18400 From: nidive Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 7:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Howard, > If the 12 pairs, together, are, indeed, as the sutta "The All" > states, all that there is, yet they are all conditioned and > nibbana is the unconditioned (so that nibbana cannot, as I said, > be among them) then there would appear to be an outright > contradiction. It is not to my understanding that the Buddha was teaching about conditionality in this sutta. There is no talk of conditionality here. And I agree with Kom that the translation "intellect and ideas" is a misfit. Kom has provided a very good explanation. In any case, if nibbana is not included in the "All", how do you explain the statement "would be unable to explain" from the sutta? Clearly, the Buddha was able to explain what nibbana is. He even taught the way to know or realize the Unconditioned. He was able to explain why there is the Unconditioned. "There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. If there were not that unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated is discerned." -- Ud VIII.3 To me, if nibbana is not included in the "All', the statement "would be unable to explain" would be an even 'greater contradiction' than the one you pointed out. Also, it is not to my understanding that the Buddha was griefed whenever he says: "This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." -- AN III.32 Is there any grounds for the Buddha to give the above description? Yes, by direct knowledge: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/likefire/2- 1.html Ananda: In what way, venerable sir, might a monk attain concentration of such a form that he would have neither the perception of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient? The Buddha: There is the case, Ananda, where he would be percipient of this: 'This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all mental processes; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; stopping; nibbana.' -- A X.6 It is to my understanding that whatever 'ultimate reality' that is neither rupa, nor citta, nor cetasika, nor nibbana cannot be described by virtue of it being non-existent (beyond range). So too, an arahant (who had gone parinibbana) cannot be described. Being neither rupa, nor citta, nor cetasika nor nibbana, such an arahant does not exist anymore, just like the flame that has been snuffed out does not exist anymore. Such an arahant cannot be described by virtue of being non-existent (beyond range). Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18401 From: nidive Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 8:00am Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi KKT, > KKT: What is the difference between your interpretation and > the << annihilationism, nothingness >> ? > Is it the << craving for non-existence >> (vibhava-tanha) > mentioned in the 2nd Noble Truth? Does an arahant has any craving for existence or for non-existence? Does an arahant has any self-view? Would it be the case that the arahant would have this thought: "I would not exist anymore after my parinibbana."? For the arahant, such a view does not arise. For the worldlings (and lower ariyans?), such a view arises because of defilements still uneradicated. It is a difference in perspective based on whether defilements are eradicated or not. So, it is not annihilation (annihilation being a form of self-view) or nothingness (nothingness being merely a concept or mind object). Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18402 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 8:28am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Nibbana as a non-cognitive realities / pure-mind Dear James & All, > -----Original Message----- > From: James > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > I have often written that I believe `Nibbana' is > to abandon > conditioned mind and become pure mind. In other > words, ultimate > reality is consciousness without the conditioning > of duality; or > unconditioned consciousness…also called `store > consciousness' (alaya- > vijana). This puts many people up-in-arms; > especially Suan (who I > haven't seen posting lately) because it runs > counter to the > Abhidhamma and is elucidated in a sutta contained > within the This belief is definitely not supported in the Theravadan texts. Under the Theravadan texts, nibbana is an unconditioned non-cognitive reality. In Patthana, anything that is cognitive (including citta and cetasikas, i.e., all consciousness and its concomitants) are conditioned by their objects. The sutta rendering of the conditioning of the cognitive elements are in the form: based on the visible object and eye base, the eye consciousness comes to be. The Patthana (Abhidhamma) explains that visible object conditions the eye consciousness by way of being its object (aramana) condition. The eye base conditions the eye consciousness by way of being its support (upanissaya) condition. For path attainment and fruition (magga and phala), Nibbana conditions the path consciousness by way of being its object (aramana) condition. Nibbana is not conditioned by anything (including the path consciousness), but the Theravadan text clearly states that it conditions the path consciousness. We can see in our own daily life how the object conditions the consciousness. Without the object appearing, there is no consciousness, nor feelings, nor attachment, nor anger, nor delusion. Even at the thinking level, it is pretty evident to me how different objects condition different kinds of consciousness. Pleasant objects condition attachment, unpleasant objects condition anger. Very pleasant object conditions pleasant mental feelings and happiness. The consciousness and its concomitants are bound by their objects, the accumulated kilesa, and the latent kilesa. We can prove to ourselves that their is no consciousness in our daily life (including Jhana cittas) not conditioned by its object. kom 18403 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 3:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nibbana Is One Thing, And Samsara Is Another Thing Hi, Suan - In a message dated 1/1/03 8:29:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, suanluzaw@b... writes: > Dear Dhamma friends > > Happy New Year! > > There are exactly Four Realities. > > They are matter, mind, mental associates and nibbana. > > Samsara is made up of matter, mind and mental associates. > > At another level, there are exactly Four Noble Truths. > > Samsara is made up of misery, attachment as the cause of misery, and > the way leading to cessation of attachment and misery, which are > called the Three Noble Truths while nibbana as the final cessation of > misery is the other remaining Noble Truth, to make the Four Noble > Truths. > > If one were to equate nibbana with samsara, one's action amounted to > equating cessation of misery with misery, with attachment, and with > the way leading to eradication of attachment and of misery. > > That type of confusing and attempting to confuse nibbana with samsara > is the hallmark of intellectual backwardness typical of pre-Buddhist > thinkers and modern un-Buddhist thinkers. > > Therefore, anyone who equated samsara with nibbana misunderstood the > original teachings of Gotama the Historical Buddha at best, and > misrepresented them at worst. > > Please keep in mind that Buddha called himself "Vibhajjavaadii", the > one who teaches by analysis. In ancient India, Buddhists were called > and known as Vibhajjavaadiis, the Analysts. > > > With kind regards, > > > Suan Lu Zaw > > > http://www.bodhiology.org > ========================== If "matter", mind, and mental associates are three realities constituting samsara, and if nibbana is a completely separate reality, opposite in at least the respects of being unconditioned (and thus unrelated to any conditions to be found in samsara), not anicca, and not dukkha, how in the world is there escape from the conditioned realm of samsara. If nibbana is a total "other": self-existent, encapsulated, an island with no connecting causeways, how is the crossing over possible? This formulation of nibbana as "the fourth reality" strikes me as substantialist. Nibbana, unlike the conditioned dhammas, comes across as being a self-existing entity, with essence/core - it becomes a kind of "absolute" which stands opposed and unrelated to the dual world of relative conditions, so that one ends up with a scheme not unlike some of the dualistic schools of Vedanta. Or so it seems to me. 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) 18404 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 3:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi, KKT - In a message dated 1/1/03 10:11:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > > Dear Neo, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " > wrote: > > > > > PS: An arahant is said to even transcend dispassion; nibbana. Why is > that so? Because (at death), he is neither rupa, nor citta, nor > cetasika, nor nibbana. 'He' simply doesn't exist anymore, just like > the flame which was snuffed out does not exist anymore. > > > > > KKT: What is the difference > between your interpretation and > the <>? > > Is it the <> > (vibhava-tanha) mentioned in the 2nd Noble Truth? > > > Metta, > > > KKT > > =============================== Thank you for this! It seems to me that precisely because we cannot really grasp the middle-way nature of reality, we always cling to the extremes - the extreme of eternalism and substantialism or the opposite extreme of annihilationism and nihilism. (And, with a little effort, we can generally manage to come up with chapter and verse to back up the choice to which we are predisposed, and, at the same time, couch our perspective in terms suggesting that it really isn't an extreme at all.) 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) 18405 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 3:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 1/1/03 10:46:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > >If the 12 pairs, together, are, indeed, as the sutta "The All" > >states, all that there is, yet they are all conditioned and > >nibbana is the unconditioned (so that nibbana cannot, as I said, > >be among them) then there would appear to be an outright > >contradiction. > > It is not to my understanding that the Buddha was teaching about > conditionality in this sutta. There is no talk of conditionality > here. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Conditions per se were not mentioned nor was nibbana per se. So? -------------------------------------------- And I agree with Kom that the translation "intellect and > > ideas" is a misfit. Kom has provided a very good explanation. ------------------------------------------- Howard: We disagree here. ------------------------------------------ > > In any case, if nibbana is not included in the "All", how do you > explain the statement "would be unable to explain" from the sutta? > Clearly, the Buddha was able to explain what nibbana is. He even > taught the way to know or realize the Unconditioned. He was able to > explain why there is the Unconditioned. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I have never denied, nor do I deny, nibbana. My follow-up post explained my understanding pretty much as well as I can put it forward at this time. I'm afraid I'll have to leave it at that. -------------------------------------------------- > > "There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. > If there were not that unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, > there would not be the case that emancipation from the born -- > become -- made -- fabricated would be discerned. But precisely > because there is an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, > emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated is > discerned." -- Ud VIII.3 > > To me, if nibbana is not included in the "All', the statement "would > be unable to explain" would be an even 'greater contradiction' than > the one you pointed out. > > Also, it is not to my understanding that the Buddha was griefed > whenever he says: > > "This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all > fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of > craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." -- AN III.32 > > Is there any grounds for the Buddha to give the above description? > Yes, by direct knowledge: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/likefire/2- > 1.html > > Ananda: In what way, venerable sir, might a monk attain > concentration of such a form that he would have neither the > perception of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard > to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of > space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the > dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor > non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to > the next world, and yet he would still be percipient? > > The Buddha: There is the case, Ananda, where he would be percipient > of this: 'This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all > mental processes; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending > of craving; dispassion; stopping; nibbana.' > > -- A X.6 > > > It is to my understanding that whatever 'ultimate reality' that is > neither rupa, nor citta, nor cetasika, nor nibbana cannot be > described by virtue of it being non-existent (beyond range). So too, > an arahant (who had gone parinibbana) cannot be described. Being > neither rupa, nor citta, nor cetasika nor nibbana, such an arahant > does not exist anymore, just like the flame that has been snuffed > out does not exist anymore. Such an arahant cannot be described by > virtue of being non-existent (beyond range). > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > > > ================================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 18406 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 9:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi James, With a little tweeking most of these mahayana ideas are supported by theravada. An arahant's mind could be regarded as a pure and nondualistic mind in the sense that it is free from defilements. As Kom said, it is not an unconditioned consciousness, but in the sense that all identity is conceptual, empty of "itself", a mere name, and in so far as experience is the ultimate authority and all experience is only consciousness and consciousness is a process of identifying, in just this way we could say consciousness is non-arising because of being ultimately conceptual and therefore unconditioned, somewhat. Happy New Year, Larry 18407 From: James Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 9:21am Subject: Re: Nibbana as a non-cognitive realities / pure-mind --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear James & All, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > > > I have often written that I believe `Nibbana' is > > to abandon > > conditioned mind and become pure mind. In other > > words, ultimate > > reality is consciousness without the conditioning > > of duality; or > > unconditioned consciousness…also called `store > > consciousness' (alaya- > > vijana). This puts many people up-in-arms; > > especially Suan (who I > > haven't seen posting lately) because it runs > > counter to the > > Abhidhamma and is elucidated in a sutta contained > > within the > > This belief is definitely not supported in the Theravadan > texts. Under the Theravadan texts, nibbana is an > unconditioned non-cognitive reality. In Patthana, anything > that is cognitive (including citta and cetasikas, i.e., all > consciousness and its concomitants) are conditioned by their > objects. > > The sutta rendering of the conditioning of the cognitive > elements are in the form: > based on the visible object and eye base, the eye > consciousness comes to be. > The Patthana (Abhidhamma) explains that visible object > conditions the eye consciousness by way of being its object > (aramana) condition. The eye base conditions the eye > consciousness by way of being its support (upanissaya) > condition. > > For path attainment and fruition (magga and phala), Nibbana > conditions the path consciousness by way of being its object > (aramana) condition. Nibbana is not conditioned by anything > (including the path consciousness), but the Theravadan text > clearly states that it conditions the path consciousness. > > We can see in our own daily life how the object conditions > the consciousness. Without the object appearing, there is > no consciousness, nor feelings, nor attachment, nor anger, > nor delusion. Even at the thinking level, it is pretty > evident to me how different objects condition different > kinds of consciousness. Pleasant objects condition > attachment, unpleasant objects condition anger. Very > pleasant object conditions pleasant mental feelings and > happiness. The consciousness and its concomitants are bound > by their objects, the accumulated kilesa, and the latent > kilesa. We can prove to ourselves that their is no > consciousness in our daily life (including Jhana cittas) not > conditioned by its object. > > kom Hi Kom, Uh, yea, I know that this thinking is not Theravada. I think I wrote that already. So? I try not to cling to Theravada Buddhism anymore than I try to not to cling to anything else. As I stated in my introduction to this group, I am a Zen Buddhist trapped in the body of Theravada Buddhist. I believe in the path teachings of the Buddha, but most of the ontology of Mahayana Buddhism. The Buddha pretty much refused to discuss or establish an ontology or cosmology, but he did indirectly several times. Upon his death, this was the sticking point that caused the schisms in the sangha that formed the different schools of thought. The Mahayana Buddhists broke away and established their own ontology and own suttas. I believe the Theravadas wrote the Abhidhamma Pitaka to establish an ontological and axiological view of the world in direct opposition to those `heretics'. I joined this group to find out about this work and found that I don't believe it. If taken literally, the Abhidhamma cannot possibly be true. It establishes a dualistic view of the world, calls this view `ultimate reality', and encourages practitioners to embrace the very things the Buddha said to reject as unreal and unsatisfactory. For example, calling Nibbana an `ultimate reality' is wacko. Where is it? What does it look like? Can I get tickets there? ;-) The idea of `Rupa' is also wacko…but I have gone into that enough already. The Abhidhamma appeals to those who cling to the world and like to `think' about impermanence rather than directly experience it. Those who meditate extensively and deeply should immediately see the theories of the Abhidhamma as incorrect. Why do some agree with it and some don't? Those who have really experienced the unreality of supposed reality know that it cannot and is not correct. However, on the reverse side, Mahayana Buddhism often results in practitioners who depend on `mind games' and `platitudes' instead of developing true insight. The Buddha was correct after all, these questions shouldn't be pondered, discussed, analyzed, categorized, or dissected with the mind. They should be simply experienced. But the human thirst to `know' is too strong. Just look at how much we continue to go round-and-round these issues and get nowhere. But it's better than watching TV! ;-) Metta, James 18408 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 9:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi KKT, Swee Boon, & Howard, The Buddha's objection to the annihilation view was because it denied kamma, but nibbana is certainly the end of kamma. I agree with Swee Boon. When fire exhausts its fuel it ceases forever. When water is thrown on a fire, the fire is annihilated but the fuel remains and will burn again. Happy New Year, Larry 18409 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 9:59am Subject: chicken and eggs Dear Sarah, As you remember, A. Sujin referred to the Sutta on chicken and eggs, S III, Middle Fifty, Ch 5, § 101 (Adze handle). The eggshell the chickens have to break through is ignorance. I looked up the Pali Co and just glanced through it. Most interesting: the bhikkhu lacks in vipassana. The right conditions are climate, food, people, listening to dhamma, dhamma savana sappaaya.m. Because of his former gradual training his panna ripens and he can attin arahatship in one session. My question: what are B.B.'s notes? It would facilitate my reading of it. But if it is too much, I alsmost tackled the Pali, it is not one of the most difficult texts. I shall try to enclose it in my Thailand report later on. Nina. 18410 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 9:59am Subject: Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no 9 Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no 9 King Bimbisåra received from King Pukkusåti as a gift eight precious garments, of which he offered four to the Exalted one and used four in his palace. To him occurred the following thought: ³When I shall send a present in return it should be better than the one King Pukkusåti has sent to me before. My friend sent me a priceless present, and what should I send to him? In the city of Råjagaha there is no object that is more precious than that, it is not to be found. King Bimbisåra had excellent qualities and also, since the time he had become a sotåpanna, nothing else but the Triple Gem could arouse joy. He uttered his wish to select the ³Gems² he would offer as a present to King Pukkusåti. Usually there are two kinds of jewels (5 . The jewel without consciousness is gold, silver, etc. The jewel with consciousness is bound up with the faculties (6 . The jewels without consciousness are used for decoration of those with consciousness. Of these two kinds of jewels, the jewel with consciousness is accounted the foremost. The Jewel with consciousness is twofold as the animal jewel and the human jewel. The animal Jewel which includes the Elephant-Jewel and the Horse-Jewel is used for the conveyance of humans. Therefore, the human Jewel is accounted the foremost. The human jewel is twofold as the woman jewel and the man jewel. The woman jewel performs service for the Wheel-Turning Monarch (7. Therefore, the man jewel is accounted the foremost of these two jewels. The man jewel is twofold as the house-living jewel and the homeless jewel. A Wheel-turning Monarch is the foremost among the house-living jewels, but since he pays homage with the fivefold prostration even to a novice (såmanera) who has gone forth on that day, the homeless jewel is accounted the foremost. The homeless jewel is twofold as the ³learner² and the ³non-learner² (8 . Of the two homeless jewels the value of the jewels of even hundred thousand learners does not equal the value of the jewel of one non-learner, and therefore, the non-learner is accounted the foremost. The learner, sekkha, is the ariyan of the stage of the sotåpanna, streamwinner, up to the stage of the anågåmí, non-returner. The non-learner, asekkha, does not need anymore to train himself and follow the practice leading to the eradication of defilements, because he has eradicated all defilements completely. The non-learner is the arahat. We read: The jewel of the non-learner is twofold: the jewel of the Buddha and the jewel of the disciple. Of the non-learner jewels, the value of the jewels of even hundred thousand disciples does not equal the value of the jewel of the Buddha. Therefore, the jewel of the Buddha is accounted the foremost. The Buddha jewel is twofold: the jewel of the Silent Buddha (Paccheka Buddha) and the jewel of the Fully Enlightened One. As to the Buddha jewel, the value of the jewels of hundred thousand Solitary Buddhas does not equal the value of the jewel of the Fully Enlightened One. Therefore, the jewel of the Fully Enlightened One is accounted the foremost. Thus, as it is well known, there is no jewel equal to the jewel of the Buddha, not in this world nor in the worlds of devas. Footnotes: (4 belongs to no 8) 4. The P.T.S. English translation has ³It is not convenient to me, revered sir. For there is here...² I follow the Pali text here. 5. See also the Commentary to the ³Minor Readings², the ³Illustrator of Ultimate Meaning², Ch VI, The Jewel Discourse. 6. Living beings with faculties, indriyas, such as eyesense, etc. 7. A Universal King ruling over the four continents, who possesses the jewels of the wheel, the elephant, the horse, the gem, the woman, the treasurer and the advisor. 8. The sekkha, learner, has attained enlightenment but not of the degree of arahatship, whereas the asekkha, non-learner, has attained arahatship. 18411 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 11:23am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " > wrote: > > > > > PS: An arahant is said to even transcend dispassion; nibbana. Why > is that so? Because (at death), he is neither rupa, nor citta, nor > cetasika, nor nibbana. 