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 kiñci 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), B