benefits of Developing Concentration. 6. Paramattha Mańjúsa, Commentary to the Visuddhimagga (Mahĺ-tíka), explanation about the benefit of concentration. 7. Sĺratthadípaní, subcommentary to the Vinaya, about Vijjĺ, Knowledge. The sources which explain the reasons for this conclusion: 1. We read in the Gradual Sayings, Book of the Sixes, Ch 1, § 9, Mahĺnĺma, about six kinds of łeverminding˛ (anussati). The Sutta states that Mahĺnĺma, the Sakya asked the Buddha: łLord, the Ariyan disciple who has won the fruit (ĺgato phalo), grasped the message (vińńĺta-sĺsano), what life lives he in abundance ?˛(2 łMahĺnĺma, the Ariyan disciple who has won the fruit, grasped the message, lives this life in abundance: The Ariyan disciple, Mahĺnĺma, is ever minding the Tathĺgata: ŚHe is the Exalted One, arahant, fully enlightened, perfected in knowledge and way of life, one well-gone, a knower of the worlds, none higher, a tamer of tamable men, a teacher, the awake among devas and men, the Exalted One!ą Mahĺnĺma, what time the Ariyan disiple minds the Tathĺgata, his heart is never overwhelmed by passion, never overwhelmed by hatred, never overwhelmed by infatuation; then, verily, is the way of his heart made straight because of the Tathĺgata. And with his heartąs ways straightened, Mahĺnĺma, the Ariyan disciple becomes zealous of the goal, zealous of Dhamma, wins the joy that is linked to Dhamma (3 ; and of his joy zest (píti) is born; when his mind is rapt in zest, his whole being becomes calm; calm in being, he experiences ease; and of him that dwells at ease the heart is composed. Mahĺnĺma, of this Ariyan disciple it is said: Among uneven folk he lives evenly; among troubled folk he lives untroubled; with the ear for Dhamma won, he makes become the ever minding of the Buddha...˛(4 Thus we see that the abiding (vihĺra dhammas) of the ariyan disciple without jhĺna-attainment are the six Recollections, not fruition attainment. Footnotes 1. When pańńĺ has been developed to the degree that enlightenment can be attained, lokuttara cittas, supramundane cittas experiencing nibbĺna arise. The magga-citta (path-consciousness), which is lokuttara kusala citta, directly experiences nibbĺna. When the magga-citta has fallen away, it is immediately succeeded by its result, the phala-citta (fruition-consciousness), which is lokuttara vipĺkacitta, also experiencing nibbĺna. There are four stages of enlightenment and at each stage defilements are eradicated by the magga-citta until they are all eradicated at the fourth stage, the stage of the arahat. The magga-citta of a particular stage of enlightenment arises only once in the cycle of birth and death. However, the phala-citta can arise again later on during that life, if enlightenment has been attained with lokuttara jhĺnacittas (Visuddhimagga, Ch III-XII). Someone who has developed jhĺna and acquired łmastery˛ in jhĺna (Visuddhimagga IV, 131) and also develops insight can attain enlightenment with lokuttara jhĺnacitta, lokuttara citta accompanied by jhĺna-factors of one of the stages of jhĺna. The phala-citta which is accompanied by jhĺna-factors can arise many times again during that life, experiencing nibbĺna. This attainment is called fruition-attainment, phala-samĺpatti. Fruition attainment, phala-samĺpatti, has been explained in the łVisuddhimagga˛, Ch XXIII, Description of the Benefits in Developing Understanding (explaining who can enter fruition attainment and who cannot). The text (Vis. XXIII, 6,7) stating: łAll ariyans can enter fruition-attainment˛ can be misunderstood when we do not know the context. People may erroneously think that all ariyans can attain fruition-attainment. This is the subject of this Dhamma issue. 2. He lives in abundance, in Pali: bahulam viharĺti. He abides with six vihĺra dhammas, six recollections: recollection of the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha, síla, the devas and liberality. 3. Attha--veda˙, dhamma-veda˙. According to the Commentary, veda, which can mean knowledge, is here píti-pĺmojja˙ (rapture and delight) arising with respect to aěěha-kathĺ (explanation of the meaning) and pĺîi, which means text. Attha is here translated as goal, but it can also mean: the meaning. 4. The same is said with regard to the other five recollections. With these six Recollections as meditation subjects, the ariyan can attain access concentration but not attainment concentration (appanĺ-samĺdhi) or jhĺna. His unshakable confidence in the Triple Gem conditions calm and happiness. It is said that he lives in happiness, but, as we shall see, this is an abiding different from the łpeaceful abiding˛, arana vihĺra, which is fruition-attainment. 18142 From: phrapiyadhammo Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 11:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path Dear Sarah, Thank you for taking the time and posting the commentary. :) Quite an addition and worthwhile. Last week we had ten Samanera's for 7-days. It was up to me to try to impart some Dhamma of value in that short a time (yikes). It went well. Leaving tomorrow for Cambodia, so just a short note of Mudita for your time and effort to respond, and for your wishing well for the journey. I will keep up the studies, and when permitting share in learning with you all on list. In Dhamma Phra Piyadhammo 18143 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 11:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mara No More > NEO Swee Boon > > Hi NEO, > > No, I am not backtracking. Some defilement are conditioned, some > are not. Usually the defilement is already present and it is just > conditioned to grow stronger. It depends on ones accumulations I > suppose as to which defilements are present at birth and which are > not. You speak of `defilements' like they are some kind of exact > science. Do defilements have an atomic weight? Are we now able to > put them into some sort of Periodic Table? They are not that > exact. Yes, sexism is a defilement. But is it the exact same in > everyone? Aren't some people (including women) more sexist than > others? > > When the Buddha says that a monk `abandons' a `defilement', what > does that mean exactly? Does that mean it is eradicated? It > doesn't sound like that to me. It sounds like it is left behind, > but it still exists. Until the three asavas have been eradicated, > the monk can still go back to those defilements, which have only > been abandoned. That is why the monk must be ever vigilant. > > But perhaps my thinking of defilements is incorrect. But if you are > referencing the Abhidhamma for your perspective, we are never going > to reach agreement. I don't take the Abhidhamma literally because I > cannot test it for myself. > > Metta, James > > Hi James, Being dependent on ones accumulations of course means that even at birth defilements are conditioned. The Buddha teaches that all things that arise based on conditions, cease when the supporting conditions are removed. In the case of the defilements the underlying conditions are greed, hatred and delusion. The Buddha teaches us that when these roots are removed those conditions which are dependent on them are also removed. In an Arhant the asavas, the tendency towards greed, hatred and delusion have been left behind, thus all the unwholesome thoughts, speech and action based on them are also eradicated. They are abandoned not because the Arhant has become perfect or some god, but because the Arhant completely understands the suffering inherent in unwholesome actions, speech and thought. It is like a person walking down sidewalk and sees a tack on the sidewalk. The person does not have to be perfect to walk around the tack, as long as the person has left behind the mistaken view that stepping on the tack is pleasurable, the person will naturally not step on the tack. I see this as one of the differences between Buddhism and other religions. People are not inherently bad, there is no original sin that cannot be overcome. One does not have to be perfect to avoid greed, to avoid anger. In Buddhism it is a matter of completely understanding the nature of greed and anger that leads to their eradication. As the Buddha says in many places within the Suttas, when the roots are torn out the tree can no longer grow. When the taints are abandoned those thoughts, speech and actions which are dependent on the taints are also abandoned. This is from MN 9 ""When a noble disciple has thus understood the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, he entirely abandons the underlying tendency to lust, he abolishes the underlying tendency to aversion, he extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and conceit 'I am,' and by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma and has arrived at this true Dhamma." " Ray 18144 From: Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 5:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi, Nina - In a message dated 12/24/02 1:04:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > The conclusion regarding the issue of analysis: The ariyan who has not > attained jhĺna is not able to enter fruition attainment. > > ======================= Exactly what is meant by "attained jhana"? Is it not so that path consciousness is attained at least the level of the first jhana? Henepola Gunaratana has written the following, copied from ATI: "The supramundane paths and fruits always arise as states of jhanic consciousness. They occur as states of jhana because they contain within themselves the jhana factors elevated to an intensity corresponding to that of the jhana factors in the mundane jhanas. Since they possess the jhana factors these states are able to fix upon their object with the force of full absorption. Thence, taking the absorptive force of the jhana factors as the criterion, the paths and fruits may be reckoned as belonging to either the first, second, third or fourth jhana of the fourfold scheme, or to the first, second, third, fourth or fifth jhana of the fivefold scheme." Thus, an ariyan would have had to have attained at least the first jhana at least once, no? 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) 18145 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 11:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 28,the three characteristics, stages of insight Hi Nina and all, From what you wrote, I don't see that you really explained how the understanding that hardness is not seeing relates to the understanding that each and every aggregate is impermanent, unsatisfactory, not self. Could you explain it in a more concise language? With appreciation. Metta and happy holidays, Victor > Victor brings up an important point, how to realize the three > characteristics. We read about them in the scriptures time and again. We may > wonder about non-self: did the Buddha teach this or not, what is meant by > this? We may reason about this but then we get stuck with theoretical > knowledge, there is no development of panna which can directly realize the > truth. > In the scriptures, there is no extensive description of all the stages of > insight knowledge. We find them in the Path of Discrimination and the > Visuddhimagga, but they are only described shortly. When panna develops to > the stage of insight knowledge, no words are needed, it is the direct > realization of the truth. > We read in Kindred Sayings IV, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Ch 3, § 26, > Comprehension: > > Without fully knowing, without comprehending the all, brethren, without > detaching himself from, without abandoning the all, a man is incapable of > extinguishing Ill... > > In Pali: sabbam (the all) bhikkhave anabhijaana.m(not fully knowing) > aparijaana.m (not comprehending) aviraajaya.m (not detaching) appajaha.m > (not abandoning) abhabbo (unable) dukkhakkhayaaya (khaaya, extinguishing). > > It is explained that the all are: the eye, visible object, seeing, > eye-contact, etc. It is then explained that by fully knowing the all dukkha > can be extinguished. > Now the Commentary: fully knowing (abhijaana.m), this word refers to ~naata-pari~n~naa (full > understanding of the known). Comprehending (parijaana.m), this word refers > to tiira.na-pari~n~naa (full understanding as investigation). Detaching > (viraajaya.m) and abandoning (pajaha.m) refer to the third pari~n~na, which > is pahaana-pari~n~naa, full understanding as abandoning.> > end quote. > Actually, in these few words all stages of insight are included. The > Visuddhimagga explains (Ch XX, 3) about the three kinds of full > understanding: > ~naata-pari~n~naa (full understanding of the known), begins at the first > stage of insight knowledge (knowing the difference between nama and rupa) up > to the second stage (knowing them as conditioned realities). The specific > characteristics of nama and rupa are penetrated. > The second pari~n~naa, full understanding as investigation : begins at the > third stage (comprehension by groups, beginning to see rise and fall) until > the fourth stage which is the first stage of principle insight > (mahaa-vipassana ~naa.na): realizing the arising and falling away of > realities. Here the general characteristics are penetrated. > The third pari~n~naa, pahaana-pari~n~naa, full understanding as abandoning, > begins at the contemplation of dissolution, bhanga ~naa.na, the second stage > of principal insight. > Thus we see that in the sutta very few words are used, describing all stages > of insight. We also see that as panna develops it leads to detachment, to > abandoning. But panna develops stage by stage. If the specific > characteristics of nama and rupa are not fully penetrated (the all: seeing, > etc), the three characteristics cannot be penetrated. The development of > panna evolves according to a specific order. > Nina. 18146 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 2:40pm Subject: Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Hi James, I feel that the most effective explanation regarding anatta is the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html I think Rahula-samyutta would also be a good one. Metta, Victor > Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't know anatta > first-hand. I am still walking around in `James' most of the time > and seeing my thoughts, my car, my house, etc. as mine. I also see > them as permanent. On a few rare moments, I have seen otherwise. > But those moments were fleeting and probably only a small taste of > the real thing. I don't see anything wrong with calling speculations > about the nature of anatta `theories'. If you have a problem with > that, don't do it for yourself. We all don't have to think the same > way. Unless I am significantly off the dhamma trail, I don't see > what all the fuss is about. > > I think in more concrete terms. I also like to have something to > compare my experiences against. Anatta can be explained cognitively > or the Buddha wouldn't have done it. Unfortunately, he didn't > explain with too many different positions or details. His senior > monks often had to explain the details of something after he spoke. > That was his style (that he would have composed the Abhidhamma is > highly unlikely given that). So, if you know more about Anatta than > I do, explain to me in concrete terms so that I may understand. Or > use metaphors..or use examples. But use something other than it > is `an experience'…what the heck kind of experience? If you know, > throw me some kinda bone please! :-) > > Metta, James 18147 From: James Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 3:53pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > Hi James, > > Being dependent on ones accumulations of course means that even at birth > defilements are conditioned. The Buddha teaches that all things that arise > based on conditions, cease when the supporting conditions are removed. In > the case of the defilements the underlying conditions are greed, hatred and > delusion. The Buddha teaches us that when these roots are removed those > conditions which are dependent on them are also removed. In an Arhant the > asavas, the tendency towards greed, hatred and delusion have been left > behind, thus all the unwholesome thoughts, speech and action based on them > are also eradicated. They are abandoned not because the Arhant has become > perfect or some god, but because the Arhant completely understands the > suffering inherent in unwholesome actions, speech and thought. It is like a > person walking down sidewalk and sees a tack on the sidewalk. The person > does not have to be perfect to walk around the tack, as long as the person > has left behind the mistaken view that stepping on the tack is pleasurable, > the person will naturally not step on the tack. I see this as one of the > differences between Buddhism and other religions. People are not inherently > bad, there is no original sin that cannot be overcome. One does not have to > be perfect to avoid greed, to avoid anger. In Buddhism it is a matter of > completely understanding the nature of greed and anger that leads to their > eradication. As the Buddha says in many places within the Suttas, when the > roots are torn out the tree can no longer grow. When the taints are > abandoned those thoughts, speech and actions which are dependent on the > taints are also abandoned. This is from MN 9 > > ""When a noble disciple has thus understood the unwholesome, the root of the > unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, he entirely > abandons the underlying tendency to lust, he abolishes the underlying > tendency to aversion, he extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and > conceit 'I am,' and by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge he > here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is > one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the > Dhamma and has arrived at this true Dhamma." " > > Ray Ray, In the article "Is Theravada Buddhism for Arahatship Only" by Ven. U Silananda, it is explained that the quality of enlightenment is different depending on the amount of perfection one has gained: "According to Theravada teachings, there are three kinds of beings who have reached the fourth stage of enlightenment: Buddhas, Pacceka- Buddhas, and Arahants. Arahants are also called Savakas or Disciples; they are subdivided into Aggasavaka (the Best Disciples), Mahasavaka (the Great Disciples) and Pakatisavaka (the Ordinary Disciples). All of these beings are enlightened persons, but their quality of enlightenment differs from one another. The enlightenment of the Buddhas is the best, that of Pacceka-Buddhas is inferior to the enlightenment of the Buddhas, but is superior to the enlightenment of the Arahants, and the enlightenment of the Arahants is the lowest of them all. Buddhas can `save' many beings, or rather they can help many beings `save' themselves by giving them instructions, but Pacceka-Buddhas do not `save' beings because they are solitary Buddhas and do not teach as a rule. The Arahants can and do `save''beings, but not as many beings as Buddhas do. And the time required for the maturity of the qualities of these beings differ greatly. To become a Buddha, one has to fulfill the Paramis (necessary qualities for becoming a Buddha) for four, eight or sixteen Incalculables and 100,000 worlds cycles; but for a Pacceka- Buddha the time is only two Incalculables and 100,000 world cycles. Among the Disciples, for an Aggasavaka, the time required is one Incalculable and 100,000 world cycles, while for a Mahasavaka, it is only 100,000. But for the Pakatisavaka, it may be just one life, or a hundred lives, or a thousand lives, or more. It is important to note that once a person becomes an arahant, he will not become a Buddha in that life; and since there is no more rebirth for him, he will not become a Buddha in the future either. In Theravada Buddhism one is not forced to follow the path to Buddhahood only, but is given a choice from among the paths mentioned above. So a Theravada Buddhist can aspire for and eventually reach Buddhahood; indeed he must be determined to fulfill the Paramis for the long, long time required for the fulfillment of Buddhahood. " http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha064.htm The Paramis that one needs to practice over these many incalculables are: 1. Charity 2. Conduct 3. Renunciation 4. Wisdom and Knowledge 5. Indomitable spirit 6. Patience 7. Truth 8. Steadfastness 9. Loving kindness 10. Equanimity Now, you are saying that with anyone who achieves enlightenment, every single negative trait of that person has been eradicated; that all defilements have been removed. If that is the case, why is there this difference among the enlightened? It would seem to me that the practice of these Paramis would eliminate more and more defilements, until the person is ready to become a full-fledged Buddha. If all the defilements are removed, there wouldn't be this classification of the enlightened. Why continue to sharpen a knife that is already sharp? And yet, even if defilements are still present, a person can become an Arahant and not be reborn. The quality of the enlightenment won't be the same, but it will be enough to end the cycle of rebirth. If anyone can explain this to me, I will be quiet about this subject for now on and admit I am wrong. Metta, James 18148 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 4:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mara No More > > Now, you are saying that with anyone who achieves enlightenment, > every single negative trait of that person has been eradicated; that > all defilements have been removed. If that is the case, why is > there this difference among the enlightened? It would seem to me > that the practice of these Paramis would eliminate more and more > defilements, until the person is ready to become a full-fledged > Buddha. If all the defilements are removed, there wouldn't be this > classification of the enlightened. Why continue to sharpen a knife > that is already sharp? > > And yet, even if defilements are still present, a person can become > an Arahant and not be reborn. The quality of the enlightenment > won't be the same, but it will be enough to end the cycle of rebirth. > > If anyone can explain this to me, I will be quiet about this subject > for now on and admit I am wrong. > > Metta, James > Hi James, From my understanding of the Suttas the differences between the enlightenment of the Buddha and the Pakatisavaka have to do with discovering the Dhamma without the teachings of a Buddha. Whereas the enlightenment of the Arahant comes about from following the path laid out by a Buddha. The Pakatisavaka is different from a Buddha in that they are not able to teach. Within the Arahants there are also distinctions made on the way enlightenment is achieved. For example released both ways, ie mastering all levels of concentration as well as insight and those who do so without mastering all the levels of concentration. Thus I think these classifications have nothing to do with the defilements, but rather more to do with how enlightenment was achieved and how well one can teach others about the Dhamma. For example a Buddha can better teach than an Arahant because he is able to know the inclinations of others thus can apply more skillful means in teaching....Ray 18149 From: nidive Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 5:00pm Subject: Re: Mara No More > When the Buddha says that a monk `abandons' a `defilement', what > does that mean exactly? Does that mean it is eradicated? It > doesn't sound like that to me. It sounds like it is left behind, > but it still exists. Until the three asavas have been eradicated, > the monk can still go back to those defilements, which have only > been abandoned. That is why the monk must be ever vigilant. (1) A person who has not attained any of the paths, any abandonment of any defilements is temporary. (2) A person who has attained any of the paths, any abandonment of any defilements is permanent (eradicated). The types of defilements abandoned depend on the path attained. > But perhaps my thinking of defilements is incorrect. But if you are > referencing the Abhidhamma for your perspective, we are never going > to reach agreement. I don't take the Abhidhamma literally because I > cannot test it for myself. All defilements are born out of attachment and/or aversion and/or delusion. The 16 defilements of covetousness, ill-will, anger, hostility, denigration, domineering, envy, jealousy, hypocrisy, fraud, obstinancy, presumption, conceit, arrogance, vanity and negligence have their cause in the three roots of attachment, aversion and delusion. Now when I say the 16 defilements have their cause in the three roots of attachment, aversion and delusion, am I speaking solely from the perspective of the Abhidhamma? 'Being sexist' is a defilement rooted in attachment, aversion and delusion. 'Being sexist' has its cause in conceit: being male is superior to being female, being male is inferior to being female, being male is equal to being female. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18150 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 7:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: Ray, In the article "Is Theravada Buddhism for Arahatship Only" by Ven. U Silananda, it is explained that the quality of enlightenment is different depending on the amount of perfection one has gained: "According to Theravada teachings, there are three kinds of beings who have reached the fourth stage of enlightenment: Buddhas, Pacceka- Buddhas, and Arahants. Arahants are also called Savakas or Disciples; they are subdivided into Aggasavaka (the Best Disciples), Mahasavaka (the Great Disciples) and Pakatisavaka (the Ordinary Disciples). All of these beings are enlightened persons, but their quality of enlightenment differs from one another. The enlightenment of the Buddhas is the best, that of Pacceka-Buddhas is inferior to the enlightenment of the Buddhas, but is superior to the enlightenment of the Arahants, and the enlightenment of the Arahants is the lowest of them all. Buddhas can `save' many beings, or rather they can help many beings `save' themselves by giving them instructions, but Pacceka-Buddhas do not `save' beings because they are solitary Buddhas and do not teach as a rule. The Arahants can and do `save''beings, but not as many beings as Buddhas do. And the time required for the maturity of the qualities of these beings differ greatly. To become a Buddha, one has to fulfill the Paramis (necessary qualities for becoming a Buddha) for four, eight or sixteen Incalculables and 100,000 worlds cycles; but for a Pacceka- Buddha the time is only two Incalculables and 100,000 world cycles. Among the Disciples, for an Aggasavaka, the time required is one Incalculable and 100,000 world cycles, while for a Mahasavaka, it is only 100,000. But for the Pakatisavaka, it may be just one life, or a hundred lives, or a thousand lives, or more. It is important to note that once a person becomes an arahant, he will not become a Buddha in that life; and since there is no more rebirth for him, he will not become a Buddha in the future either. In Theravada Buddhism one is not forced to follow the path to Buddhahood only, but is given a choice from among the paths mentioned above. So a Theravada Buddhist can aspire for and eventually reach Buddhahood; indeed he must be determined to fulfill the Paramis for the long, long time required for the fulfillment of Buddhahood. " http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha064.htm KKT: What does the author mean by << quality of enlightenment >> ? Does it mean that they are more or less << omniscient >> than each other ? And if the goal is simply << liberation >> then why do not choose the easiest & quickest way that is the way of the Pakatisavaka ? (maybe just one lifetime required :-)) Metta, KKT 18151 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 11:10pm Subject: requesting assistance with sutta I.D. Dear Group, If someone has the Pali Text Society translations below, could they please tell me the Pali and English names of the suttas involved? Pali Text Society translations of: Majjima Nikaya, III, p.109 Angutara Nikaya, II, pp. 92-93 and 129 Angutara Nikaya, III, pp. 191-192 Angutara Nikaya, IV, pp. 134 and 184; (1977,1973 and 1965 respectively) These were citations in an article I am reading, but I only have Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation "The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha" Wisdom 1995. metta, Christine 18152 From: jonoabb Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 0:35am Subject: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Beth Thanks, for sharing these excellent reminders from the Dhammapada. I am not familiar with 'co-dependency recovery'. Would you care to explain a little about it (and your daily life practice)? Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Beth" wrote: > Hello all, > Thank you Kom and Jon for your welcomes :-) > Jon writes: > "Please feel free to share with us your understanding or experience > about awareness, which is such an important aspect of Buddhism. We > could all benefit from more discussion about this." > > My experience with awarensss from what I've learned in the past few years > has most to do with codependency recovery literature as well as my practice > in everyday life. > From what I've discerned with the readings I've done presently in the > Dhammapada there are some correlations. For exapmple in Dhp 1, verses > follow: > > 1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all > mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering > follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox. > 2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all > mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows > him like his never-departing shadow > 3. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who > harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred. > 4. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who > do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred. > > Awareness to me is being aware of what brings suffering and how to > end suffering. In my understanding suffering begins in the mind. > > ~peace, > Beth > > Let none find fault with others; > let none see the omissions and commissions of others. > But let one see one's own acts, done and undone. > Dhammapada 4:50 18153 From: Sarah Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 1:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] requesting assistance with sutta I.D. Chris, --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > If someone has the Pali Text Society translations below, could they > please tell me the Pali and English names of the suttas involved? > > Pali Text Society translations of: > Majjima Nikaya, III, p.109 ..... We no longer have PTS MN ..... > Angutara Nikaya, II, pp. 92-93 and 129 ..... Bk of 4s, x(80)Essence of the deed about womenfolk..... Bk of 4s, ii(122) Frears- the wave about womenfolk partly clothed...... ..... > Angutara Nikaya, III, pp. 191-192 ..... Bk of 5s,ix(229) the snake (a) 5 disadvantages in a woman.... ..... > Angutara Nikaya, IV, pp. 134 and 184; (1977,1973 and 1965 > respectively) ..... Bk of 8s, v (15)The stains stain of a woman..... ..... Bk of 8s, 11 (51) Mahapajapati 8 rules and so as in Cullavagga ..... > These were citations in an article I am reading, but I only have > Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation "The Middle Length > Discourses of the Buddha" Wisdom 1995. ..... sorry, no Pali names for the suttas. I haven't checked if they are in B.Bodhi's Anthology. If you need more clues let me know. Sarah ======= 18154 From: Sarah Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 1:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 28,the three characteristics, stages of insight Dear Nina, (Victor at end) and All, I found the following references interesting and helpful. I appreciated the Pali terms as well: ..... > In the scriptures, there is no extensive description of all the stages > of > insight knowledge. We find them in the Path of Discrimination and the > Visuddhimagga, but they are only described shortly. When panna develops > to > the stage of insight knowledge, no words are needed, it is the direct > realization of the truth. > We read in Kindred Sayings IV, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Ch 3, § 26, > Comprehension: > > Without fully knowing, without comprehending the all, brethren, without > detaching himself from, without abandoning the all, a man is incapable > of > extinguishing Ill... > > In Pali: sabbam (the all) bhikkhave anabhijaana.m(not fully knowing) > aparijaana.m (not comprehending) aviraajaya.m (not detaching) appajaha.m > (not abandoning) abhabbo (unable) dukkhakkhayaaya (khaaya, > extinguishing). > > It is explained that the all are: the eye, visible object, seeing, > eye-contact, etc. It is then explained that by fully knowing the all > dukkha > can be extinguished. ..... I checked B.Bodhi’s translation as well for these terms and it is similar: “And what, bhikkhus, is that all without directly knowing and fully understanding which, without developing dispassion towards which and abandoning which, one is incapable of destroying suffering?” He also adds a footnote to the commentary which refers to the 3 kinds of understanding (pari~n~naa) as you add. ..... > Now the Commentary: fully knowing (abhijaana.m), this word refers to ~naata-pari~n~naa (full > understanding of the known). Comprehending (parijaana.m), this word > refers > to tiira.na-pari~n~naa (full understanding as investigation). Detaching > (viraajaya.m) and abandoning (pajaha.m) refer to the third pari~n~na, > which > is pahaana-pari~n~naa, full understanding as abandoning.> > end quote. > Actually, in these few words all stages of insight are included. ..... This reminded me of similar references and detail to the Mulapariyaya sutta: From the commentary to the Mulapariya Sutta: “...He who fully understands the earth understands it by the three types of full understanding: the full understanding of the known (~naata.pari~n~naa), the full understanding of scrutinization (tiira.napari~n~naa), and the full understanding of abandoning (pahaanapari~n~naa).” “Therein, what is the full understanding of the known? He fully understands the earth element thus: “This is the internal earth element, this the external. This is its characteristic, this its function, manifestation, and proximate cause.” This is full understanding of the known. What is the full understanding by scrutinization? Having known it in this way, he scrutinizes the earth element in forty-two modes as impermanent, suffering, a sickness, etc. this is full undestanding by scrutinization. What is the full understanding by abandoning/ Having scrutinized it in this way, he abandons desire and lust for the earth element through the supreme path (aggamagga). This is full understanding by abandoning. Or , alternatively, the defining of mentality-materiality (naamaruupavavatthaana) is the full understanding of the known; from insight-comprehension of the groups (kalaapasammasana) as far as conformity knowledge (anuloma) is the full understanding by scrutinization; and the knowledge of the ariyan path is the full understanding by abandoning.” ***** >The > Visuddhimagga explains (Ch XX, 3) about the three kinds of full > understanding: > ~naata-pari~n~naa (full understanding of the known), begins at the first > stage of insight knowledge (knowing the difference between nama and > rupa) up > to the second stage (knowing them as conditioned realities). The > specific > characteristics of nama and rupa are penetrated. > The second pari~n~naa, full understanding as investigation : begins at > the > third stage (comprehension by groups, beginning to see rise and fall) > until > the fourth stage which is the first stage of principle insight > (mahaa-vipassana ~naa.na): realizing the arising and falling away of > realities. Here the general characteristics are penetrated. > The third pari~n~naa, pahaana-pari~n~naa, full understanding as > abandoning, > begins at the contemplation of dissolution, bhanga ~naa.na, the second > stage > of principal insight. > Thus we see that in the sutta very few words are used, describing all > stages > of insight. We also see that as panna develops it leads to detachment, > to > abandoning. But panna develops stage by stage. If the specific > characteristics of nama and rupa are not fully penetrated (the all: > seeing, > etc), the three characteristics cannot be penetrated. The development of > panna evolves according to a specific order. ***** To emphasise these same important points (i.e. very few words in a sutta may refer to all stages of insight but can very easily be passed over or misunderstood without the assistance of the commentary notes), similar detail is given to these verses in SN1,ch1,20-46 “Beings who perceive what can be expressed Become established in what can be expressed. Not fully understanding what can be expressed, They come under the yoke of Death. “But having fully understood what can be expressed, One does not conceive ‘one who expresses.’ For that does not exist for him By which one could describe him." ..... How many of us can appreciate these verses without clarification from the commentaries? B.Bodhi adds quite a lot of commentary detail here. In brief, ‘what can be expressed (akkheyya) are the 5 aggregates. “Ordinary beings’ perceive the aggregates affected by the vipallasas (perversions) and ‘become established in what can be expressed’(akkeyyasmi.m pati.t.thitaa).’Beings who perceive what can be expressed’ are akkheyyasa~n~nino sattaa and are no longer ‘established’ in the 5 aggregates by way of lobha, dosa, moha etc. The commentary explains the second verse in a similar way to the one you quoted in terms of the 3 pari~n~nas. “One does not conceive “one who expresses” (akkhaatara.m na ma~n~nati) Comm: “The arahant does not conceive the speaker as an individual (puggala); that is, he no longer takes the five aggregates to be “mine”, “I”, and “my self”. Besides other detail, the commentary also says this verse is referring to the “ninefold supramundane Dhamma, i.e. the four paths, their fruits, and Nibbana.” ***** Many thanks, Nina for all the useful detail you provide and for encouraging me to consider these suttas further. I’m not sure that you have the B.Bodhi translations, so if you’d like me to type out any of the commentary notes anytime, pls let me know. I left out quite a lot. ==================================================================== In brief, Victor, I think the point Nina was making by including the detail to this sutta was that comprehending objects of satipatthana as anicca, dukkha and anatta has to begin by clearly understanding the difference between nama and rupa. In other words we can't put the icing on the Christmas cake before the basic ingredients have been identfied and put in the mixing bowl;-)Sometimes I think that understanding details in the Abhidhamma and commentaries is easier than understanding verses in the suttas. Often what seems the simplest is the most profound. Look forward to further comments from Nina, Victor, Ray (studying the SN suttas with others, I know) or anyone else. I apologise if this post sounds unnecessarily complicated. Sarah ======= 18155 From: Sarah Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 2:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections, Patience, Ch 7, no 5 Hi Nina & All, I’ve been appreciating all the reminders on patience from the series of K.Sujin’s “Perfections’ which you’ve been translating. Here are a few I found helpful when I was reading through yesterday: ..... Commentary: “If there were no wrong-doers, how could I accomplish the perfection of patience?” ...... K.Sujin: “Whoever may have done wrong to us or may have harmed us, his deeds have ceased at that moment, and therefore we should not continue to be angry”. ..... Commentary: “With whom, then, should you now be angry, and by whom should anger be aroused? When all phenomena are non-self, who can do wrong to whom?” ..... Commentary: “If we are able to be patient, anger cannot arise, there cannot be wrong speech, not even the slightest amount.” ..... K.Sujin: “There can be patience even with regard to uttering useless speech. Before we are going to speak we should consider whether what we want to say is beneficial or not.” ..... Commentary: “Patience is an ocean on account of its depth” ========================================================== I particularly like the last one - considering patience as an ocean - deep and deeper still. I'm considering patience not just with 'uttering useless speech', but also when listening to it - listening with patience and metta...hmmmm, often difficult for me. Also, not just patience to prevent anger, but also to prevent lots of lobha when there is good food and other treats at this time of year which seems like more of a problem for me, having just come back from a lovely hike and lunch on a very remote and beautiful beach.....;-) For those who are sick, have sick relatives or recent bereavements, may I also wish you patience and good cheer at this time. Sarah ======= 18156 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 2:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dualism/Non-Dualism Victor, Christine and all wrote: > Hi Christine and all, > > Here are some questions in my mind: ... > 3. What do feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention > have in common such that they are called name? Here's my stab at an answer. They have in common that they are factors that accompany a moment of consciousness in experiencing an object, each having a particular function. Further, they have in common with all other things that are called name that they are dhammas (fundamental phenomena) that experience an object. In my view, the story behind the name chosen to designate each of the 2 basic classes of dhammas ('nama' and 'rupa') is less important than what the Buddha actually said about the 2 classes or about the individual dhammas themselves, and particularly how the direct understanding of them is to be developed. It is these dhammas that are to be seen as not-self. The realisation of this by direct experience is what is meant by insight into the characteristic of not-self. They are what is referred to in the Visuddhi-Magga as the 'soil' of understanding (panna) (Vis. XIV, 32, 33). Jon 18157 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 2:19am Subject: Re: Are these two teachings the same? Hello David and all, Thank you. Happy Holidays to you also. :-) Sorry for the delay in replying - it took me a while to find again the Bhikkhu Bodhi commentary to The Great Discourse on Causation - The Mahanidana Sutta and Its Commentaries on-line. (I have the paper copy, but can't scan it for you.) Because the link is a PDF file, I can't cut-and-paste any of it. The first one 'Read the PDF File 2.2 megs' is the Introduction to his Commentary. On p. 15 of this, he discusses the 'designation-contact' mentioned in your quote. http://www.bhavanasociety.org/Readings.htm p.15 Bhikkhu Bodhi says, 'The next section of the discourse (20) introduces another variation. In the standard exposition of dependent arising the sequence moves from contact to the six sense bases. In the Mahanidana Sutta, however, the Buddha bypasses the six sense bases entirely and goes back a step to bring in mentality- materiality as the condition for contact. To dispel the perplexity this unfamiliar move might provoke, he then introduces a striking pasage, not found elsehere in the Canon, giving a methodical demonstration of his statement.' If you have time, have a look at pp. 15-18 (or all of it) and see what you think. You said: "I was wondering if this passage from the Lord Buddha could be understood and applied to the dependent origination of our thoughts? In other words the rising of a "name-group" by mental activity, which is then either accepted or rejected by us, thus leading to suffering?" C: I'm also wondering if it might be worth considering a few more things as well here... or tell me if I am completely missing the thrust of your remarks. Is it possible to abstract just one link in the chain of dependent origination and discuss it as the cause of suffering? What is suffering? and, is there any 'us' who can choose to accept or reject? In his booklet on Dependent Origination, Ven P.A. Payutto also mentions the whole cycle of Dependent Origination occurring within one mind moment ... "The description of Dependent Origination given in the previous chapter is that most often found in the scriptures and commentaries. It seeks to explain Dependent Origination in terms of the samsaravatta, the round of rebirth, showing the connections between three lifetimes -- the past, the present and the future. Those who do not agree with this interpretation, or who would prefer something more immediate, can find alternatives not only in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, where the principle of Dependent Origination is shown occurring in its entirety in one mind moment..." Hope this isn't too much Thera theory for one day. :-) http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/payutto.htm metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "chase8383 " wrote: > Hello Christine and All > > Happy holidays BTW > > I should have identified the Pali, but your right it's dependent origination and the rise and cessation of suffering. > > I was wondering if this passage from the Lord Buddha: > > "If the qualities, traits, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group (mental activity) were all absent, would designation-contact with regard to the form-group (the physical body) be discerned?" > > "No, lord." > > "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of form-group were all absent, would resistance- > contact with regard to the name-group be discerned?" > > "No, lord." > > "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group and form-group were all absent, would designation-contact or resistance-contact be discerned?" > > could be understood and applied to the dependent origination of our thoughts? In other words the rising of a "name-group" by mental activity, which is then either accepted or rejected by us, thus leading to suffering? > > Thank you, David 18158 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 2:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Wendy --- "uanchihliu " wrote: > Hi Rob M, ... > Here's an example of how I see Howard's view also has great > significance on ethics. Without seeing Howard's view, one > may indeed see today's weather simply as the environment and > has no relationship to one's current or past cittas or kamma > when perhaps the weather may be an ecological effect due to > little action of each one of us (condition resulted from > many seeds as a whole). Without seeing Howard's view, what > one considers kusala may be akusala, I feel. The problem in talking about the weather as vipaka, as I see it, is that different people may be experiencing quite different vipaka due to the same weather conditions at the very same moment. One person may find the temperature just right (kusala vipaka) while another person may be feeling too hot or too cold (akusala vipaka). It doesn't really seem possible to draw any conclusion about the weather as vipaka from that. I think it's important to remember that whether one sees the weather as simply the environment or as an ecological event due to one's past cittas or kamma, it is in either case a view of things that is based on purely intellectual considerations. To put it in its most basic form, it is an idea we have about the weather, a kind of thinking. The only thing that is 'real' about the weather is whatever happens to be experienced through one or more of the sense-doors that we attribute to the weather (and attributing is yet another kind of thinking). It probably sounds weird to hear someone say that the weather is not real, since in purely conventional terms nothing could be more real that the weather(!), but remember that in the Buddha's teaching it is the dhammas (fundamental phenomena) that comprise this life that are 'real' and that are to be understood. Getting back to thinking about the weather (or about anything, for that matter), the kusala or akusala nature of our thinking activity isn't determined by the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the thinking, but by the quality of the mental factors that accompany the thinking. This can be known only, I believe, by a level of understanding (panna) that directly experiences the thinking moments. Jon 18159 From: Beth Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 2:30am Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Jon wrote: Beth Thanks, for sharing these excellent reminders from the Dhammapada. I am not familiar with 'co-dependency recovery'. Would you care to explain a little about it (and your daily life practice)? Jon **************************************** Hello all, Hello Jon, Co-dependent recovery is what one does in relation to understanding that one's life has become unmanagable and the understanding of the steps one needs to make to break free of certain self destructive cycles. A codependent person is one who has let another person's behavior affect him/her, and who is obsessed with controlling that person's behavior(definition from Codependent No More by Melody Beattie). My daily practice for at least the last two years continues to be analytical in regards to thoughts/feelings. To know where these arise, what if anything to do about them and letting go. When I first began I purposefully began my days with at least an hour of quiet, not letting myself get distracted by things outside myself. I then let any feelings come that I may have been surpressing, I might cry for a while or write about what's going on with me.After I finish, I let myself know that I am loved, and forgive myself as well as those who may have offended me( I also extend loving wishes their way). Throughout my days if any anxious/fearful/anger filled thoughts come my way, I let those go and focus on what is going on at the moment (doing dishes for example). ~peace, Beth Let none find fault with others; let none see the omissions and commissions of others. But let one see one's own acts, done and undone. Dhammapada 4:50 18160 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 6:09am Subject: Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no. 6 Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no. 6 We read in the Commentary to the łBasket of Conduct˛, with regard to the łConduct of Dhamma the Devaputta˛2 that the Bodhisatta was born as the Devaputta (son of a Deva) Dhamma and Devadatta as Adhamma. Dhamma would on Uposatha days (vigil days) appear among men and propagate what was right, the ten wholesome deeds, whereas Adhamma propagated the ten evil actions. One day their two chariots met in mid-air, and they each claimed the right of way. We read in the łDhamma Jĺtaka˛(no. 457) which gives the same story, that Adhamma said to Dhamma, while comparing himself with iron, and Dhamma Devaputta with gold: łBy iron gold is beaten, nor do we Gold used for beating iron ever see: If Wrong agains Right shall win the fight today, Iron as beautiful as gold will be.˛ We read in the Jataka that Dhamma answerd with the stanza: łIf you indeed are mighty in the fray, Though neither good nor wise is what you say, Swallow I will all these your evil words; And willy nilly will make your way.˛ Dhamma did not want to give in to anger, and, according to the Commentary, he aroused patience, loving-kindness and compassion. He gave Adhamma the right of way, but the earth formed a fissure and swallowed Adhamma. As we read, Adhamma could kill Dhamma, just as iron can beat gold, whereas gold cannot beat iron. People who are on the side of Adhamma, who are wrong, think that they are like iron, but that they can make iron appear as beautiful as gold, thus, they make it appear that akusala is better than kusala. When someone has done wrong, and he is blamed by society, what are we thinking about this? If we believe that we should help to join in blaming that person, we consider at such a moment adhamma to be better than dhamma. When we join in blaming another person again and again, we are on the side of adhamma, not of dhamma. If we are on the side of dhamma, sati-sampajańńa can be aware, and there can be loving-kindness and patience, we can refrain from blaming, so that we do not condition the increase of akusala and anger. As we read, Dhamma answered that he would have patience and endure the coarse speech of Adhamma. Footnote 2. See Jataka no. 457, Dhamma Jataka. I have added the contents of the story as told in this Jataka and also the stanzas. In the Commentary to the łBasket of Conduct˛ the word silver is used instead of gold. It is said: łBy iron silver is beaten˛... 