'He' simply doesn't exist anymore, just like > the flame which was snuffed out does not exist anymore. > > > > > KKT: What is the difference > between your interpretation and > the <>? > > Is it the <> > (vibhava-tanha) mentioned in the 2nd Noble Truth? =============================== Thank you for this! It seems to me that precisely because we cannot really grasp the middle-way nature of reality, we always cling to the extremes - the extreme of eternalism and substantialism or the opposite extreme of annihilationism and nihilism. (And, with a little effort, we can generally manage to come up with chapter and verse to back up the choice to which we are predisposed, and, at the same time, couch our perspective in terms suggesting that it really isn't an extreme at all.) With metta, Howard KKT: I'd like to give my 2 cents here :-)) Maybe the reason why the << middle-way >> is difficult to grasp is that it is to experience and not to speculate? Remember among the 10 << un-answered >> questions by the Buddha, there are two: __Does Tathagata << exist >> after death? __Does Tathagata << not exist >> after death? Metta, KKT 18412 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 0:26pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > all experience is only > consciousness and consciousness is a process of identifying, in just > this way we could say consciousness is non-arising because of being > ultimately conceptual and therefore unconditioned, somewhat. > > ________________________ Dear Larry, What is the pali term for consciousness? Is it citta? If so I haven't seen anywhere in the texts where any citta(mano, vinnana) is said to be non-arising or ultimately conceptual or unconditioned(somewhat). Robert 18413 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 1:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi Robert, I was reading between the lines. Happy New Year, Larry ----------------------------- Robert: Dear Larry, What is the pali term for consciousness? Is it citta? If so I haven't seen anywhere in the texts where any citta(mano, vinnana) is said to be non-arising or ultimately conceptual or unconditioned(somewhat). Robert 18414 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 1:31pm Subject: Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Dear Larry, Happy new year. Do you mean that if we read between the lines of the texts - i.e. uncover the real meaning- that we will find that the Buddha really explained that cittas are nonarising and ultimately conceptual and unconditioned(somewhat) . How do we do that? Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Robert, > > I was reading between the lines. > > Happy New Year, Larry > ----------------------------- > Robert: Dear Larry, > What is the pali term for consciousness? Is it citta? If so I haven't > seen anywhere in the texts where any citta(mano, > vinnana) is said to be non-arising or ultimately conceptual or > unconditioned(somewhat). > Robert 18415 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 3:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi Robert, You may find that 1+1=3 or 1+1=1. It depends on how you look at it. The important thing is that you do have a happy new year. Larry ---------------------------- Robert: Dear Larry, Happy new year. Do you mean that if we read between the lines of the texts - i.e. uncover the real meaning- that we will find that the Buddha really explained that cittas are nonarising and ultimately conceptual and unconditioned(somewhat) . How do we do that? Robert 18416 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 3:52pm Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 < > > Maybe the reason why the << middle-way >> > is difficult to grasp is that it is > to experience and not to speculate? > > > Remember among the 10 << un-answered >> > questions by the Buddha, there are two: > > __Does Tathagata << exist >> after death? > __Does Tathagata << not exist >> after death? > > >_____________ Dear KKT, Did the Tathagata exist before death or not exist before death? RobertK 18417 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 3:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " <> Ven. Ananda was the most chastised, ridiculed, and un-respected > bhikkhu of the Buddha's monks; and yet the Buddha and him were > inseparable, he had a respect/understanding for women beyond his > time and culture, and he is responsible for passing along almost the > entirety of the Buddha's teachings. He was a paradox and a greatly > misunderstood individual. For some reason, I feel an affinity for > him ;-). Do you know of any good books or articles written about > him? > > Metta, James _________ Dear James, I don't think Ananda was unrespected by other monks. According to the commentaries(recorded by the sangha) at his parinibbana the tears shed were even more than at teh Buddhas death. He was also given the great responsibilty of reciting the Dhamma at the First council held after the Buddhas death. An indication of the veneration in which he was held by the sangha. ) RobertK 18418 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 4:12pm Subject: Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman Hi James and Andrew, Thanks for these two great posts. I found them on my return from a two-day stay in Brisbane. Just as I was preparing my replies, a neighbour informed me the surf at Double Island Point is "goin' off!" So we're headed up there in his 4-wheel drive for what will be my first good surf in months. I'll be composing my replies between sets. See you later, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " > wrote: > Do you want to > 18419 From: nidive Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 4:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) > Conditions per se were not mentioned nor was nibbana per se. So? Which means that the Buddha was talking about both the Conditioned and the Unconditioned. He didn't qualify. Both the Conditioned and the Unconditioned constitutes the All. If the Buddha was not talking about the Conditioned and he was not talking about the Unconditioned, what can he be talking about? > I have never denied, nor do I deny, nibbana. My follow-up post > explained my understanding pretty much as well as I can put it > forward at this time. I'm afraid I'll have to leave it at that. Neither do I deny that the 'ultimate reality' nibbana exists. You would have to explain the statements "would be unable to explain" and "put to grief". Anyway, for now, just leave it at that. If there is any insight, please share. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18420 From: nidive Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 4:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Howard, I am sorry to have forgotten to address you in my last reply. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18421 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 4:41pm Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Dear Robert, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " wrote: Dear KKT, Did the Tathagata exist before death or not exist before death? RobertK KKT: My answer is: Yes, the Tathagata does exist before death. The proof: this is a << historical >> fact. Whatever this << existence >> means the Tathagata does exist before death. Therefore a` fortiori the << same >> Tathagata exists after death. This is what I think (but just a view :-)) Peace, KKT 18422 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 0:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi, KKT - Point well made .. and well taken. With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/1/03 2:24:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > KKT: I'd like to give my 2 cents here :-)) > > Maybe the reason why the <> > is difficult to grasp is that it is > to experience and not to speculate? > > > Remember among the 10 <> > questions by the Buddha, there are two: > > __Does Tathagata <>after death? > __Does Tathagata <>after death? > > /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) 18423 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 0:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi, Larry, and Robert, and all - In a message dated 1/1/03 6:11:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Robert, > > You may find that 1+1=3 or 1+1=1. It depends on how you look at it. The > important thing is that you do have a happy new year. > > Larry > ======================= Larry, with regard to "1+1", are you saying that reading between the lines is a plus? ;-)) Let me use this as an opportunity to wish both of you and everybody else on this wonderful list a delightful, healthy, fruitful, and, most of all, peaceful new year! 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) 18424 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 0:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 1/1/03 7:23:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > > >Conditions per se were not mentioned nor was nibbana per se. So? > > Which means that the Buddha was talking about both the Conditioned > and the Unconditioned. He didn't qualify. Both the Conditioned and > the Unconditioned constitutes the All. > > If the Buddha was not talking about the Conditioned and he was not > talking about the Unconditioned, what can he be talking about? > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Everything mentioned in that sutta is conditioned. ----------------------------------------------- > > > >I have never denied, nor do I deny, nibbana. My follow-up post > >explained my understanding pretty much as well as I can put it > >forward at this time. I'm afraid I'll have to leave it at that. > > Neither do I deny that the 'ultimate reality' nibbana exists. > > You would have to explain the statements "would be unable to > explain" and "put to grief". Anyway, for now, just leave it at that. > If there is any insight, please share. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Whose statements are these? Who would have to explain them? And to what end? ------------------------------------------------ > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > ========================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 18425 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 0:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hey you! ;-)) In a message dated 1/1/03 7:25:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > I am sorry to have forgotten to address you in my last reply. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > > ========================== I didn't even notice, but now that you point it out, I'm really fuming!! ;-)) Have a wonderful new year, Swee Boon! With much 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) 18426 From: peterdac4298 Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 6:57pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara (rather large) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Peter, (Chris, Rob Edd & all), Hi Sarah > > Rather jumbled comments below: > > --- "peterdac4298 " > CF:> > As well, I think I might try to obtain "Dictionary of Pali Proper > > > Names", G.P.Malalasekera, Pali Text Society, 1974, Vol II - Sarah > > > mentioned it once before as well. Thank you. > > P:> You may as well get both volumes while you are at it, as they are > > quite cheep, maybe ukp15 each or so. Unless of course you are > > restricted for shelf space, they are quite large! > ..... > Peter, I have to tell you - you're out of date on this point;-) I used to > have the dict in 2 volumes (from a 2nd hand book-shop in London in the > 1970s and loved dearly). One of the vols quite disintegrated with the help > of some insects and we tried to replace it a couple of yrs ago. It is now > produced in 3 volumes and wonderful as they are, they are NOT cheap. Just > checked, 101pounds to be exact in the latest catalogue. A wonderful > investment and Christine would get very good use from them. Just don't let > the bugs get a taste;-) In 1994 I obtained my 2vol copy direct from PTS for just ukp35+vat. I wouldn't have bothered since I am not scholastic by inclination, (being both dyslexic and anaemic, i.e. it is hard work and I don't have the staying power for really worthwhile research, i.e. 'A' level and beyond). I first encountered them in the library at Amaravati during my monastic period, and found them fun to use, (it was almost like cheating!). So when a few years latter, I saw them going (relatively) cheep I snapped them up. From what you tell us above, I am rather glad I did. > ..... > I've just read your article and notes on Rahulamata/Yasodhara and I think > it's a really well-researched and beautiful piece of work. I checked a few > details and it all seems very accurate as far as I know. It's kind of you to say so, but all I did, having cracked the Pali alphabet, was lift the article directly off the page. My interlocutor, a non Buddhist musician working on a CD project inspired by the Buddha's wife, knew nothing of Buddhism, nor could find anything re Yasodhara: (she picked my name from a UseNet discussion group and hoped I might be able to help). So looking at the raw transposition, I decided that it needed some filling out so as to be comprehensible to the enquirer, and all the extra stuff was straight off the top of my head. Hence my interest in some feed back, and much appreciated it is too. > > I note that the comment about Rahulamata's death at 78 and that of the > 18,000 arahat nuns given, comes from the Apadana. I'm not sure that this > has ever been translated into English and in the PTS catalogue it mentions > the Pali version is no longer available there, although it seems the Pali > commentary on the first 3 sections is. I can only assume that the text was available prior to 1937 when the dictionary was first published. This is on the basis that Dr Malalasekera refers to it and gives a page reference too: note #18, Ap.ii.584ff. The common practice seems to be to use PTS page numbering as a standard proceedure. > I'm very interested in the notes > and references that Rob Edd gives. We don't have either of the books he > mentions for the translation of the verses, but perhaps someone else has. I shall start to hunt down these too. It would be rather nice to fill in this final detail. > > (Robert - v.glad to hear from you and hope the Icelandic fishing companies > can spare you from time to time for brief comments - I'd be v.interested > to hear any of yr comments on the `Dhamma Issues' series Nina is > translating and adding notes to, for example). > ***** > OK, I've just checked the entry for the Apadana in the dictionary too. It > is the 13th division of the Khuddakanikaya and contains 547 biographies of > monks and 40 of nuns at the time of the Buddha. It says that most the > stories are found in the Paramatthadipani, the commentary to the Thera and > Therigatha. > > The Apadana and its commentary (Visuddhajanavilaasinii) may have been > translated into Thai and is probably available in Burmese and Pali > elsewhere. Perhaps Kom, Suan or others know more. > > There seem to be other (Theravada) sources substantiating the details of > her going forth and becoming an arahant and so on. As I said, I think your > (Peter's) research with extra notes and details is really great. Any > comments I make are mere nit-picking. Not so, Ma'am! I feel both highly flattered and totally out of my depth:-) > > In note (8) you mentioned her powers `...were more like the psychic gifts > that some people even to day might have'. I don't think so.In the > commentary note to AN Bk of Ones, Women disciples (1-25), where she is > identified with Bhaddakaccana as chief among the nuns who attained > supernormal powers (mahaabhi~n~nappattaana.m), the PTS translation gives: > > "Of one Buddha four disciples only have great abnormal powers. The > remainder can recall 100,000 kalpas, not beyond that: but those who have > attained great abnormal powers can recall incalculable eras. Under our > Teacher's rule the two Great Disciples and the elder Bakkula and > Bhaddakaccana, just these four had this power". > > You had mentioned this note and these four disciples. I think these powers > are a rather more than `quite impressive';-) I agree entirely with this. My intention for putting in that comment was so as to point out to my non Buddhist enquirer that these powers where 'natural' (i.e. a combination of both personal development, and inherent qualities) rather than the result of 'divine intervention'. Furthermore, in my original e-mail I actually used the word 'spectacular' but toned it down for this list with 'impressive'. From what you tell us it looks like I should have left well alone!) > ***** > In the MrsRhys Davids transl of the Thera-Theri-gatha (as opposed to the > Norman version) it gives a transl of the commentary before the verses. For > Sundari-Nanda, after aeons and aeons after hearing Pudumuttara Buddha > preaching, she was also reborn in the same family as Yasodhara, her > sister. > > We read that as the Buddha (her half-brother), Rahula, his son, her > brother, King Nanda, her mother, Mahapajapati and her sister, Rahula's > mother had all gone forth, she followed from `love of her kin'. However, > she was intoxicated by her own beauty. After listening to the Buddha talk > on the foul and the impermanent, she eventually became an arahant too. > Anyway, the point was that here is another indication that Rahulamata had > gone forth and so on. No suggestions of having died young. > > One or two other small comments: > "In those mysogynistic days" (in note 14) - within the Sangha...?? Sorry, this was a relative reference to the Zeitgeist of that time and probably unnecessary. > > In a post to Chris, you wrote: > > "I think this may indicate the depth of anguish that the Boddhisatva > must have been suffering in that moment. It may provide some > indication of the motivational power that would drive him through > all the trials that were to follow. Maybe Yasodhara understood this?" > ..... > Have you any support to show any `depth of anguish' he suffered or for > this comment? Just curious. Well I'd be hard pushed to quote references, but generally trying to keep within what is generally known, though maybe looking at it in a slightly different way. To my mind the Boddhisatva would have either had to be irresponsible and reckless, or acting with extreme regret, there could be no middle way, he was to discover that latter. The former is inconsistent with the remainder of his entire career, whilst the latter is fully consistent with it. The Buddha mentions in Suttas that whilst still the Bodhisatta he was deeply moved by the encounter with a sick person, an old person and a dead person. He said he was inspired by the encounter with a yogi deep in meditation. He resolves to leave his family at night whilst no one will try to stop him, so as to live the life of a Yogi and find the escape from this anguish. He takes a last look at his new born son in the arms of his wife, but is afraid to awaken them. To me this all suggests that the Bodhisatta experienced at least some of the anguish that had previously been awoken in him by three of those earlier encounters. The anguish that he spent the next six years earnestly struggling to transcend. It seems highly probable that Yasodhara understood this, if not immediately, then at least soon after. It is quite common for wives to understand their husbands better than the husbands to know themselves. It brings to mind the image of countless women throughout the ages, who allowed their husbands to go off to war, with the distinct possibility that they wouldn't see them again. The way Yasodhara both lived her life and finally greeted the Buddha on his return suggests this depth of feeling quite clearly, to my mind, and is the reflection intended in what was offered above. I do hope it was OK. > > Thanks again. What other pieces do you have up your sleeve and I'm also > curious about why your non-buddhist musical friend was so interested in > the details of Rahulamata????? What did he do with it? (sorry if I've > missed the explanation). I don't think I gave an explanation. But she was composing a musicle project of CD proportions on the theme of the Buddha's wife. Judging from her web site: http://homebakedmusic.com/contact.html it would seem that the project never quite came to completion. Not supprising realy. Maybe a 78rpm or even a 45rpm, but a CD is rather pushing it for a Dhamma based storey that is going to appeal to the mass market. The only other piece that I have "up my sleeve" is an end note to the above corresponence. In my penultimate letter I put... "Hi Claire "Pali was a language that evolved at a time when people memorised everything, so it lent itself to spontaneous poems etc. which facilitated memorisation. Writing was strictly for merchants etc and thus thought to be too gross for such things as spiritual matters. "A sentence in Pali may be rearranged in any order and the sense would not be changed at all. All that mattered was having the grammatical prefixes and suffixes correct for the intended meaning. Hence it required little effort to spontaneously compose stanzas on any occasion or for any situation...." To which she wrote... "Would this mean, then, given the social and cultural conventions of the time, that Princess Yasodhara probably would not have been able to read and write in Pali at all? ..." To which I replied... "Hi Claire "The social conventions of the time would have encouraged her to develop all the skills, crafts and arts of a high born woman, as in any age. Whilst Gotama's education would have included the marshal arts, so that they would both no doubt impress and entertain one an other with their various skill sets, folk lore etc. But there would have been no written literature for anyone to read or write. The earliest Vedas would have been in existence long before the Buddha appeared and G and Y would both be versed in them, though being warrior cast, probably not as thoroughly as a Brahmin. But it was all done by memorising, hence the poetic nature of these documents. For example the Vedas are spoken of as being 'hymns', implying that they were chanted. While the Pali suttas are highly repetitive for a prose style, and often interspersed with stanzas too: and I do know that they are chanted, having often done so myself whilst a monk. "So what Yasodhara lacked in literary skills, she more than made up for with memorising by rote, and in my view was probably all the better off for it too, since this facilitates contemplation of the sacred passages at any time rather than when seated in front of their written form. This is certainly the way we are encouraged to practice Buddhism today, memorising all sorts of lists of Buddhist terminology and such like. The *big* thing for a monk or nun is to memorise the entire code of discipline [Patimokha] since this has the advantage of contemplating its purpose and function during the normal workday and hence bring clarity and skill to its real-time application. "Further more, this memorizing directly contributes to the practice of mindfulness or alertness: in Pali the same word means both mindfulness and memory, ie 'sati'. So the people of that time would have found meditation quite natural, making very rapid progress with relative ease. It was probably as commonplace as their prodigious memories. So, perhaps the discovery of the path to Awakening or Enlightenment could only have happened in such a highly evolved society just prior to the general acceptance of writing, and would perhaps explain the relative lack of such cultivation by the time of Christ, when writing was much more widespread and portable...." And her final reply befor closing, included the following remark: "I had never quite looked at the origins of Buddhism in this way, but what you suggest is absolutely reasonable..." If I were writing this now, I'd probably be a little more careful. I have already inserted 'Patimoka' into the above to replace 'Vinaya'. But I often do wonder what Western Buddhism would be like today if Rhys Davids had chosen 'recollectedness' instead of 'mindfulness' when translating 'sati'. > > I was also curious about your comment about their being no reference to > the bhikkhunis after the Buddha's parinibbana. I'm wondering whether > references to bhikkhus before the 1st council. When we read about the > buddha's body first being honoured by women because they were weeping > (which Ananda was chastised for allowing), would this not have included > bhikkhunis I wonder. Maybe also some of the references to the large > numbers of bhikkhus present?? In 1982, whilst at Wat Pa Nanachat, Ajahn Brahmavamso related this possibility to us, and being the practical man that I am, took his word for it. In the Parinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, there seems to be no mention of Bhikkhunis at all, and apparently non in any other texts relating to the Parinibbana and First Council. Ajahn Brom, at that time, simply pointed to the possibility that the order could have died out during the Buddha's lifetime. But this is inconsistent with the story of Ashoka's daughter founding the lineage in Sri Lanka: (and also with Aj Brom's current views!) See http://www.watthai.net/ for his audio tapes, one of which relates to this issue in a very possitive way. I have my own speculative view on this too, hope it's not too off topic. In time of crisis or emergency, e.g. war etc, not too much note is made of the activities of women and children, even though they may be mobile in very large numbers, whilst massive attention is directed at the activities of the adult males. The Parinibbana and the period up to and including the First Council could be seen as a similar episode in the history of Buddhism. Thus, in this context and the then social norms, the non mention of Bhikkhunis may seem less unexpected. > > Sarah > ===== > Peter 18427 From: James Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 7:16pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " > <> Ven. Ananda was the most chastised, ridiculed, and un-respected > > bhikkhu of the Buddha's monks > Dear James, > I don't think Ananda was unrespected by other monks. According to > the commentaries(recorded by the sangha) at his parinibbana the > tears shed were even more than at teh Buddhas death. He was also > given the great responsibilty of reciting the Dhamma at the First > council held after the Buddhas death. An indication of the > veneration in which he was held by the sangha. > ) > RobertK Hi Robert K: When you have read as many suttas as I have, you begin to get the big picture of things. You cannot go on a few isolated incidents; you have to look at the whole history. Yes, Ven. Ananda was respected after the Buddha's death, but prior to that, he wasn't respected at all and many of the sangha did not understand