18161 From: nidive Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 6:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Dear Howard, > Exactly what is meant by "attained jhana"? Is it not so that path > consciousness is attained at least the level of the first jhana? > Henepola Gunaratana has written the following, copied from > ATI: This is my understanding ... > "The supramundane paths and fruits always arise as states of > jhanic consciousness. They occur as states of jhana because they > contain within themselves the jhana factors elevated to an > intensity corresponding to that of the jhana factors in the > mundane jhanas. Jhana factors is different from jhana itself. Jhana factors is cetasikas, while jhana itself is a citta. The supramundane paths and fruits are lokuttara-cittas and not jhana- cittas, although jhana factors (cetasikas) are present within the supramundane paths and fruits. "Arising as states of jhanic consciousness" must be interpreted in the sense that cetasikas present in jhana are also present in the supramundane paths and fruits. So an ariyan may have mastered lokuttara-cittas, but may not have mastered jhana-cittas at all. > Thus, an ariyan would have had to have attained at least the first > jhana at least once, no? The answer is a categorical NO. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18162 From: Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 2:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 12/25/02 9:59:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Dear Howard, > > >Exactly what is meant by "attained jhana"? Is it not so that path > >consciousness is attained at least the level of the first jhana? > >Henepola Gunaratana has written the following, copied from > >ATI: > > This is my understanding ... > > >"The supramundane paths and fruits always arise as states of > >jhanic consciousness. They occur as states of jhana because they > >contain within themselves the jhana factors elevated to an > >intensity corresponding to that of the jhana factors in the > >mundane jhanas. > > Jhana factors is different from jhana itself. Jhana factors is > cetasikas, while jhana itself is a citta. > > The supramundane paths and fruits are lokuttara-cittas and not jhana- > cittas, although jhana factors (cetasikas) are present within the > supramundane paths and fruits. > > "Arising as states of jhanic consciousness" must be interpreted in > the sense that cetasikas present in jhana are also present in the > supramundane paths and fruits. > > So an ariyan may have mastered lokuttara-cittas, but may not have > mastered jhana-cittas at all. > > >Thus, an ariyan would have had to have attained at least the first > >jhana at least once, no? > > The answer is a categorical NO. > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > > > > ================================= I understand your point, and I find it well made. However, I am not clear how to distinguish attaining all the jhana factors - attaining all the characteristics/functions of a jhana, from attaining the jhana itself. What is an absorptive state other than its functions and characteristics? In fact, what is any event other than its characteristics? For me, distinguishing an alleged essence/substance of something separate from or underlying the lakkhana of that "thing" is an instance of "painting legs on a snake". To make myself as specific as possible: What distinguishes, say, the first jhana from the characteristics of that jhana? When all the factors are present, the jhana is present. What is that jhana *other* than consciousness/discernment conditioned by those factors? 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) 18163 From: nidive Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 8:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 > What is an absorptive state other than its functions and > characteristics? In fact, what is any event other than its > characteristics? For me, distinguishing an alleged > essence/substance of something separate from or underlying the > lakkhana of that "thing" is an instance of "painting legs on a > snake". Let me give you an analogy... We have the four ultimate realities of rupa, citta, cetasika and nibbana in Abhidhamma. A characteristic of rupa is that it is anatta (not-self). A characteristic of citta is that it is anatta (not-self). A characteristic of cetasika is that it is anatta (not-self). A characteristic of nibbana is that it is anatta (not-self). Then ... Is rupa equivalent to citta? Is rupa equivalent to cetasika? Is rupa equivalent to nibbana? Is citta equivalent to rupa? Is citta equivalent to cetasika? Is citta equivalent to nibbana? Is cetasika equivalent to rupa? Is cetasika equivalent to citta? Is cetasika equivalent to nibbana? Is nibbana equivalent to rupa? Is nibbana equivalent to citta? Is nibbana equivalent to cetasika? > To make myself as specific as possible: What distinguishes, say, > the first jhana from the characteristics of that jhana? When all > the factors are present, the jhana is present. What is that jhana > *other* than consciousness/discernment conditioned by those > factors? When you say this, I put the cause of it as not distinguishing what is citta and what is cetasika (through insight meditation). There must be ultimate understanding of what is consciousness (citta) and what is mental factors (cetasikas). Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18164 From: Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 4:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 12/25/02 11:29:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > >What is an absorptive state other than its functions and > >characteristics? In fact, what is any event other than its > >characteristics? For me, distinguishing an alleged > >essence/substance of something separate from or underlying the > >lakkhana of that "thing" is an instance of "painting legs on a > >snake". > > Let me give you an analogy... > > We have the four ultimate realities of rupa, citta, cetasika and > nibbana in Abhidhamma. > > A characteristic of rupa is that it is anatta (not-self). > A characteristic of citta is that it is anatta (not-self). > A characteristic of cetasika is that it is anatta (not-self). > A characteristic of nibbana is that it is anatta (not-self). > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: You have picked one characteristic, just one. Obviously there is no distinguishing to be done on the basis of a common characteristic, and you have chosen the universally common one. The question still remains of what there is to a "thing" or event other than its characteristics. (Also, as a side issue, with regard the anatta lakkhana, is it actually a characteristic or the absence of one?) ---------------------------------------------------- > > Then ... > > Is rupa equivalent to citta? Is rupa equivalent to cetasika? Is rupa > equivalent to nibbana? > > Is citta equivalent to rupa? Is citta equivalent to cetasika? Is > citta equivalent to nibbana? > > Is cetasika equivalent to rupa? Is cetasika equivalent to citta? Is > cetasika equivalent to nibbana? > > Is nibbana equivalent to rupa? Is nibbana equivalent to citta? Is > nibbana equivalent to cetasika? > ------------------------------------------ Howard: No. So? I still do not see an attmpted answer to my question. (Not that it is encumbant upon you to try to formulate one.) ------------------------------------------ > > > >To make myself as specific as possible: What distinguishes, say, > >the first jhana from the characteristics of that jhana? When all > >the factors are present, the jhana is present. What is that jhana > >*other* than consciousness/discernment conditioned by those > >factors? > > When you say this, I put the cause of it as not distinguishing what > is citta and what is cetasika (through insight meditation). > > > There must be ultimate understanding of what is consciousness > (citta) and what is mental factors (cetasikas). > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I do not get your point. There is no debate on my part that a jhanic state is a mental state consisting of the operations of discernment (vi~n~nana) together with various other (non-identical) concomitant operations and characteristics. I am *certainly* not excluding vi~n~nana from jhana. ;-) Vi~n~nana is the #1 aspect, not only of jhanic states but of all cognitive states. Perhaps I have mislead you in my use of the term 'characteristics'. To try avoid being misleading in that way, I also included in what I wrote at several points the terms 'functions' and 'operations'. My intent was to include all aspects, functional and descriptive, of an event/condition under the heading of 'charateristics'. When all these are "removed", there should be nothing left, and any alleged remainder would be an underlying secret essence/substance that is not evident and which I understand the Dhamma to teach as being nonexistent. ------------------------------------------------ > > Regards, > 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) 18165 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 10:49am Subject: [dsg] Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" > Hi James, > > From my understanding of the Suttas the differences between the > enlightenment of the Buddha and the Pakatisavaka have to do with discovering > the Dhamma without the teachings of a Buddha. Whereas the enlightenment of > the Arahant comes about from following the path laid out by a Buddha. The > Pakatisavaka is different from a Buddha in that they are not able to teach. > Within the Arahants there are also distinctions made on the way > enlightenment is achieved. For example released both ways, ie mastering all > levels of concentration as well as insight and those who do so without > mastering all the levels of concentration. Thus I think these > classifications have nothing to do with the defilements, but rather more to > do with how enlightenment was achieved and how well one can teach others > about the Dhamma. For example a Buddha can better teach than an Arahant > because he is able to know the inclinations of others thus can apply more > skillful means in teaching....Ray Ray, KKT, NEO, All, This is a plausible explanation, but it doesn't pan out. The Four Jhanas are the Four Jhanas, for everyone. The level of concentration that one has doesn't determine if one becomes enlightened. The Buddha had wonderful concentration before enlightenment but didn't become enlightened until he added discernment to the concentration and ended all mental fermentations (which aren't defilements I believe, but wrong views…am I correct? I don't know what fermentations are exactly and can't find a definition. Can someone help me here?). And the Buddha's classification of `released both ways' doesn't always apply to an arahant (but it can) as Ananda explained in the Ubhatobhaga Sutta: [Ananda:] "There is the case, my friend, where a monk, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He remains touching with his body in whatever way there is an opening there, and he knows it through discernment. It is to this extent that one is described in a sequential way by the Blessed One as released both ways. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an09-045.html So released both ways has to do with being `withdrawn' from sensuality and unskillful qualities (notice that withdrawn doesn't mean eliminated) and to enter at least the first Jhana of concentration (insight isn't necessarily included). And yes, the main difference between the Buddhas lies in the ability to teach, but I want to go deeper than that. Why can one teach and one cannot? Why is one able to know what is best for other people and one is not? Why is the quality of enlightenment greater for one than the other? The only thing that keeps coming to my mind is defilements. And this authors states that there is a difference in the quality of their enlightenment, according to the suttas. And this author is a huge authority on the Tipitaka. I will end with his credentials. I still would like to know what it is that makes this difference between the enlightened. It can't be concentration; and while it may be teaching, that isn't going deep enough to the underlying reason. Metta, James Ps. Happy Holidays!! Biography of S. U Silananda Education He received his early years' education at Kelly High School, an American Baptist Mission School for boys, in Mandalay. He had his religious education in Tipitaka (Buddhist Scriptures) under the guidance of his preceptor and many other renowned Sayadaws both in Sagaing Hills and in Mandalay. He took the religious examinations held by the Government of Burma (now Myanmar) and passed the Phatamange (1st Grade) in 1946, Phatamalat (2nd Grade) in 1947, and Phatamagyi (3rd Grade) in 1948. He attained the 1st position in the 2nd Grade in the whole of Burma and 2nd position in the 3rd Grade. He got the degree of Dhammacariya, Master of Dhamma, in 1950 and was awarded the title Sasanadhaja Siripavara Dhammacariya. In 1954 he attained another degree when he passed the examination held by Pariyattisasanahita Association in Mandalay which was renowned to be the most difficult examination in Burma. He duely got to add to his name the word "abhivamsa", hence his full name and title: U Silanandabhivamsa, Sasanadhaja Siripavara Dhammacariya and Pariyattisasanahita Dhammacariya. He went to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) in 1954 and while there passed the GCE Advanced Level Examination (General Certificate of Education Examination held by the University of London in Ceylon) with distinctions in Pali and Sanskrit. While he was in Ceylon he made a brief return to Burma and during that trip he practiced Vipassana meditation in Mahasi Sayadaw's tradition. Positions He taught as a lecturer at Atothokdayone Pali Unviersity in Sagaing Hills, Buddhist Scriptures, Pali, Sanskrit and Prakit languages at Abhayarama Shwegu Taik monastery, Mandalay and was an External Examiner at the Department of Oriental Studies, Arts and Science University, Mandalay for Bachelor's and Master's degrees. Sayadaw U Silananda was the Chief Compiler of the Tipitaka Pali- Burmese Dictionary and was one of the distinguished editors of the Pali Canon and the associated Commentaries at the Sixth Buddhist Council held at the Kaba Aye Hlaing Gu (World Peace Cave) in Rangoon (Yangon) from 1954 to 1956. Sayadaw U Silananda had a golden opportunity to work for Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw and Venerable Mingun Tipitaka Sayadaw. In 1960 he inherited the Mahavijjodaya Chaung monastery after the passing away of his preceptor and became the Abbot of that monastery. He moved to Abhyarama Shwegu Taik monastery, Mandalay in 1968, and in 1969 was appointed the Vice Abbot of that monastery. He is currently the Chief Abbot of that monastery. He was also appointed a member of the Executive Committee of Shwegyin Sect, and in 1993 became a Senior Member of that Sect. He participated at the meeting of Cleaning-up of the Sasana held at Hmawbi (50 miles from Yangon). In 1993, he was appointed a Member of the Advisory Board of Meditation Teachers of Mahasi Sasana Yeiktha in Yangon. Sayadaw was requested to be Rector of the International Theravada Buddhist Missionary University of Yangon in Myanmar (which opened in December, 1999).s 18166 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 0:24pm Subject: Apologies for Wrong View Hello All, Okay, I apologize. I was mistaken about defilements. They are completely eliminated in the enlightened. My wrong view of this matter was because I had seen the defilements as self, when they are really non-self. If they are not committed, they don't exist. Period, the end. The Buddha explains this in the Sallekha Sutta when he explains effacement (the process of removing the defilements completely). The sutta states: "But herein, Cunda, effacement should be practiced by you:[16] (1) others will be harmful; we shall not be harmful here -- thus effacement can be done.[17] (2) Others will kill living beings; we shall abstain from killing living beings here -- thus effacement can be done. (3) Others will take what is not given; we shall abstain from taking what is not given here -- thus effacement can be done. (4) Others will be unchaste; we shall be chaste here -- thus effacement can be done. (5) Others will speak falsehood; we shall abstain from false speech here -- thus effacement can be done. (6) Others win speak maliciously; we shall abstain from malicious speech here -- thus effacement can be done. (7) Others will speak harshly; we shall abstain from harsh speech here -- thus effacement can be done. (8) Others will gossip; we shall abstain from gossip here -- thus effacement can be done. (9) Others will be covetous; we shall not be covetous here -- thus effacement can be done. (10) Others will have thoughts of ill will; we shall not have thoughts of ill will here -- thus effacement can be done. (11) Others will have wrong views; we shall have right view here -- thus effacement can be done. (12) Others will have wrong intention; we shall have right intention here -- thus effacement can be done. (13) Others will use wrong speech; we shall use right speech here -- thus effacement can be done. (14) Others will commit wrong actions; we shall do right actions here -- thus effacement can be done. (15) Others will have wrong livelihood; we shall have right livelihood here -- thus effacement can be done. (16) Others will make wrong effort; we shall make right effort here - - thus effacement can be done. (17) Others will have wrong mindfulness; we shall have right mindfulness here -- thus effacement can be done. (18) Others will have wrong concentration; we shall have right concentration here -- thus effacement can be done. (19) Others will have wrong knowledge; we shall have right knowledge here -- thus effacement can be done. (20) Others will have wrong deliverance; we shall have right deliverance here -- thus effacement can be done. (21) Others will be overcome by sloth and torpor; we shall be free from sloth and torpor here -- thus effacement can be done. (22) Others will be agitated; we shall be unagitated here -- thus effacement can be done. (23) Others will be doubting; we shall be free from doubt here -- thus effacement can be done. (24) Others will be angry; we shall not be angry here -- thus effacement can be done. (25) Others will be hostile; we shall not be hostile here -- thus effacement can be done. (26) Others will denigrate; we shall not denigrate here -- thus effacement can be done. (27) Others will be domineering; we shall not be domineering here -- thus effacement can be done. (28) Others will be envious; we shall not be envious here -- thus effacement can be done. (29) Others will be jealous; we shall not be jealous here -- thus effacement can be done. (30) Others will be fraudulent; we shall not be fraudulent here -- thus effacement can be done. (31) Others will be hypocrites; we shall not be hypocrites here -- thus effacement can be done. (32) Others will be obstinate; we shall not be obstinate here -- thus effacement can be done. (33) Others will be arrogant; we shall not be arrogant here -- thus effacement can be done. (34) Others will be difficult to admonish; we shall be easy to admonish here -- thus effacement can be done. (35) Others will have bad friends; we shall have noble friends here - - thus effacement can be done. (36) Others will be negligent; we shall be heedful here -- thus effacement can be done. (37) Others will be faithless; we shall be faithful here -- thus effacement can be done. (38) Others will be shameless; we shall be shameful here -- thus effacement can be done. (39) Others will be without conscience; we shall have conscience here -- thus effacement can be done. (40) Others will have no learning; we shall be learned here -- thus effacement can be done. (41) Others will be idle; we shall be energetic here -- thus effacement can be done. (42) Others will be lacking in mindfulness; we shall be established in mindfulness here -- thus effacement can be done. (43) Others will be without wisdom; we shall be endowed with wisdom - - thus effacement can be done. (44) Others will misapprehend according to their individual views, hold on to them tenaciously and not easily discard them;[18] we shall not misapprehend according to individual views nor hold on to them tenaciously, but shall discard them with ease -- thus effacement can be done. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel061.html This doesn't explain why the quality of enlightenment can be different for different people, but I will leave that alone until I need to worry about it ;-). Metta, James 18167 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 0:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mara No More James wrote: And the Buddha's classification of `released both ways' doesn't always apply to an arahant (but it can) as Ananda explained in the Ubhatobhaga Sutta: [Ananda:] "There is the case, my friend, where a monk, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He remains touching with his body in whatever way there is an opening there, and he knows it through discernment. It is to this extent that one is described in a sequential way by the Blessed One as released both ways. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an09-045.html So released both ways has to do with being `withdrawn' from sensuality and unskillful qualities (notice that withdrawn doesn't mean eliminated) and to enter at least the first Jhana of concentration (insight isn't necessarily included). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ James I think you have misinterpreted this Sutta. The withthdrawn from unskillful qualities and sensuality are conditions that are necessary to enter into the first Jhana. The released both ways refers to obtaining the Jhana and "..remains touching with his body in whatever way there is an opening there, and he knows it through discernment." which I think refers to the application of insight. You will notice that in the second paragraph it says.... ""Furthermore, with the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. He remains touching with his body in whatever way there is an opening there, and he knows it through discernment. It is to this extent that one is described in a sequential way by the Blessed One as released both ways. " Here the stilling of directed thought and evaluation are mentioned because they are the condition for the arising of the second Jhana. For each of the other Jhanas the condition for arising is mentioned, and the last paragraph for the more subtle dimensions. You will notice that what they all have in common is the line about discernment.....Ray 18168 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 1:47pm Subject: Prophetic tradition within Buddhism Dear Group, In the Jataka Tales vol i (77) 'Mahasupina-Jataka' the sixteen dreams of King Pasenadi are clarified by the Buddha. Each time he makes a comment to the King along the lines of, "Sire, that dream shall have no issue in your days or in mine....." "This dream too shall have its fulfilment only in days to come ..." "Here again the dream shall not have its fulfilment until the future, in the days of unrighteous kins ..." Is there any support in the Suttas for the belief that these dreams were prophetic dreams about a future time, and that some of the dreams could relate to events in this time period? Is there a prophetic tradition within Buddhism? metta, Christine 18169 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 2:08pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > James I think you have misinterpreted this Sutta. The withthdrawn from > unskillful qualities and sensuality are conditions that are necessary to > enter into the first Jhana. The released both ways refers to obtaining the > Jhana and "..remains touching with his body in whatever way there is an > opening there, and he knows it through discernment." which I think refers to > the application of insight. You will notice that in the second paragraph it > says.... > > ""Furthermore, with the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters > & remains in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana... the > dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of > consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither > perception nor non-perception. He remains touching with his body in whatever > way there is an opening there, and he knows it through discernment. It is to > this extent that one is described in a sequential way by the Blessed One as > released both ways. " > > Here the stilling of directed thought and evaluation are mentioned because > they are the condition for the arising of the second Jhana. For each of the > other Jhanas the condition for arising is mentioned, and the last paragraph > for the more subtle dimensions. You will notice that what they all have in > common is the line about discernment.....Ray Ray, Thank you. Yes, you are quite correct; I did miss that line about discernment. So `released both ways' does include insight. My apologies (I wonder what it means by `openings' in the body? Hmmm… do you know?) However, the term `released both ways' doesn't apply exclusively to the arahant who has achieved the final and fourth stage of Supermundane Jhana. The Buddha used that phrase for each of the stages, as Ananda explains, so it doesn't apply exclusively to arahants. Again, I am left with no explanation as to the differences between the enlightened. Somebody help me if you know the explanation. Metta, James 18170 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 2:12pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Mara No More Hi James, Ray and All, You may find it of interest to to read 'Qualities of Ariya Persons' at: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/ariyas4.htm The links at the foot of the page are interesting as well...."From Puthujjana to the Buddha" and "Ariyas (Noble Persons)" metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" > wrote: > > James I think you have misinterpreted this Sutta. The > withthdrawn from > > unskillful qualities and sensuality are conditions that are > necessary to > > enter into the first Jhana. The released both ways refers to > obtaining the > > Jhana and "..remains touching with his body in whatever way there > is an > > opening there, and he knows it through discernment." which I think > refers to > > the application of insight. You will notice that in the second > paragraph it > > says.... > > > > ""Furthermore, with the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, > he enters > > & remains in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth > jhana... the > > dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the > infinitude of > > consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of > neither > > perception nor non-perception. He remains touching with his body > in whatever > > way there is an opening there, and he knows it through > discernment. It is to > > this extent that one is described in a sequential way by the > Blessed One as > > released both ways. " > > > > Here the stilling of directed thought and evaluation are > mentioned because > > they are the condition for the arising of the second Jhana. For > each of the > > other Jhanas the condition for arising is mentioned, and the last > paragraph > > for the more subtle dimensions. You will notice that what they all > have in > > common is the line about discernment.....Ray > > Ray, > > Thank you. Yes, you are quite correct; I did miss that line about > discernment. So `released both ways' does include insight. My > apologies (I wonder what it means by `openings' in the body? Hmmm… > do you know?) However, the term `released both ways' doesn't apply > exclusively to the arahant who has achieved the final and fourth > stage of Supermundane Jhana. The Buddha used that phrase for each > of the stages, as Ananda explains, so it doesn't apply exclusively > to arahants. > > Again, I am left with no explanation as to the differences between > the enlightened. Somebody help me if you know the explanation. > > Metta, James 18171 From: peterdac4298 Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 3:58pm Subject: Back again. Hi anyone who can still remember me. Yahoo have finally let me back in again. Cheers Peter 18172 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 4:04pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi James, Ray and All, > > You may find it of interest to to read 'Qualities of Ariya Persons' > at: > http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/ariyas4.htm > > The links at the foot of the page are interesting as well...."From > Puthujjana to the Buddha" and > "Ariyas (Noble Persons)" > > > > metta, > Christine > Christine and All, Thanks!! This site is invaluable. I have book marked it. However, it has answered one question for me but raised another. This is a question I have held for a long time. Was the Buddha omniscient? Did he know absolutely everything there is to know? Which is related to your other post, Christine, about prophecy in Buddhism. This site that you refer to describes the difference between a Buddha and Silent Buddha and Arahant with this quality: "Sabbanuta Nana that will enable him to know all there is to know". So the Buddha was supposed to know all that there is to know. If that is the case, could someone explain this sutta to me where the Buddha doesn't know something and is pondering it: "I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Kosalans in a wilderness hut in a Himalayan district. Then, as he was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in his awareness: "Is it possible to exercise rulership without killing or causing others to kill, without confiscating or causing others to confiscate, without sorrowing or causing others sorrow -- righteously?" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn04-020.html Now, I would not say that this kind of question is unanswerable. The Tao Te Ching goes into great detail of how to be a ruler without killing, confiscating, or causing sorrow. Why didn't the Buddha know this information? Isn't this something that an omniscient person would know? BTW, my goal is not to discredit the Buddha with this line of questioning I have been doing lately, I highly respect the Buddha more than anything else in the world (I got the book 'the buddha; writings on the enlightened one' edited by tom morgan and photographs by glen allison [BEAUTIFUL!!] and a wooden Buddha statue from Indonesia for Christmas...how ironic and telling :-). And I don't think there is anything wrong with asking uncomfortable questions about the Buddha. Metta, James Happy Holidays Christine!! :-)) 18173 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 4:06pm Subject: Re: Back again. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Hi anyone who can still remember me. Yahoo have finally let me back > in again. > > Cheers > Peter Hi Peter, Of course I remember you! Welcome back to the rest of us Yahoos :-)! Metta, James 18174 From: Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 11:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mara No More Hi, James (and Christine) - With regard to your question of whether the Buddha was omniscient or not, I have a couple thoughts: 1) I have read somewhere that the Buddha did not have all information about all things at all times, but that he could come to know the facts of anything by turning his mind towards it. Maybe so. Maybe not. How can we know? And if we come to know this one way or another, why is it important? 2) There is the following important sense in which the Buddha knew "everything": He knew directly and completely the ultimate nature of all things - their impermanence, their unsatisfyingness, their insubstantiality and impersonality and dependently arisen nature. The Buddha knew the difference between what is real and what is imagined, completely and without flaw. This is the highest omniscience - actually, the only omniscience that really counts and has salvific value. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/25/02 7:05:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > " wrote: > >Hi James, Ray and All, > > > >You may find it of interest to to read 'Qualities of Ariya > Persons' > >at: > >http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/ariyas4.htm > > > >The links at the foot of the page are interesting as well...."From > >Puthujjana to the Buddha" and > >"Ariyas (Noble Persons)" > > > > > > > >metta, > >Christine > > > > Christine and All, > > Thanks!! This site is invaluable. I have book marked it. However, > it has answered one question for me but raised another. This is a > question I have held for a long time. Was the Buddha omniscient? > Did he know absolutely everything there is to know? Which is > related to your other post, Christine, about prophecy in Buddhism. > > This site that you refer to describes the difference between a > Buddha and Silent Buddha and Arahant with this quality: "Sabbanuta > Nana that will enable him to know all there is to know". So the > Buddha was supposed to know all that there is to know. If that is > the case, could someone explain this sutta to me where the Buddha > doesn't know something and is pondering it: > > "I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying among > the Kosalans in a wilderness hut in a Himalayan district. Then, as > he was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in his > awareness: "Is it possible to exercise rulership without killing or > causing others to kill, without confiscating or causing others to > confiscate, without sorrowing or causing others sorrow -- > righteously?" > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn04-020.html > > Now, I would not say that this kind of question is unanswerable. > The Tao Te Ching goes into great detail of how to be a ruler without > killing, confiscating, or causing sorrow. Why didn't the Buddha > know this information? Isn't this something that an omniscient > person would know? > > BTW, my goal is not to discredit the Buddha with this line of > questioning I have been doing lately, I highly respect the Buddha > more than anything else in the world (I got the book 'the buddha; > writings on the enlightened one' edited by tom morgan and > photographs by glen allison [BEAUTIFUL!!] and a wooden Buddha statue > from Indonesia for Christmas...how ironic and telling :-). And I > don't think there is anything wrong with asking uncomfortable > questions about the Buddha. > > Metta, James > > Happy Holidays 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) 18175 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 4:36pm Subject: Re: Back again. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Hi anyone who can still remember me. Yahoo have finally let me back > in again. > > Cheers > Peter Also, Peter, I just looked in the Photos section and I don't see your photo. Why not? Everyone, if you have a photo of yourself but you don't have access to a scanner, you can mail the photo to me and I will scan it for you and post it to the Photos section with whatever caption you would like. Also, I can e-mail the photo to you first for your approval. Additionally, I am Certified in Photoshop and can make anyone look years younger or thinner! :-). You can mail photos to: James Mitchell 5337 N. Questa Tierra Dr. Phoenix, AZ 85021 USA (Not my residence, so mail bombs or anthrax would be a waste :-) I will pay the postage to mail the photo back to you. :-) Merry Christmas! Metta, James 18176 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 4:48pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James (and Christine) - > > With regard to your question of whether the Buddha was omniscient or > not, I have a couple thoughts: > 1) I have read somewhere that the Buddha did not have all information > about all things at all times, but that he could come to know the facts of > anything by turning his mind towards it. Maybe so. Maybe not. How can we > know? And if we come to know this one way or another, why is it important? Hi Howard, I would agree with this first idea you have. Rather than 'omniscient', I think the Buddha should be described as 'Selective Omniscient'. He could know anything if he put his mind to it. And this is important to me because I am Buddhist. I have taken refuge for the rest of my life in The Triple Gem. I want to know the nature and every detail of my life's purpose. Don't you? Metta, James 18177 From: nidive Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 4:49pm Subject: Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi Howard, > You have picked one characteristic, just one. Obviously there is > no distinguishing to be done on the basis of a common > characteristic, and you have chosen the universally common one. > The question still remains of what there is to a "thing" or event > other than its characteristics. Whether it is one or five or ten or hundred common characteristics, would that make a difference? Unless we find characteristics that are different between two events or things, you will never be convinced that the two are different! According to Helepola Gunaratana, (1) The mental factors of compassion and sympathetic joy cannot be present in the supramundane path but can be present in mundane jhana. (2) The three abstinences of wrong speech, wrong action and wrong livelihood are present in the supramundane path TOGETHER but not so in mundane jhana. (3) In mundane jhana, immoral actions are merely inhibited. In the supramundane path, tendencies for immoral actions are totally destroyed. (4) Three new faculties of knowledge are present in the supramundane path: (a) I shall know the unknown. (b) Final knowledge. (c) Completion of final knowledge. Not so in mundane jhana. (5) Mundane jhana has a conceptual entity as object. The supramundane path has only nibbana as object. How does that convince you? I don't think it will convince you much. If I just quote one difference, would you be convinced? Is using characteristics as a way to understand things or events appropriate? > (Also, as a side issue, with regard the anatta lakkhana, is it > actually a characteristic or the absence of one?) It is a characteristic. > No. So? I still do not see an attmpted answer to my question. (Not > that it is encumbant upon you to try to formulate one.) Some questions need not be answered. If you think my advice is ill- formed, let it be. But I know consciousness as consciouness and mental factors as mental factors. They are different. I have no delusion about them. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18178 From: Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 5:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Hi KC, Let's agree that nothing is settled and more understanding is needed. Good luck on your exams. Larry 18179 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 5:07pm Subject: Omniscience of Buddha[dsg] Re: Mara No More Dear James and all, Majjhima Nikaya 71 Tevijjavacchagotta Sutta 'To Vacchagotta on the Threefold True Knowledge' "Venerable sir, I have heard this: "The recluse Gotaka claims to be omniscient and all-seeing, to have complete knowledge and visiion thus: "Whether I am walking or standing or sleeping or awake, knowledge and vision are continuously and uninterruptedly present to me." Venerable sir, do those who speak thus say what has been said by the Blessed One, and not misrepresent him with what is contrary to fact? Do they explain in accordance with the Dhamma in such a way that nothing which provides a ground for censure can be legitimatelly deduced fromtheir assertion?" "Vaccha, those who say thus do not say what has been said by me, but misrepresent me with what is untrue and contrary to fact." note 714 says: MA explains that even though part of the statement is valid, the Buddha rejects the entire statementbecause of the portion that is invalid. The part of the statement that is valid is the assertion that the Buddha is omniscient and all-seeing; the part that is excessive is the assertion that knowledge and vision are continuously present to him. According to the Theravada tradition the Buddha is omniscient in the sense that all knowable things are potentially accessible to him. He cannot, however, know everything simultaneously and must advert to whatever he wishes to know. At MN 90.8 the Buddha says that it is possible to know and see all, though not simultaneously, and at AN 4.24/ii.24 he claims to know all that can be seen, heard, sensed, and cognised, which is understood by the Theravada tradition as an assertion of omniscience in the qualified sense. See too in this connection Miln 102-7. -------------------------- Majjhima Nikaya 90 Kannakatthala Sutta 'At Kannakatthala' 5. "Then King Pasenadi of Kosala said to the Blessed One: 'Venerable sir, I have heard this: 'The recluse Gotama says "There is no recluse or brahmin who is omniscient and all-seeing, who can claim to have complete knowledge and vision; that is not possible." 'Venerable sir, do those who speak thus say what has been said by the Blessed One, and not misrepresent him with what is contrary to fact? Do they explain in accordance with the Dhamma in such a way that nothing that provides a ground for censure can be legitimately deduced from their assertions?" "Great King, those who speak thus do not say what has been said by me, but misrepresent me with what is untrue and contrary to fact." <<<<>>>>> "I recall having actually made the utterance in this way, great king. 'There is no recluse or brahmin who knows all, who sees all, simultaneously; that is not possible'. note 846 says: MA: There is no one who can know and see all - past, present and future - withone act of mental adverting, with one act of consciousness; thus this problem is discussed in terms of a single act of consciousness (ekacitta). On the question of the kind of omniscience the Theravada tradition attributes to the Buddha, see n. 714 above. Careful James!!! I think this is the Abhidhamma-in-disguise creeping up on us!! :-) :-) Happy holidays to you too! ------------------------------ metta, Christine p.s Peter - So glad you found your way home Peter!! :-) (Do you owe us any posts [or any other little thing?]) C. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, James (and Christine) - > > > > With regard to your question of whether the Buddha was > omniscient or > > not, I have a couple thoughts: > > 1) I have read somewhere that the Buddha did not have all > information > > about all things at all times, but that he could come to know the > facts of > > anything by turning his mind towards it. Maybe so. Maybe not. How > can we > > know? And if we come to know this one way or another, why is it > important? > > Hi Howard, > > I would agree with this first idea you have. Rather > than 'omniscient', I think the Buddha should be described > as 'Selective Omniscient'. He could know anything if he put his > mind to it. > > And this is important to me because I am Buddhist. I have taken > refuge for the rest of my life in The Triple Gem. I want to know > the nature and every detail of my life's purpose. Don't you? > > Metta, James 18180 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 5:31pm Subject: Omniscience of Buddha[dsg] Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > Careful James!!! I think this is the Abhidhamma-in-disguise creeping > up on us!! :-) :-) Happy holidays to you too! > > ------------------------------ > > metta, > > Christine Uhhh Ohhh! Thanks for the reminder, Christine. I guess Howard it right, I am wanting to know inconsequential things. Stick to the basics and the rest will sort itself out!! :-) Metta, James 18181 From: Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 0:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mara No More Hi, James - In a message dated 12/25/02 7:49:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, James (and Christine) - > > > > With regard to your question of whether the Buddha was > omniscient or > >not, I have a couple thoughts: > > 1) I have read somewhere that the Buddha did not have all > information > >about all things at all times, but that he could come to know the > facts of > >anything by turning his mind towards it. Maybe so. Maybe not. How > can we > >know? And if we come to know this one way or another, why is it > important? > > Hi Howard, > > I would agree with this first idea you have. Rather > than 'omniscient', I think the Buddha should be described > as 'Selective Omniscient'. He could know anything if he put his > mind to it. > > And this is important to me because I am Buddhist. I have taken > refuge for the rest of my life in The Triple Gem. I want to know > the nature and every detail of my life's purpose. Don't you? > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, the 2nd part of my post showed what I think is of true importance. To paraphrase, what I said is that knowing directly and completely the ultimate nature of all things - their impermanence, their unsatisfyingness, their insubstantiality and impersonality and dependently arisen nature is the only "knowing" of ultimate importance - knowing the difference between what is real and what is imagined, and knowing it completely and without flaw. That is the highest omniscience - actually, the only omniscience that really counts and has salvific value. Knowlege about many things may be useful for many purposes. But there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. The first is useful, the 2nd is critical. The Buddha said that what he knew was like all the leaves of all the trees in the forest, but that what he taught, what was useful for the ultimate goal, was a mere handful of leaves. It is that handful that is important to me, because that leads to insight, lovingkindness, and freedom. To answer specifically - no, I don't feel the need to know every idiosyncratic detail of my life and its events. Also, I'm not at all sure that I attach much meaning to the notion of "purpose of life". What I *value* most highly in my life are love, compassion, and joy for my fellow sojourners and myself, and the possibility, a possibility I truly believe in, of full awakening and peace for myself and all other sentient beings. I require no other fundamental "purpose" to life. ---------------------------------------------------- > 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) 18182 From: Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 1:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi, Swee Boon - Okay. My point was that jhana or anything else is nothing beyond its aspects/characteristics. You seem to be accepting that in this post. You are close to showing in this post, by analysis of characteristics, that what is normally called "jhana" is subsumed and superceded by supermundane path consciousness. To me, this makes supermundane path consciousness "jhana plus". However, there is one point that you make that I think is very important. Mundane jhana takes a conventional object - usually a concept, whereas path consciousness has nibbana as object. That, it seems to me, is the critical difference. But this still leaves path consciousness as jhanic - a "higher" jhana. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/25/02 7:50:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > >You have picked one characteristic, just one. Obviously there is > >no distinguishing to be done on the basis of a common > >characteristic, and you have chosen the universally common one. > >The question still remains of what there is to a "thing" or event > >other than its characteristics. > > Whether it is one or five or ten or hundred common characteristics, > would that make a difference? > > Unless we find characteristics that are different between two events > or things, you will never be convinced that the two are different! > > According to Helepola Gunaratana, > > (1) The mental factors of compassion and sympathetic joy cannot be > present in the supramundane path but can be present in mundane jhana. > > (2) The three abstinences of wrong speech, wrong action and wrong > livelihood are present in the supramundane path TOGETHER but not so > in mundane jhana. > > (3) In mundane jhana, immoral actions are merely inhibited. In the > supramundane path, tendencies for immoral actions are totally > destroyed. > > (4) Three new faculties of knowledge are present in the supramundane > path: (a) I shall know the unknown. (b) Final knowledge. (c) > Completion of final knowledge. Not so in mundane jhana. > > (5) Mundane jhana has a conceptual entity as object. The > supramundane path has only nibbana as object. > > > How does that convince you? I don't think it will convince you much. > If I just quote one difference, would you be convinced? Is using > characteristics as a way to understand things or events appropriate? > > > >(Also, as a side issue, with regard the anatta lakkhana, is it > >actually a characteristic or the absence of one?) > > It is a characteristic. > > > >No. So? I still do not see an attmpted answer to my question. (Not > >that it is encumbant upon you to try to formulate one.) > > Some questions need not be answered. If you think my advice is ill- > formed, let it be. But I know consciousness as consciouness and > mental factors as mental factors. They are different. I have no > delusion about them. > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > /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) 18183 From: chase8383 Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 6:53pm Subject: Re: Are these two teachings the same? Hi Christine From your post: "In his booklet on Dependent Origination, Ven P.A. Payutto also mentions the whole cycle of Dependent Origination occurring within one mind moment ... "The description of Dependent Origination given in the previous chapter is that most often found in the scriptures and commentaries. It seeks to explain Dependent Origination in terms of the samsaravatta, the round of rebirth, showing the connections between three lifetimes -- the past, the present and the future. Those who do not agree with this interpretation, or who would prefer something more immediate, can find alternatives not only in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, where the principle of Dependent Origination is shown occurring in its entirety in one mind moment..." Well , "in one mind moment" is exactly how I see it. However, I have a problem, I can't explain myself without going too far into Dzogchen. Which is off limits But I'll figure a way. The whole reason I'm in this club is to improve my discipline. BTW, thanks for the links. Be spacious, David 18184 From: Sarah Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 8:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Back again. Hi Peter, --- "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Hi anyone who can still remember me. Yahoo have finally let me back > in again. ..... I think I hadn't appreciated that yahoo have their own penalty system for dealing with those who think they can out-smart them and have the last word (I noticed with all 'those' messages that you somehow managed to have your last line at the bottom of the page below their last line.....a warning to others from yahoo perhaps;-)). Anyway, we took it all in our stride on DSG with hardly a hiccup and will be very glad to see you back in full action. Christine sounds like she's preparing a post on 'those womenfolk' and I'm sure you'll be able to add some well-considered and balanced comments too. James, many thanks for your great offer and contribution to the Album team. I'm sure Chris will be co-opting you and giving you an impressive title in no time. Now all anyone has to do is to got to a photo-booth, pop the pic in an envelope and post it to James. Gets easier and easier..... Sarah ======= 18185 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 8:36pm Subject: Fwd: Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup [Here is a hello message received from one of our new members. Ram, welcome to the list, and apologies for omitting to inform you of the email address for posts to the list -- Jon] Hi Every body, I'm a Sri Lankan born Buddhist following the path of Theravada. I have done some meditation & am in the process of learning the Thripitaka through a Dhamma discussion group. Just here to get an idea about the Buddhists of cyberspace who come from many countries, cultures & Buddhist traditions. At the moment, I Believe strongly in the Thripitaka but am open (to some extent) to the other traditions & am exploring/practicing concepts such as 'seela samadhi panna' & 'dana seela bavana'. I was introduced to this group, by a friend in Dhamma, whom I’ve met in another Dhamma group. May you all be well & happy Ram --- dhammastudygroup Moderator wrote: > > Dear Dhamma Friend, > > Welcome to the group. > > We hope you will take part in and benefit from the exchange of views here. > > All new members are invited to consider posting a short ‘Hello’. Other members would be > interested to know something about you, your interest in Buddhism and how you found your way > here! > > Wishing you progress in the dhamma > > Sarah and Jonothan Abbott > (Moderators) 18186 From: rahula_80 Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 8:55pm Subject: Christmas Hi, Do Buddhist celebrate Christmas? I have seen some who do? isn't this wrong for those who took refuge in the Triple Gem? Secondly, I have seen Buddhist ?? (they did prostration to the Buddha image) who wear a neklace with the Cross. Isn't this wrong? [If you need evidence, please see "Eastern Horizon" Sept - Dec 2002 Issue No. 9 (this is a Buddhist magazine publish in Malaysia) page 14- 20. It was an interview with a Buddhist, Ivana M. Gruberova. The pictures of her show her wearing a neklace with the Cross.] Thanks, Rahula 18187 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 9:45pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > Hi Howard, I replied to your post in-text: Well, the 2nd part of my post showed what I think is of true