him or his closeness to the Buddha. Actually, other monks were downright nasty to him at times and if they were civil, it was often in a patronizing way (hmmmm...deja vu...) I am not going to do a big, research project on this to prove it; believe me, I know what I know. But, for simplicity and speed sake, let me quote a Jataka Tale that the Buddha told about Ven. Ananda so that the sangha would try to understand Ven. Ananda and begin to give him the respect he deserved (which he was not receiving prior to that): Kalakanni Jataka (Jataka No. 83) What's in a Name? The Buddha told this story while at Jetavana, about one of Anathapindika's friends, a man named "Curse." The two had played together as children and had gone to the same school. As the years passed, however, the friend became extremely poor and could not make a living for himself no matter what he did. In desperation, he approached Anathapindika, who welcomed him kindly and employed him to look after his property and to manage all of his business for him. From that time on, it was a common thing to hear someone shouting, "Curse!" each time a member of the household spoke to him. One day some of Anathapindika's friends and acquaintances came and said, "Treasurer, don't let this sort of thing go on in your house! It's enough to scare an ogre to hear such inauspicious speech as 'Come here, Curse,' 'Sit down, Curse,' or 'Have your dinner, Curse.' The man is a miserable wretch, dogged by misfortune. He's not your social equal. Why do you have anything to do with him?" "Nonsense," replied Anathapindika, firmly rejecting their advice. "A name only denotes a man. The wise do not measure a man by his name. It is useless to be superstitious about mere sounds. I will never abandon the friend with whom I made mud-pies as a child, simply because of his name." Not long after that, Anathapindika went with many of his servants to visit a village of which he was headman. He left his old friend in charge. Hearing of his departure, a band of robbers decided to break into the house. That night, they armed themselves to the teeth and surrounded it. Curse had suspected that burglars might try something so he stayed awake. As soon as he knew that the robbers were outside, he ran about noisily as though he were rousing the entire household. He shouted for one person to sound the conch and for another to beat the drum. Soon it seemed that the house contained a whole army of servants. When the robbers heard the din, they said to one another, "The house is not as empty as we thought it would be. The master must still be at home after all." They threw down their clubs and other weapons and fled. In the morning, the discarded weapons were found lying scattered outside the house. When the townspeople realized what had happened, they lauded Curse to the skies. "If such a wise man hadn't been guarding the house," they said, "those robbers would have walked in and plundered as they pleased. Anathapindika owes this good luck to his staunch friend, Curse." As soon as Anathapindika returned from his trip, they told him the whole story. "My friends," Anathapindika answered, "this is the trusty guardian I was urged to get rid of. If I had taken your advice and sent him away, I would be a poorer man today. It's not the name but the heart within that makes the man!" In appreciation of his friend's services, he even raised his wages. Thinking that this was a good story to tell the Buddha, Anathapindika went to the Master and gave him a complete account. "This is not the first time, sir," the Buddha said, "that a man named Curse has saved his friend's wealth from robbers. The same thing happened in bygone days as well." Then, at Anathapindika's request, the Buddha told this story of the past. Long, long ago, when Brahmadatta was reigning in Baranasi, the Bodhisatta was the treasurer. He was very famous and had a friend named Curse. At that time everything was the same as in the story of Anathapindika. When the treasurer returned from the village and heard the news, he said to his friends, "If I had taken your advice and had gotten rid of my trusty friend, I would have been a beggar today. A friend is one who goes seven steps to help. He who goes twelve can be called a comrade. Loyalty for a fortnight or a month makes one a relative; long and steady dependability, a second self. How could I forsake my friend Curse who has always been so true?" His lesson ended, the Buddha identified the Birth by saying, "At that time Ananda was Curse, and I myself was the treasurer of Baranasi." Metta, James 18428 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 7:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " > wrote: > > > > Dear KKT, > Did the Tathagata exist before death or not exist before death? > RobertK > > > KKT: My answer is: Yes, > the Tathagata does exist before death. > > The proof: this is a << historical >> fact. > > Whatever this << existence >> means > the Tathagata does exist before death. > Therefore a` fortiori the << same >> > Tathagata exists after death. > > This is what I think (but just a view :-)) __________ Dear KKT Was the Tathagatha while alive in the khandhas or apart from them? I think in the deepest sense there was no Tathagatha, there were only the elements, namas and rupas arising and ceasing. "The mental (nama) and material (rupa) are really here, But here there is no human being to be found, For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks" (visuddhimagga XVIII 31) The Buddha (Tathagatha)and arahants use terms such as self and person and being ; but without any misconceptions that they refer to something real. "These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world. And of these a Tathagata makes use indeed, but he does not misapprehend them" Digha 9. I think that it is key to investigate the difference between concepts and realities, in both theory and practice. I would say it is what the path involves. I believe that once the fuel of ignorance and craving was extinguished, as Swee Boon said, then the fire of samsara became cool and eventually , at khandha parinibbina, ceased forever. RobertK > > > 18429 From: James Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 8:53pm Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 > " wrote: > > > > Dear Robert, > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear KKT, > > Did the Tathagata exist before death or not exist before death? > > RobertK > > > > > > KKT: My answer is: Yes, > > the Tathagata does exist before death. > > > > The proof: this is a << historical >> fact. > > > > Whatever this << existence >> means > > the Tathagata does exist before death. > > Therefore a` fortiori the << same >> > > Tathagata exists after death. > > > > This is what I think (but just a view :-)) > __________ > Dear KKT > Was the Tathagatha while alive in the khandhas or apart from them? I > think in the deepest sense there was no Tathagatha, there were only > the elements, namas and rupas arising and ceasing. > "The mental (nama) and material (rupa) are really here, > But here there is no human being to be found, > For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll > Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks" (visuddhimagga XVIII > 31) > > The Buddha (Tathagatha)and > arahants use terms such as self and person and being ; but without > any misconceptions that they refer to > something real. > "These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, > designations in common use in the world. And of these a Tathagata > makes > use indeed, but he does not misapprehend them" Digha 9. > > I think that it is key to investigate the difference between > concepts and realities, in both theory and practice. I would say it > is what the path involves. > > I believe that once the fuel of ignorance and craving was > extinguished, as Swee Boon said, then the fire of samsara became > cool and eventually , at khandha parinibbina, ceased forever. > RobertK Robert K, You missed KKT's point, which corresponds with what I have been writing. Because life and death are illusion, the same Tathagatha that existed before death (which we can't comprehend what that is), exists after death. This is what KKT wrote, but you missed the idea. `A fortiori' means `For a still stronger reason; all the more.' If you stop thinking in dualistic terms like `with aggregates' and `without aggregates', you will get it. As I said, the Buddha still exists. He is alive and well (in a certain sense). We are the ones who are the `walking dead' (in another sense). Metta, James 18430 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 11:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] chicken and eggs Hi Nina, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, > As you remember, A. Sujin referred to the Sutta on chicken and eggs, S > III, > Middle Fifty, Ch 5, § 101 (Adze handle). The eggshell the chickens have > to > break through is ignorance. I looked up the Pali Co and just glanced > through > it. Most interesting: the bhikkhu lacks in vipassana. The right > conditions > are climate, food, people, listening to dhamma, dhamma savana > sappaaya.m. > Because of his former gradual training his panna ripens and he can attin > arahatship in one session. My question: what are B.B.'s notes? ..... I remember. The sutta has also been discussed before, but I don’t remember the commentary notes, so here goes (For others, note Spk refers to the commentary to SN): note 212 “The simile of the chicks is applied differently at MN 1 104, 3-13 and MN 1 357, 6-358,2 See too Vin 111 3-5. Spk elaborates on the comparison of the bhikkhu’s enlightenment to the hatching of the chicks: the hen’s preparatory work is like the bhikkhu’s devotion to development. The nonrotting of the eggs is like the bhikkhu’s devotion to development. the nonrotting of the eggs is like th bhikkhu’s not falling away from insight knowledge; the drying up of the moisture in the eggs is like the drying up of attachment to the three realms of existence; the thinning of the egg shells is like th thinning of ignorance; the maturation of the chicks is like the maturation of insight knowledge. The time when the chicks break the shells and merge safely is like the time when the bhikkhu breaks the shell of ignorance and attains arahantship. And as the chicks go about adorning the village field, so the great arahant enters into fruition attainment which takes Nibana as its object, and thus adorns his monastery.” note 214 “Spk develops this simile even more minutely than the simile of the chicks. In brief: Like the wearing away of the rigging by the ocean water is the wearing away of the bhikkhu’s fetters by his going forth (into homelessness), study, and questioning. Like the time the ship is hauled onto dry land is the time the bhikkhu takes up a meditation subject and dwells in the forest. Like the drying up of the rigging by wind and sun during the day is the drying up of craving by insight knowledge. Like the wetting by snow at night is the wetting of the mind by gladness and joy arisen from meditation. Like the rain cloud pouring down is the knowledge of the path of arahantship. Like the decay of the rigging is the attainment of the fruit of arahantship. Like the persistence of the rigging in a decrepit state is the persistence of the arahant as he lives on benefitting the multitude. Like the collapse of the decrepit rigging is the arahant’s attainment of the Nibbana element without residue.” ..... >It would > facilitate my reading of it. But if it is too much, I alsmost tackled > the > Pali, it is not one of the most difficult texts. I shall try to enclose > it > in my Thailand report later on. .... I’ll look forward to it. They are wonderfully graphic similes. Any typos are mine (I don’t have access to a scanner). Sarah ===== 18431 From: James Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 11:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] chicken and eggs --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Nina, > .... > I'll look forward to it. They are wonderfully graphic similes. Any typos > are mine (I don't have access to a scanner). > > Sarah > ===== Hi Sarah, Yes, it is 12:36 am right now in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona and I am still awake. I had dinner, played with my niece (played `Harry Potter'…she was Harry and I was a Grand Wizard! I can levitate don't you know! ;-). Then I meditated (15 minutes only ), and I am now on this computer. I will probably be awake for a few more hours. ;-) Maybe many members want to know these details...maybe not. Truthfully, I think we all want to know more about each other. With this recent line of discussion, I really appreciate this post! I actually like both sets of analogies; but I like the ocean/sailing one more. I have a problem with the chicken and the egg one because of the last parallelism, "And as the chicks go about adorning the village field, so the great arahant enters into fruition attainment which takes Nibana as its object, and thus adorns his monastery." Huh? Nibbana is supposed to be taken as some sort of decoration now? Like `Nibbana Holiday Lights' outlining a Buddhist temple to twinkle a greeting to the un-cheery? ;-))(i.e. Dukkha enslaved) But the last set is absolutely beautiful and perfect! I want to quote it again for all to enjoy: Like the wearing away of the rigging by the ocean water is the wearing away of the bhikkhu's fetters by his going forth (into homelessness), study, and questioning. Like the time the ship is hauled onto dry land is the time the bhikkhu takes up a meditation subject and dwells in the forest. Like the drying up of the rigging by wind and sun during the day is the drying up of craving by insight knowledge. Like the wetting by snow at night is the wetting of the mind by gladness and joy arisen from meditation. Like the rain cloud pouring down is the knowledge of the path of arahantship. Like the decay of the rigging is the attainment of the fruit of arahantship. Like the persistence of the rigging in a decrepit state is the persistence of the arahant as he lives on benefitting the multitude. Like the collapse of the decrepit rigging is the arahant's attainment of the Nibbana element without residue." WOW!! Thank you Sarah for your efforts on our behalf to provide the full commentary. It is beautiful and breathtaking. Metta, James 18432 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 0:00am Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Dear Robert, > > Dear KKT, > > Did the Tathagata exist before death or not exist before death? > > RobertK > > > > > > KKT: My answer is: Yes, > > the Tathagata does exist before death. > > > > The proof: this is a << historical >> fact. > > > > Whatever this << existence >> means > > the Tathagata does exist before death. > > Therefore a` fortiori the << same >> > > Tathagata exists after death. > > > > This is what I think (but just a view :-)) > __________ > Dear KKT > Was the Tathagatha while alive in the khandhas or apart from them? > I think in the deepest sense there was no Tathagatha, there were > only the elements, namas and rupas arising and ceasing. > "The mental (nama) and material (rupa) are really here, > But here there is no human being to be found, > For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll > Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks" (visuddhimagga XVIII 31) > > The Buddha (Tathagatha)and > arahants use terms such as self and person and being ; but without > any misconceptions that they refer to something real. > "These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, > designations in common use in the world. And of these a Tathagata > makes use indeed, but he does not misapprehend them" Digha 9. > > I think that it is key to investigate the difference between > concepts and realities, in both theory and practice. I would say > it is what the path involves. > > I believe that once the fuel of ignorance and craving was > extinguished, as Swee Boon said, then the fire of samsara became > cool and eventually , at khandha parinibbina, ceased forever. > RobertK Robert K, You missed KKT's point, which corresponds with what I have been writing. Because life and death are illusion, the same Tathagatha that existed before death (which we can't comprehend what that is), exists after death. This is what KKT wrote, but you missed the idea. `A fortiori' means `For a still stronger reason; all the more.' If you stop thinking in dualistic terms like `with aggregates' and `without aggregates', you will get it. As I said, the Buddha still exists. He is alive and well (in a certain sense). We are the ones who are the `walking dead' (in another sense). Metta, James KKT: I think James understands perfectly my point :-)) And I understand also perfectly your point, Robert, which I classify as a nihilistic view (I really mean it :-)) First we must have this in mind: The Buddha kept silent and did not answer to the following 4 questions: __Does the Tathagata << exist >> after death? __Does the Tathagata << not exist >> after death? __Does the Tathagata either << exist >> or << not exist >> after death? __Does the Tathagata neither << exist >> nor << not exist >> after death? My interpretation of His silence is that He let wide open the door for His disciples to probe more deeply into this problem. I think we must thank Him for that because otherwise we would have a Buddhism with << fixed >> credos and dogmas (very boring indeed :-)) Now I show you how I may say that the Buddha << does exist >> before death. It's very simple :-)) Take the Buddha and a common worldling and put them next to each other. Do you agree with me that we have two << bags of 5 khandhas >> not really different from each other in the general sense of << khandhas >>, OK? So what is the difference between them? On one hand we have an << omniscient >> Tathagata and on the other hand we have an << ignorant >> worldling. And for sure if ever this << difference >> exists, it should not be found in the 5 khandhas because those are subject to conditions, OK? Do you see the << DIFFERENCE >> ? :-)) The difference is this << OMNISCIENCE >> ! This Omniscience is the proof of the existence of the Buddha! This Omniscience << IS >> the existence of the Buddha! This Omniscience << exists >> before death and a` fortiori << does exist >> after death. Maybe one can call it << the Source of All Wisdom >> ? :-)) Therefore I agree with this statement of James << the Buddha still exists. He is alive and well (in a certain sense) >> Metta, KKT 18433 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 0:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara (rather large) Hi Peter, Thanks for getting back with the extra notes. wrote: > > I can only assume that the text was available prior to 1937 when the > dictionary was first published. This is on the basis that Dr > Malalasekera refers to it and gives a page reference too: note #18, > Ap.ii.584ff. The common practice seems to be to use PTS page > numbering as a standard proceedure. ..... I think this is right - in the catalogue it shows it was published in 1925 and 1927 but is no longer available. ..... > Not so, Ma'am! I feel both highly flattered and totally out of my > depth:-) .... Hey Peter, it’s only me! (This is the problem when 2 Brits start talking together - we become sooo polite that no one else understands us;-)). ..... > I agree entirely with this. My intention for putting in that > comment was so as to point out to my non Buddhist enquirer that > these powers where 'natural' (i.e. a combination of both personal > development, and inherent qualities) rather than the result > of 'divine intervention'. Furthermore, in my original e-mail I > actually used the word 'spectacular' but toned it down for this list > with 'impressive'. From what you tell us it looks like I should > have left well alone!) ..... Maybe ‘extraordinary’? ..... > > Have you any support to show any `depth of anguish' he > suffered or > for > > this comment? Just curious. > > Well I'd be hard pushed to quote references, but generally trying to > keep within what is generally known, though maybe looking at it in a > slightly different way. To my mind the Boddhisatva would have > either had to be irresponsible and reckless, or acting with extreme > regret, there could be no middle way, he was to discover that > latter. The former is inconsistent with the remainder of his entire > career, whilst the latter is fully consistent with it. ..... The reason I asked is because I think we tend to read the brief details given in the texts according to how we imagine anyone might feel during such acts. So we read about the long pregnancy of the Bodhisatta’s mother and consider her distress, assume the angst that the Bodhisatta must have felt by the 3 encounters and anguish/regret at leaving all that was dear to him and the even greater distress Yasodhara must have experienced at being deserted as her new baby was born. Some of the books we read when we first encounter Buddhism possibly contribute to the ‘wallpaper decoration’ that we are only too ready to believe. When we strip back the wallpaper to the bare textual references, I’m not sure that there is any evidence of all this anguish. Why should the Bodhisatta, having over countless lifetimes perfected the paramis, be ‘acting with extreme regret’? ..... >The Buddha > mentions in Suttas that whilst still the Bodhisatta he was deeply > moved by the encounter with a sick person, an old person and a dead > person. He said he was inspired by the encounter with a yogi deep > in meditation. He resolves to leave his family at night whilst no > one will try to stop him, so as to live the life of a Yogi and find > the escape from this anguish. He takes a last look at his new born > son in the arms of his wife, but is afraid to awaken them. To me > this all suggests that the Bodhisatta experienced at least some of > the anguish that had previously been awoken in him by three of those > earlier encounters. The anguish that he spent the next six years > earnestly struggling to transcend. ..... Let me give a few quotes from texts used in Nanamoli’s ‘the Life of the Buddha’ (p4f) which you referred us to recently which don’t, I think, suggest any anguish: ***** “When the Bodhisatta had descended into his mother’s womb, no kind of affliction arose in her: she was blissful in the absence of all bodily fatigue......etc” ..... “...she gave birth to him after carryig him in her womb for exactly ten months. other women give birth seated or lying down; but not so the Bodhisatta’s mother. She gave birth to him standing up. When the Bodhisatta came forth from his mother’s womb, he did not touch the earth. The four deities received him and set him before his mother, saying “Rejoice, O Queen, a son of great power has been born to you”. When the Bodhisatta came forth from his mother’s womb, just as, if a gem were placed on Benares cloth, the gem would not smear the cloth or the cloth the gem - why not? - because both are pure, so too the Bodhisatta came forth frm his mother’s womb unsullied, unsmeared.......” (Ananda’s words, M123). ***** “Whilst I had such power and good fortune, yet I thought: When an untaught ordinary man, who is subject to ageing, not safe from ageing, sees another who is aged, he is shocked, humiliated and disgusted; for he forgets that he himself is no exception. but I too am subject to ageing, not safe from ageing, and so it cannot befit me to be shocked, humiliated and disgusted on seeing another who is aged. When I considered this, the vanity of youth entirely left me..........vanity of health....vanity of life entirely left me.” (A.111,38) ***** “Before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, I thought: House life is crowded and dusty; life gone forth is wide open. It is not easy, living in a household, to lead a Holy Life as utterly perfect and pure as a polished shell.....”(M. 36,100) ..... “Later, while still young, a black-haried boy blessed with youth, in the first phase of life I shaved off my hair and beard - though my mother and father wished otherwise and grieved with tearful faces -, and I put on the yellow cloth.......” (M.26, 36. 85, 100) ***** “But I have not gone forth to seek sense pleasures. I have gone out to strive, seeing danger in them, And seeing safe refuge from them in renouncing. That is my heart’s desire.” (Sn. 111,1) ..... “Now before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta...........I resort to a remote jungle-thicket abode in the forest as one of the Noble Ones, who are free from these defects (all mentioned above). Seeing in myself this freedom from such defects, I find great solace in living in the forest.” (M.4) ********** > It seems highly probable that Yasodhara understood this, if not > immediately, then at least soon after. It is quite common for wives > to understand their husbands better than the husbands to know > themselves. ..... Certainly not common for wives to be married to the Bodhisatta who had attained to the first jhana as a child and understood his mind states very clearly. ..... >It brings to mind the image of countless women > throughout the ages, who allowed their husbands to go off to war, > with the distinct possibility that they wouldn't see them again. > The way Yasodhara both lived her life and finally greeted the Buddha > on his return suggests this depth of feeling quite clearly, to my > mind, and is the reflection intended in what was offered above. I > do hope it was OK. ..... We read about the father’s sadness. I haven’t read anything to suggest any anguish on Yasodhara’s part as yet. On the contrary, the little I’ve read suggests to me she was inspired to follow his example and lead and for Rahula to do the same. As we know, she became a bhikkhuni later and an arahant. ..... This has already got rather long, so I’ll look at the other comments later. I just wished to ‘suggest’ that perhaps we always underestimate the ‘extraordinary’ qualities (the paramis in particular) developed by the Bodhisatta over lifetimes and also perhaps of those who were his close associates. How me would feel or imagine anyone would feel is not necessarily how it would have been. What do you think? Thanks again for your contributions on this topic and to Chris for prompting it . Sarah ====== 18434 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 1:01am Subject: The Tathagatha exists after death? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > Dear KKT > > Was the Tathagatha while alive in the khandhas or apart from them? > > I think in the deepest sense there was no Tathagatha, there were > > only the elements, namas and rupas arising and ceasing. > > "The mental (nama) and material (rupa) are really here, > > But here there is no human being to be found, > > For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll > > Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks" (visuddhimagga XVIII > 31) The Buddha (Tathagatha)and > > arahants use terms such as self and person and being ; but without > > any misconceptions that they refer to something real. > > "These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, > > designations in common use in the world. And of these a Tathagata > > makes use indeed, but he does not misapprehend them" Digha 9. > > I believe that once the fuel of ignorance and craving was > > extinguished, as Swee Boon said, then the fire of samsara became > > cool and eventually , at khandha parinibbina, ceased forever. > > RobertK > +++++++++++++ KKT: I understand perfectly > your point, Robert, which I classify > as a nihilistic view (I really mean it :-)) > First we must have this in mind: > The Buddha kept silent and did not > answer to the following 4 questions: > __Does the Tathagata << exist >> after death? > __Does the Tathagata << not exist >> after death? > __Does the Tathagata either << exist >> > or << not exist >> after death? > __Does the Tathagata neither << exist >> > nor << not exist >> after death? > Now I show you how I may say that > the Buddha << does exist >> before death. > It's very simple :-)) > Take the Buddha and a common worldling > and put them next to each other. > Do you agree with me that we have > two << bags of 5 khandhas >> > not really different from each other > in the general sense of << khandhas >>, OK? > So what is the difference between them? > On one hand we have an << omniscient >> Tathagata > and on the other hand we have an << ignorant >> worldling. > And for sure if ever this << difference >> exists, > it should not be found in the 5 khandhas > because those are subject to conditions, OK? > The difference is this << OMNISCIENCE >> ! > This Omniscience is the proof > of the existence of the Buddha! > This Omniscience << IS >> the existence of the Buddha! > This Omniscience << exists >> before death > and a` fortiori << does exist >> after death. > Maybe one can call it << the Source of All Wisdom >> ? :-)) > Therefore I agree with this statement of James > << the Buddha still exists. > He is alive and well (in a certain sense) >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear KKT (and James), I know James doesn't like sutta quotes to be used but I hope you don't mind if I add some as I think they are relevant. In the Samyutta Nikaya (SN. IV 385), Sariputta says to a bhikkhu named Kotthita : "To hold, friend, that the Tathagata exists or does not exist after death, is to view the Tathagata as rupa [and the other khandhas]. That, friend, is the reason why this [question] has not been answered by the Blessed One."" You see the reason for the unanswered questions is that they invariably are rooted in selfview based on not understanding the khandhas . The people who asked them believed in a self somewhere either in the khandhas or apart from them. In another sutta the Budha explains to Anuruddha about these 4 questions: "And so, Anuradha -- when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life " and shows how such ideas about a Tathagata existing or not existing etc after death are quite beside the point. Samyutta Nikaya XXII.86 Anuradha Sutta "How do you construe this, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." ""Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?" "No, lord." "And so, Anuradha -- when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life -- is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata -- the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment -- being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" "No, lord." "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-086.html RobertK 18435 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 1:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] chicken and eggs Hi James , --- "James " wrote: > > Yes, it is 12:36 am right now in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona and I am > still awake. I had dinner, played with my niece (played `Harry > Potter'…she was Harry and I was a Grand Wizard! I can levitate > don't you know! ;-). Then I meditated (15 minutes only ), > and I am now on this computer. I will probably be awake for a few > more hours. ;-) Maybe many members want to know these > details...maybe not. Truthfully, I think we all want to know more > about each other. .... I’m like you.....I like a little background colour. It certainly sounds like you and your niece are having a lot of fun;-) Do you have snow in Phoenix? Watch out, Larry is a Harry Potter expert (or was) - I think it’s why he’s so good at talking in riddles;-) He could even live somewhere not too far from you and leviate your way...... Stay awake as long as you like as long as you’re having fun - certainly your niece is having a non-stop party with her personal entertainer;-) ..... > With this recent line of discussion, I really appreciate this post! > I actually like both sets of analogies; but I like the ocean/sailing > one more. .... I thought the same as I was typing. Very beautiful as you say. “Like the rain cloud pouring down is the knowledge of the path of arahantship.” ..... In Chinese culture, rain pouring down is considered very auspicious....We sat outside in the heaviest rain storms during the Handover ceremonies in 1997 and this was meant to be a wonderful start.....hmmm.....takes a little cultural adjustment if you come from England. ..... >I have a problem with the chicken and the egg one because > of the last parallelism, "And as the chicks go about adorning the > village field, so the great arahant enters into fruition attainment > which takes Nibana as its object, and thus adorns his monastery." > Huh? Nibbana is supposed to be taken as some sort of decoration > now? Like `Nibbana Holiday Lights' outlining a Buddhist temple to > twinkle a greeting to the un-cheery? ;-))(i.e. Dukkha enslaved) ..... LOL ....I’ll leave it for others to comment on further....though I wish to take up the phrasing “arahant enters into fruition attainment which takes Nibana as its object” that is commonly used and discuss it in another thread. ..... > WOW!! Thank you Sarah for your efforts on our behalf to provide the > full commentary. It is beautiful and breathtaking. .... I think this is a summary of the commentary. I’m actually hoping that if Nina is translating the complete commentary anyway to these passages that she’ll kindly give us the Pali with English as a ‘walk through’ and also with any other passages she does if it’s no extra trouble (and no hurry). I realize it may only be parts that she intends to use in her article. Thanks James...nice to be in agreement from time to time too;-) Sarah (AKA Heartless in Hong Kong) =========================== 18436 From: James Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 1:43am Subject: Re: The Tathagatha exists after death? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " wrote: > > Dear KKT (and James), > I know James doesn't like sutta quotes to be used but I hope you > don't mind if I add some as I think they are relevant. Robert K, Well!! ;-) I have never been so insulted! ;-) Sir, this calls for a duel!! ;-) Just Kidding. I know that you hold KKT in much higher regard than myself (as you probably should…showing deference for one's elders is the proper way… karma stream and otherwise) but please don't speak of me in the third person…it's not very polite. I also know, quite distinctly, don't ask my how, that this quote is a forgery or a misappropriation of the true thing: In the Samyutta Nikaya (SN. IV 385), Sariputta says to a bhikkhu named Kotthita : "To hold, friend, that the Tathagata exists or does not exist after death, is to view the Tathagata as rupa [and the other khandhas]. That, friend, is the reason why this [question] has not been answered by the Blessed One." I feel that no such wording of the suttas exists. However, since I am unavailable with a copy of the Samyutta Nikaya hardbound (Santa wasn't so good to me this year ;-) and I cannot find this sutta on the blessed Internet, I am at a loss in this duel. I challenge you to provide more of this sutta and the publishing company from which it is found…if you so desire. As far as the other sutta quotes you present, quite accurately, they further support my point; you just cannot see it yet. But you are very close! ;-) Metta, James Ps. I don't have a problem with people using sutta quotes. Heck, I probably use them more than anyone!! ;-) I have a problem with people who use them without their own analysis or explanation. In other words, I don't respect pseudo-Buddhas. Why should I? 18437 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 2:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Significant Event/s Chris I'm glad you reminded me of this anniversary, otherwise it may have gone unnoticed (by me, that is). Many thanks for your kind words, and also for the kind words and end-of -year messages of everyone. I, too, am a beneficiary of the sharing and discussion that takes place on this list, and I would like to thank you all for your contributions. The quality of the discussion lately has been especially good, and I am sorry that my work commitments have kept me from joining in more. If it's any consolation, Chris, many people have gone through similar exasperations in coming to understand the teachings. Being one of those myself, I've come to realise that there's a very simple explanation for this -- the teachings are counter-intuitive to wrong view! Jon PS I have uploaded to the Photos section 2 pics of Bhikkhu Bodhi taken during his recent visit to Hong Kong. After extensive travels (China, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Germany), Ven Bodhi is now back at the Bodhi Monastery (New Jersey), where there has been thick snow over Christmas. --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Sarah and Jon, and fellow dsg-ers, > > Just wanted to draw your attention to a significant event happening > > on 28 December. Dhamma Study Group will have its third birthday. > Walking, talking, and out of nappies now! > > Thank you for the camaraderie, the sharing and teaching, the metta > > and karuna, the humour and patience, the expounding and > clarifying, > and the hair-tearing exasperation some of your posts have > caused.:-) > > Cheers, > Chris 18438 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 3:20am Subject: RE: [dsg] Significant Event Sumane --- "Seylan Bank - DBD (Sumane Rathnasuriya)" wrote: > Dear Sarah, Jon, Christine & the Group, > Congrats & thanks for opportunities offered! > It is Great to be in the shade of those with prag~na; > Yet struggling to find direction, > Sumane Nice to hear from you, Sumane We are all struggling to find direction. I would say those who were born in a Buddhist country and have been exposed to the teachings from a young age are indeed fortunate! I think what we all share in common is an appreciation of the wonderful opportunity that this life has given us to study the teachings in detail. Please don't hesitate to join in at any time. Everyone benefits (and not least the person contributing). Jon 18439 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 3:22am Subject: Re: The Tathagatha exists after death? James, (and Robert), It is in the Samyutta Nikaya Volume II Chapter X 44. Abyakatasamutta 'Connected Discourses on the Undeclared' 3. Sariputta and Kotthita suttas(1) - (4) on pps. 1383 to 1388 Translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Wisdom Publications 2000. 