importance. (James: I believe they are both equally important. They both go hand- in-hand. To know the difference between reality and delusion is to know everything--right? Once that key is turned, the door is opened. One has no choice but to go forward. Quite a responsibility to know everything isn't it? That deserves more respect than the Lord Buddha gets…and he, of course, didn't/doesn't care.) To paraphrase, what I said is that knowing directly and completely the ultimate nature of all things - their impermanence, their unsatisfyingness, their insubstantiality and impersonality and dependently arisen nature is the only "knowing" of ultimate importance - knowing the difference between what is real and what is imagined, and knowing it completely and without flaw. That is the highest omniscience - actually, the only omniscience that really counts and has salvific value. (James: I believe the word `salvific' is inappropriate when applied to Lord Buddha or his inherent wisdom. That word means someone, especially a male someone, who has the power to `save' and `redeem' people; i.e. Jesus Christ. Specifically, we are our own saviors; the Lord Buddha isn't going to save anyone. Additionally, wisdom isn't really comparable to omniscience. They are two entirely different things in my eyes. Is it accurate to say that the Buddha's wisdom was his `highest omniscience'? I know I am splitting hairs with word usage, forgive me, but incorrect word usage can have a snowball effect.) Knowlege about many things may be useful for many purposes. But there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. The first is useful, the 2nd is critical. The Buddha said that what he knew was like all the leaves of all the trees in the forest, but that what he taught, what was useful for the ultimate goal, was a mere handful of leaves. It is that handful that is important to me, because that leads to insight, lovingkindness, and freedom. To answer specifically - no, I don't feel the need to know every idiosyncratic detail of my life and its events. Also, I'm not at all sure that I attach much meaning to the notion of "purpose of life". What I *value* most highly in my life are love, compassion, and joy for my fellow sojourners and myself, and the possibility, a possibility I truly believe in, of full awakening and peace for myself and all other sentient beings. I require no other fundamental "purpose" to life. (James: I defer to your obviously deeper wisdom in this matter. Admittedly, I am like a young pup, eager to know all that I can know. I haven't grown to your level of understanding yet. Please be patient with my silly barks, squeals, and whining for the interim. ;-) Metta, James 18188 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 10:08pm Subject: Re: Christmas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rahula_80 " Hi Rahula, I replied to your post in-text: Hi, Do Buddhist celebrate Christmas? (James: I do, but I would rather not. And not because it is a celebration of Jesus Christ, if it was that I would celebrate it happily, since I am Buddhist and have no animosity toward other beliefs or religions, just like the Buddha didn't have any such feelings or positions against different religions in his time…[*hint* Rahula]…I am starting to dislike Christmas because it is becoming so commercial and materialistic. But Buddhist holidays celebrated at my temple are rather strange also. I guess a true Buddhist doesn't take stock in holidays or rituals. After all, they have no meaning really.) I have seen some who do? isn't this wrong for those who took refuge in the Triple Gem? (James: No, it isn't. Rituals have no meaning. What one believes in one's heart is the true symbol of faith.) Secondly, I have seen Buddhist ?? (they did prostration to the Buddha image) who wear a neklace with the Cross. Isn't this wrong? (James: No, this isn't wrong. I am happy that that Christian is open to Buddhism. The Buddha allowed followers of other faiths, even dog ascetics and ox ascetics, to join his sangha. He put them on a probationary period so that they could move from one set of beliefs to another. Who is to say that this person with the cross necklace bowing to the Buddha isn't doing the same? Maybe in her next life, or later in this life, she will abandon Christianity and fully embrace Buddhism. Buddhism meets people where they are, it doesn't try to drag them to where Buddhism thinks they should be.) [If you need evidence, please see "Eastern Horizon" Sept - Dec 2002 Issue No. 9 (this is a Buddhist magazine publish in Malaysia) page 14- 20. It was an interview with a Buddhist, Ivana M. Gruberova. The pictures of her show her wearing a neklace with the Cross.] (James: That necklace could have been a gift or was on sale. The cross means nothing anymore; even modern day vampires aren't scared of it!! ;-)) Thanks, Rahula Merry Christmas ;-), James 18189 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 10:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Howard and Swee Boon I have enjoyed very much following this exchange. I think Swee Boon was exactly right in highlighting the insight that distinguishes different kinds of dhammas. To my understanding, mundane jhana does not get subsumed or superceded by supramundane path consciousness. The best way I can express it is to say that the 2 are on different 'tracks'. Although they share a number of factors in common, the quality of the panna accompanying each is different. Supramundane path consciousness is the outcome of the development of the understanding of the true nature of dhammas (fundamental phenomena), namely, as anicca/dukkha/anatta. This development occurs by the gradual accrual of panna that has as its object the different individual dhammas (this is what is meant by insight/vipassana bhavana). Mundane jhana consciousness is the outcome of the development of the suppression of sense-door experiences (and consequently the suppression of the kilesas that are conditioned by these experiences) through concentration on a mental image (this is what is meant by tranquillity meditation/samatha bhavana). This also requires panna, since the concentration must be wholesome concentration, but it is panna of the level/kind that knows kusala moments from akusala moments, and sees the merit in excluding sense-door experiences that condition akusala (not the panna that sees dhammas as they truly are). So the development that leads to mundane jhana (i.e., samatha bhavana) is on a different track altogether from the development that leads to supramundane path consciousness (i.e., vipassana bhavana). Once the highest level of jhana has been attained, there is no further development possible on that 'track'. Nor is there any crossover from jhana to insight. The development of insight (vipassana bhavana) has its own set of prerequisites, and these differ from the factors that are prerequisites for samatha bhavana. The development of insight, however, subsumes all other forms of kusala, so that the concentration that is necessary for the supramundane path moments is developed along with the other path factors (energy, wisdom etc) at each moment of insight into the true nature of dhammas. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Swee Boon - > > Okay. My point was that jhana or anything else is nothing > beyond its > aspects/characteristics. You seem to be accepting that in this > post. > You are close to showing in this post, by analysis of > characteristics, > that what is normally called "jhana" is subsumed and superceded by > supermundane path consciousness. To me, this makes supermundane > path > consciousness "jhana plus". However, there is one point that you > make that I > think is very important. Mundane jhana takes a conventional object > - usually > a concept, whereas path consciousness has nibbana as object. That, > it seems > to me, is the critical difference. But this still leaves path > consciousness > as jhanic - a "higher" jhana. > > With metta, > Howard 18190 From: dotl Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 1:45am Subject: Hello from a new member Hello I am Dot from Queensland Australia and have been studying the Dhamma for quite some time now. I am fortunate to belong to a "sangha" where we meet once a month to share the Dhamma.We read a Sutta and discuss it using a copy of the Pali Canon as a reference. I am so happy to have been directed to this group..and I look forward to getting to know you all.. Love dotl 18191 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 2:07am Subject: Welcome Ram and Dot (Re: Hello from a new member) Hi Ram, and Dot, Ram - welcome to dsg List ... it is lovely to have another person from Sri Lanka here. Some other members also live there - Ranil, Sumane, and Nihal among them. In June, about ten of us from this List and a large number of Thai Dhamma friends visited Colombo and historical and holy places such as Anuradhapura, Dambulla, Polonnaruwa and Sigiriya and were fortunate to be able to meet up with our Sri Lankan Dhamma friends. I appreciated your telling (elsewhere) about those reciting the Dhamma before it was written down, even when physically weak during times of great drought, lying on the ground and continuing to recite and whisper the Dhamma to fellow monks so that it would be preserved for the benefit of many beings. We owe so very much to those who made such sacrifices and who were faithful unto death. Dot - great that you made it to dsg. Welcome. (The secret plans for the Aussie takeover of dsg are well underway. All we needed was an extra woman or two. :-)) A number of other members KenH, Andrew, and Steve, live north of Brisbane (Sunshine coast hinterland) - with Azita way up in Cairns. Looking forward to any posts you care to make, metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dotl" wrote: > Hello > I am Dot from Queensland Australia and have been studying the Dhamma for quite some time now. > I am fortunate to belong to a "sangha" where we meet once a month to share the Dhamma.We read a Sutta and discuss it using a copy of the Pali Canon as a reference. > I am so happy to have been directed to this group..and I look forward to getting to know you all.. > Love > dotl 18192 From: dotl Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 2:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Welcome Ram and Dot (Re: Hello from a new member) Thankyou Christine..it is good to see you here too! Love dotl 18193 From: Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 10:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mara No More Hi, James - We each muddle along as best we can in our practice and in our life. You may have a better grasp on many things, me on some, and other folks on much else. I wouldn't attempt to put my status, progress, understanding, or views up against those of anyone else. I'm just expressing how I see matters at the moment. The truth is the truth, regardless of how we see it, even regardless of whether Buddhas arise or not in the world! ;-)) I'll address just one point of yours. You wrote: "I believe the word `salvific' is inappropriate when applied to Lord Buddha or his inherent wisdom. That word means someone, especially a male someone, who has the power to `save' and `redeem' people; i.e. Jesus Christ. Specifically, we are our own saviors; the Lord Buddha isn't going to save anyone. Additionally, wisdom isn't really comparable to omniscience. They are two entirely different things in my eyes. Is it accurate to say that the Buddha's wisdom was his `highest omniscience'? I know I am splitting hairs with word usage, forgive me, but incorrect word usage can have a snowball effect." The word 'salvific' bothers you, I'm sure, due to your Christian background. The word, itself, carries no onus. My background is different, and the word raises no red flags with me. The word merely means having the power to save, and pa~n~na does have this power. What I said was that knowing directly and completely the ultimate nature of all things - their impermanence, their unsatisfyingness, their insubstantiality and impersonality and dependently arisen nature is the only "omniscience" that really counts and has salvific value. This is true. This wisdom is the diamond that cuts through the three poisons and opens the door to freedom. I rather like the word 'salvific'. I even like the word 'salvation'. I don't think that perfectly good words should be permitted to be co-opted by usages and traditions that we might feel some discomfort with. But I can well understand that these words could "go against you". Please know that no other-power, Buddha-is-my-savior sense was intended in what I wrote! ;-)) With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/26/02 12:46:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, James - > > > > Hi Howard, > > I replied to your post in-text: > > Well, the 2nd part of my post showed what I think is of true > importance. > > (James: I believe they are both equally important. They both go hand- > in-hand. To know the difference between reality and delusion is to > know everything--right? Once that key is turned, the door is > opened. One has no choice but to go forward. Quite a responsibility > to know everything isn't it? That deserves more respect than the > Lord Buddha gets…and he, of course, didn't/doesn't care.) > > To paraphrase, what I said is that knowing directly and > completely the ultimate nature of all things - their impermanence, > their unsatisfyingness, their insubstantiality and impersonality and > dependently arisen nature is the only "knowing" of ultimate > importance - knowing the difference between what is real and what is > imagined, and knowing it completely and without flaw. That is the > highest omniscience - actually, the only omniscience that really > counts and has salvific value. > > (James: I believe the word `salvific' is inappropriate when applied > to Lord Buddha or his inherent wisdom. That word means someone, > especially a male someone, who has the power to `save' and `redeem' > people; i.e. Jesus Christ. Specifically, we are our own saviors; the > Lord Buddha isn't going to save anyone. Additionally, wisdom isn't > really comparable to omniscience. They are two entirely different > things in my eyes. Is it accurate to say that the Buddha's wisdom > was his `highest omniscience'? I know I am splitting hairs with word > usage, forgive me, but incorrect word usage can have a snowball > effect.) > > > Knowlege about many things may be useful for many purposes. But there > is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. The first is useful, > the 2nd is critical. The Buddha said that what he knew was like all > the leaves of all the trees in the forest, but that what he taught, > what was useful for the ultimate goal, was a mere handful of leaves. > It is that handful that is important to me, because that leads to > insight, lovingkindness, and freedom. To answer specifically - no, I > don't feel the need to know every idiosyncratic detail of my life and > its events. Also, I'm not at all sure that I attach much meaning to > the notion of "purpose of life". What I *value* most highly in my > life are love, compassion, and joy for my fellow sojourners and > myself, and the possibility, a possibility I truly believe in, of > full awakening and peace for myself and all other sentient beings. I > require no other fundamental "purpose" to life. > > (James: I defer to your obviously deeper wisdom in this matter. > Admittedly, I am like a young pup, eager to know all that I can > know. I haven't grown to your level of understanding yet. Please be > patient with my silly barks, squeals, and whining for the interim. ;-) > > Metta, James > > /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) 18194 From: Sarah Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 3:28am Subject: vancaka (cheating) dhammas revisited Dear All, Some time ago, Gayan (also from Sri Lanka - pic in album) translated an interesting series of the vancaka dhammas (cheating dhammas.They refer to a series of wholesome states or dhammas, followed by unwholesome ones which can ‘disguise’ and be easily taken for the former. These are in the Useful Posts and these are the direct links: Cheating (vancaka) Dhammas 3543, 3544, 3545, 10517 In Gayan’s introduction, he wrote: ***** “written in 1947 In the preface the venerable says.. " There are 38 vangcaka dhammas are mentioned in netthippakarana atthakatha. But they are mentioned only namely. There are two tikas for the atthakatha but vangcaka dhammas are not mentioned in any of them." " These arise in a mind that has developed a certain disliking towards akusalas. The akusala dhammas disguise themselves according to the mind's 'tendency' or mentality. ( as the mud gets the shape of the object that pressed onto it.)" ***** Of interest to the discussion Christine and I are having on the term ‘samvega’(sense of urgency) is the following from the series in which cittasantapa ‘cheats’ as samvega: ***** QUOTE 29. samvega patirupataya cittasantapo vangceti samvega - the (g)nana that sees the dukkha in the world as a 'bhaya' and a danger cittasantapa - the sadness in the mind, on dukkhas in the life/s of oneself and others ( relatives, friends, ppl who have interest..) samvega is not associated with dosa . It is what triggers the search for truth and renunciation. citta santapa is an akusala associated with dosa. The check is to observe the situation on seeing the dukkhas faced by neutral beings. ***** Rob K’s response when this was posted (over 2yrs ago) was: “YES - many think they have samvega when really they are simply tired of life. A big difference.” ..... Those who weren’t around at the time, may find it useful to read through the other vancaka dhammas and raise any on list that particularly ring a bell;-) There were many bells ringing for me when Gayan first posted them. Gayan, if you’re around, it would be very nice to hear from you again..... Sarah p.s Christine, if you look at message 8269, you'll see Mike and Erik were also discussing samvega at one time. =================================== 18195 From: Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 10:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi, Jon - I do not question in the slightest that attaining, even mastering, the 8 jhanas is, by itself, inadequate for the final goal. I do think, however, that the following is somewhat overstated: "Once the highest level of jhana has been attained, there is no further development possible on that 'track'. Nor is there any crossover from jhana to insight." There is cross-over, but more is required to achieve it - it is not an automatic development from the jhanas. Using the jhanas as a foundation for vipassana bhavana, as a basis, stepping-off point, support, and cross-over point is the most classical approach, expressed again and again, most especially in the Majhima Nikaya. But, for sure, if the jhanas are attained but nothing more is done - specifically no investigation of reality, no intensified application of mindfulness and clear comprehension to arising and ceasing conditions, then no liberation follows; that is not even remotely in dispute by me. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/26/02 1:53:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard and Swee Boon > > I have enjoyed very much following this exchange. I think Swee Boon > was exactly right in highlighting the insight that distinguishes > different kinds of dhammas. > > To my understanding, mundane jhana does not get subsumed or > superceded by supramundane path consciousness. The best way I can > express it is to say that the 2 are on different 'tracks'. Although > they share a number of factors in common, the quality of the panna > accompanying each is different. > > Supramundane path consciousness is the outcome of the development of > the understanding of the true nature of dhammas (fundamental > phenomena), namely, as anicca/dukkha/anatta. This development occurs > by the gradual accrual of panna that has as its object the different > individual dhammas (this is what is meant by insight/vipassana > bhavana). > > Mundane jhana consciousness is the outcome of the development of the > suppression of sense-door experiences (and consequently the > suppression of the kilesas that are conditioned by these experiences) > through concentration on a mental image (this is what is meant by > tranquillity meditation/samatha bhavana). This also requires panna, > since the concentration must be wholesome concentration, but it is > panna of the level/kind that knows kusala moments from akusala > moments, and sees the merit in excluding sense-door experiences that > condition akusala (not the panna that sees dhammas as they truly > are). > > So the development that leads to mundane jhana (i.e., samatha > bhavana) is on a different track altogether from the development that > leads to supramundane path consciousness (i.e., vipassana bhavana). > Once the highest level of jhana has been attained, there is no > further development possible on that 'track'. Nor is there any > crossover from jhana to insight. The development of insight > (vipassana bhavana) has its own set of prerequisites, and these > differ from the factors that are prerequisites for samatha bhavana. > > The development of insight, however, subsumes all other forms of > kusala, so that the concentration that is necessary for the > supramundane path moments is developed along with the other path > factors (energy, wisdom etc) at each moment of insight into the true > nature of dhammas. > > Jon > /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) 18196 From: rahula_80 Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:21am Subject: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi, Many scholars (eg. Pande, Nakamura etc.) have claim that the Buddha never denied the existence of Self except that the 5 aggregates is NOT Self or should be identified as Self. Are they in error? Examples: The rendering given anattâ is misleading: thus "Body is soulless, mind is soulless..." But the word anattâ is not adjective, qualifying rűpa; it would then be anatta.m. The Pali is in the masculine singular: anattâ; this can only mean "not-the-Self (or soul)," or "not-one-who-has-a-self." Do you see the difference? Suppose a group of men, a staff and you seeking their master. You pass them in review saying what? Not "you and you and your are masterless," but "you and you are not the master." You would not imply, if none of them was master, that the master was non-existent! ? C. Rhys Davids, *A Manual of Buddhism*, 153// "The doctrine [of anatta/non soul] denies that there is in the physical or mental realms anything which may properly be called one's "self" since everywhere within them impermanence and dependence rule. This of itself does not mean the denial of all "self" whatever, but only of the phenomenality of the "Self". What is usually denied is that any of the khandhas may be the Attâ, not the existence of the Attâ as such" (Govind Chandra Pande , Studies in the Origins of Buddhism, 499). "Thus, in early Buddhism, they taught avoidance of a wrong comprehension of non-âtman [no-self] as a step to the real âtman [Self]. Of things not to be identified with the self, the misunderstanding of body as âtman is especially strong opposed. Foolish people comprehend their body as their possession. Buddhist of early days called this mis-comprehension "the notion on account of the attachment to the existence of one's body" (sakkâyadi.t.thi) and taught the abandonment of it."(Haijime Nakamura, Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples) "Atman [the self] is often referred to with the image of light (jyotis) inheriting the teachings of earlier Upani.sads. Atman is compared to light. The practice of Buddhism can be interpreted as the formation of the true self" (Nakamura, Indian Buddhism, 64). "The realization of the true Self was striven for. Buddhism did not deny the self as such, contrary to the general assumption by many scholars who tend to regard the theory of Non-Self as a sort of nihilism" (Nakamura, Indian Buddhism, 64). ====== Can anyone verify the following allegations: 1. TW Rhys Davids went "mad" while working on the PTS Pali English Dictionary which Stede had to finish for him because of his "mental breakdown". 2. CAF Rahys Davids herself declared her late husband "inept" in being fooled by monastic Theravada nihilism which comes from Sarvastivada Samkhya Atomism. 3. The perverse way Mrs. Rhys-Davis used the reflexive pronoun only crept into her work after 1917. By that time she had become mentally unbalanced after the tragic loss of her son in the war, and had fallen under the sway of spiritualism. This accounts for her need to make Buddhist texts support eternalist views. 4. Caroline Rhys Davids named her husband the "Max Muller of Buddhism" see http://serendib.org/coins/media/cdn_1998.07.15_rhys_davids.htm 18197 From: lbn1959 Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 8:27am Subject: test sorry .... 18198 From: nidive Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 9:35am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Dear Howard, > Okay. My point was that jhana or anything else is nothing beyond > its aspects/characteristics. You seem to be accepting that in this > post. No, you are mistaken. Consider the characteristics of nibbana described by the Buddha in these sample suttas from AccessToInsight: "This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." -- AN III.32 "There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress." -- Ud VIII.1 "There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. If there were not that unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated is discerned." Questions... (1) Why have you not realized nibbana given the characteristics of nibbana? (2) If you have not realized nibbana, then is the descriptions of the characteristics of nibbana given by the Buddha incomplete? (3) If it is incomplete, how do we know that the "nibbana" that we know is the same as that known by the Buddha? (4) If it is complete, why haven't you realized nibbana? After all, nibbana is nothing beyond what the Buddha had described. (5) What is the cause of characteristics? Does a ball know that it is round? Does nibbana know that it is anatta? What is a characteristic other than it is mind-made? (6) If a characteristic is mind-made, then a characteristic must be impermanent. If a characteristic is impermanent (existing only as being sustained by the mind), the characteristic must come to cease (pass away). If nibbana is nothing beyond its characteristics and all characteristics must come to cease (pass away), nibbana must come to cease (pass away) as well. (7) If nibbana must come to cease (pass away), how do I understand the characteristic of nibbana which is "neither passing away nor arising"? > You are close to showing in this post, by analysis of > characteristics, that what is normally called "jhana" is subsumed > and superceded by supermundane path consciousness. To me, this > makes supermundane path consciousness "jhana plus". No, not so. Your analysis is likened to holding a wedding banquet when there isn't a bride and a groom. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18199 From: James Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 9:58am Subject: Re: Anatta - View of some scholars --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rahula_80 " wrote: > Hi, > > Many scholars (eg. Pande, Nakamura etc.) have claim > that the Buddha never denied the existence of Self except that the 5 > aggregates is NOT Self or should be identified as Self. > > Are they in error? Hi Rhula, Nice collection of quotes. Good scholarship on your part. I will give my two cents worth about anatta since I have been studying it a bit also. These scholars are mistaken. They are assuming that the aggregates individually are not `the self', so perhaps the aggregates together could be considered `the self'. In other words, to use an example, they are saying that the Buddha, when talking about a house, said, "The door is not the house, the roof is not the house, the walls are not the house, the windows are not the house, etc." But the house does exist if you put them all together. So individually the aggregates are non-self, but maybe together they are self. This is not what the Buddha meant. Since each aggregate is non-self, even put together they should be non-self. BUUUTTTT….actually, the Buddha didn't want us to try to answer the question if we have a self or not. He just wanted us to view the aggregates as non-self and to not try to figure out if, when put together, they create a self. When he was asked this question directly, `Do we have a self', he refused to answer. He later explained to Ananda that to say we either do or don't have a self is wrong view and makes practice impossible. In other words, anatta cannot be figured out intellectually because its nature is beyond the scope of either existence or non-existence as we know them. Check out this article by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "No Self or Not Self?" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself2.html Take for example these words of the Buddha upon reaching enlightenment: Through the round of many births I roamed without reward, without rest, seeking the house-builder. Painful is birth again & again. House-builder, you're seen! You will not build a house again. All your rafters broken, the ridge pole destroyed, gone to the Unformed, the mind has come to the end of craving. I don't know about you, but I have no conceptual idea of what `the Unformed' could be. And I probably never could have a conceptual idea of it; I would just have to experience it. Thanks for raising this question. Anatta is a fascinating and endless subject. Metta, James ps. Someone sent me the introduction to a book that possibly describes someone who did have an 'Anatta' experience. Here is the text: THE POWER OF NOW by Eckhart Tolle Introduction I have little use for the past and rarely think about it; however, I would briefly like to tell you how I came to be a spiritual teacher and how this book came into existence. Until my thirtieth year, I lived in a state of almost continuous anxiety interspersed with periods of suicidal depression. It feels now as if I am talking about some past lifetime or somebody else's life. One night not long after my twenty-ninth birthday, I woke up in the early hours with a feeling of absolute dread. I had woken up with such a feeling many times before, but this time it was more intense than it had ever been. The silence of the night, the vague outlines of the furniture in the dark room, the distant noise of a passing train -- everything felt so alien, so hostile, and so utterly meaningless that it created in me a deep loathing of the world. The most loathsome thing of all, however, was my own existence. What was the point in continuing to live with this burden of misery? Why carry on with this continuous struggle? I could feel that a deep longing for annihilation, for nonexistence, was now becoming much stronger than the instinctive desire to continue to live. "I cannot live with myself any longer." This was the thought that kept repeating itself in my mind. Then suddenly I became aware of what a peculiar thought it was. "Am I one or two? If I cannot live with myself, there must be two of me: the 'I' and the 'self' that 'I' cannot live with." "Maybe," I thought, "only one of them is real." I was so stunned by this strange realization that my mind stopped. I was fully conscious, but there were no more thoughts. Then I felt drawn into what seemed like a vortex of energy. It was a slow movement at first and then accelerated. I was gripped by an intense fear, and my body started to shake. I heard the words "resist nothing," as if spoken inside my chest. I could feel myself being sucked into a void. It felt as if the void was inside myself rather than outside. Suddenly, there was no more fear, and I let myself fall into that void. I have no recollection of what happened after that. I was awakened by the chirping of a bird outside the window. I had never heard such a sound before. My eyes were still closed, and I saw the image of a precious diamond. Yes, if a diamond could make a sound, this is what it would be like. I opened my eyes. The first light of dawn was filtering through the curtains. Without any thought, I felt, I knew, that there is infinitely more to light than we realize. That soft luminosity filtering through the curtains was love itself. Tears came into my eyes. I got up and walked around the room. I recognized the room, and yet I knew that I had never truly seen it before. Everything was fresh and pristine, as if it had just come into existence. I picked up things, a pencil, an empty bottle, marveling at the beauty and aliveness of it all. That day I walked around the city in utter amazement at the miracle of life on earth, as if I had just been born into this world. For the next five months, I lived in a state of uninterrupted deep peace and bliss. After that, it diminished somewhat in intensity, or perhaps it just seemed to because it became my natural state. I could still function in the world, although I realized that nothing I ever DID could possibly add anything to what I already had. I knew, of course, that something profoundly significant had happened to me, but I didn't understand it at all. It wasn't until several years later, after I had read spiritual texts and spent time with spiritual teachers, that I realized that what everybody was looking for had already happened to me. I understood that the intense pressure of suffering that night must have forced my consciousness to withdraw from its identification with the unhappy and deeply fearful self, which is ultimately a fiction of the mind. This withdrawal must have been so complete that this false, suffering self immediately collapsed, just as if a plug had been pulled out of an inflatable toy. What was left then was my true nature as the ever-present I AM: consciousness in its pure state prior to identification with form. Later I also learned to go into that inner timeless and deathless realm that I had originally perceived as a void and remain fully conscious. I dwelt in states of such indescribable bliss and sacredness that even the original experience I just described pales in comparison. A time came when, for a while, I was left with nothing on the physical plane. I had no relationships, no job, no home, no socially defined identity. I spent almost two years sitting on park benches in a state of the most intense joy. But even the most beautiful experiences come and go . More fundamental, perhaps, than any experience is the undercurrent of peace that has never left me since then. Sometimes it is very strong, almost palpable, and others can feel it too . At other times, it is somewhere in the background, like a distant melody . Later, people would occasionally come up to me and say: "I want what you have. Can you give it to me, or show me how to get it?" And I would say: "You have it already. You just can't feel it because your mind is making too much noise." That answer later grew into the book that you are holding in your hands. Before I knew it, I had an external identity again. I had become a spiritual teacher. This book represents the essence of my work, as far as it can be conveyed in words, with individuals and small groups of spiritual seekers during the past ten years, in Europe and in North America. In deep love and appreciation, I would like to thank those exceptional people for their courage, their willingness to embrace inner change, their challenging questions, and their readiness to listen.