6 Sariputta and Kotthita (4) (i) Delight in the aggregates (excerpt) "Friend, it is one who delights in form, who takes delight in form, who rejoices in form, and who does not know and see the cessation of form as it really is, that thinks: 'The Tathagata exists after death' ... or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.' (note 378) This section of the sutta then goes on to say the same about one who takes delight in feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness. The other sections of the sutta explain further by using: (ii) Delight in existence (iii) Delight in clinging (iv) Delight in craving (v) Another method? note 378 says Rupagatam etam. Spk: This is mere form. He shows: "No other being is found here apart from form, but when there is form there is merely this name." Spk-pt: What is being rejected here? The self posited by the outside thinkers, spoken of here as "Tathagata." metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: 18440 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 3:48am Subject: Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman Hi Charles and Andrew, It is often said on dsg that the Dhamma is descriptive not prescriptive. I think this is possibly the most valuable piece advice any Dhamma student can receive. You say: ------------- > To dedicate entire energies to `nama/rupa', `existence/non-existence', and `nibbana/samsara' is wrong. Such focusing will perpetuate the very thing we endeavor to cease; it will not end it. Do you want to become selfless? How do you do that in this mundane existence? Focus everything you have on the benefit of others; and do that with wisdom and patience. > ------------- What you have said is fine and just about anyone could agree with it. However, do you mean it in a way that is descriptive or in a way that is prescriptive? If we are to understand it in a way that accords with the Buddha's teaching, then we have to recognise that there is no self who `dedicates energy,' and no self who `wants to become selfless' or who `focuses with wisdom and patience.' Why would anyone prescribe a course of action, knowing that there is only this present trilli-second of a moment? Ultimately, there are no courses of action, no prescribers, no prescribees. It is beyond my ability to explain this point half as well as is done on a regular basis by other dsg members. I tend to repeat stock phrases like; "there is only nama and rupa!" This wears thin very quickly with people who are not already enamoured with the descriptive-not-prescriptive hypothesis. So, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to know what you both think of it. Kind regards Ken H PS Charles, I think your comment; "though I feel you don't hold me in high regard, never mind," is quite brilliant -- because of the `never mind' at the end. People like myself don't always take the time to reassure everyone that what they write should not be taken the wrong way. Writing is very difficult -- for some more than others -- I just have to bumble along in my imperfect fashion or not post anything at all. Let's never mind other peoples' failings. KH 18441 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 3:52am Subject: Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman In the previous message, for 'Charles,' please read 'James.' It's been a long day (not that the surf was all that brilliant). Ken H 18442 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 10:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tathagatha exists after death? Hi, Robert (and KKT and James) - In a message dated 1/2/03 4:03:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 > " wrote: > >>Dear KKT > >>Was the Tathagatha while alive in the khandhas or apart from > them? > >>I think in the deepest sense there was no Tathagatha, there were > >>only the elements, namas and rupas arising and ceasing. > >>"The mental (nama) and material (rupa) are really here, > >>But here there is no human being to be found, > >>For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll > >>Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks" (visuddhimagga > XVIII > >31) > The Buddha (Tathagatha)and > >>arahants use terms such as self and person and being ; but > without > >>any misconceptions that they refer to something real. > >>"These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, > >>designations in common use in the world. And of these a > Tathagata > >>makes use indeed, but he does not misapprehend them" Digha 9. > > >>I believe that once the fuel of ignorance and craving was > >>extinguished, as Swee Boon said, then the fire of samsara became > >>cool and eventually , at khandha parinibbina, ceased forever. > >>RobertK > > > +++++++++++++ > KKT: > I understand perfectly > >your point, Robert, which I classify > >as a nihilistic view (I really mean it :-)) > >First we must have this in mind: > >The Buddha kept silent and did not > >answer to the following 4 questions: > >__Does the Tathagata <>after death? > >__Does the Tathagata <>after death? > >__Does the Tathagata either <> > >or <>after death? > >__Does the Tathagata neither <> > >nor <>after death? > > > Now I show you how I may say that > >the Buddha <>before death. > >It's very simple :-)) > >Take the Buddha and a common worldling > >and put them next to each other. > >Do you agree with me that we have > >two <> > >not really different from each other > >in the general sense of <>, OK? > > So what is the difference between them? > >On one hand we have an <>Tathagata > >and on the other hand we have an <>worldling. > >And for sure if ever this <>exists, > >it should not be found in the 5 khandhas > >because those are subject to conditions, OK? > >The difference is this <>! > > This Omniscience is the proof > >of the existence of the Buddha! > >This Omniscience <>the existence of the Buddha! > >This Omniscience <>before death > >and a` fortiori <>after death. > > Maybe one can call it <>? :-)) > >Therefore I agree with this statement of James > >< >He is alive and well (in a certain sense) >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Dear KKT (and James), > I know James doesn't like sutta quotes to be used but I hope you > don't mind if I add some as I think they are relevant. > > In the Samyutta Nikaya (SN. IV 385), Sariputta says to a bhikkhu > named Kotthita : > "To hold, friend, that the Tathagata exists or does not exist after > death, is to view the Tathagata as rupa [and the other khandhas]. > That, friend, is the reason why this [question] has not been > answered by the Blessed One."" > > You see the reason for the unanswered questions is that they > invariably are rooted in selfview based on not understanding the > khandhas . The people who asked them believed in a self somewhere > either in the khandhas or apart from them. > > In another sutta the Budha explains to Anuruddha about these 4 > questions: "And so, Anuradha -- when you can't pin down the > Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life " and shows > how such ideas about a Tathagata existing or not existing etc after > death are quite beside the point. > Samyutta Nikaya XXII.86 > Anuradha Sutta > > > "How do you construe this, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the > Tathagata?" > "No, lord." > "Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?" > "No, lord." > "Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?" > "No, lord." > "Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?" > "No, lord." > "Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?" > "No, lord." > ""Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without > feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without > consciousness?" > "No, lord." > "And so, Anuradha -- when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a > truth or reality even in the present life -- is it proper for you to > declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata -- the supreme man, the superlative > man, attainer of the superlative attainment -- being described, is > described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata > exists after death, does not exist after death, both does &does not > exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" > "No, lord." > "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly &now, it is only > stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-086.html > RobertK > > > =============================== I very much like the assortment of sutta quotes you provide, Robert. To me they all roll right down the middle way. It is possible that some people could look at them and conclude that the Tathagata (and nibbana as well), is some mysterious something that is other than any of the khandhic elements, and still others will infer that that the Tathagata is nothing at all. I strongly suspect that the Tathagata, or, better, the reality corresponding to the person we conventionally call "the Tathagata", is neither of these, and is neither properly described as existent or nonexistent. From the perspective of samsara, the perpective of afflicted cognition, the things which exist in any sense at all are separate but related conditions, true but fleeting existents. Samsara is a world of extremes - of true existences counterposed to absolute nonexistences. I believe that as we practice the Buddha's way and we meet with some progress, developing insight begins to let us see through these extremities. I see the realization of nibbana as amounting to a full dissolving of our avijja-hardened cognition, leaving a perspective that is not truly describable, because the means by which description is possible, separate conditions, has been seen through and left behind. All our discussions of the Buddha before and after death, and all our conversations about nibbana, are rooted in our samsaric perspective, regardless of how well we intellectually understand the Dhamma, and that, it seems to me, is the core reason for the Buddha's cautionings against conjecturing in these areas. What he really urged us to do, I believe, is to assiduously practice the three trainings, to follow the his program and let it lead us to truth and liberation. And with the advent of full enlightenment, the meaning of the Buddha's statement that to see him and to see the Dhamma are the same will be clear. Reality is what it is, no matter how we may grasp it, and no matter whether Buddhas should arise in the world or not. 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) 18443 From: nidive Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 5:51am Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi KKT, > __Does the Tathagata << exist >> after death? > __Does the Tathagata << not exist >> after death? > __Does the Tathagata either << exist >> > or << not exist >> after death? > __Does the Tathagata neither << exist >> > nor << not exist >> after death? > My interpretation of His silence > is that He let wide open the door > for His disciples to probe more > deeply into this problem. Consider Majjhima Nikaya 72: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn072.html "Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply. "Any feeling... Any perception... Any mental fabrication... "Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply." Is there a difference between being silent and saying "doesn't apply"? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18444 From: Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 1:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi, Swee Boon (and KKT) - In a message dated 1/2/03 8:53:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > Hi KKT, > > >__Does the Tathagata <>after death? > >__Does the Tathagata <>after death? > >__Does the Tathagata either <> > >or <>after death? > >__Does the Tathagata neither <> > >nor <>after death? > > >My interpretation of His silence > >is that He let wide open the door > >for His disciples to probe more > >deeply into this problem. > > > Consider Majjhima Nikaya 72: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn072.html > > "Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the > Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its > root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the > conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. Freed from > the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, > boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't > apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does &does not > reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' > doesn't apply. > > "Any feeling... Any perception... Any mental fabrication... > > "Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would > describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, > like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, > not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of > consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to > fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' > doesn't apply. 'Both does &does not reappear' doesn't > apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply." > > > Is there a difference between being silent and saying "doesn't > apply"? > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > > > =============================== Neither existing nor yet not existing. Neither of those extremes - rather as in the Kaccayangotta Sutta. That by which the Tathagata might be described has been abandoned. The Tathagata is beyond description - beyond reification, yet also beyond nullification. The real cannot be seen from here, from this realm of ignorance and illusion, and where it can be seen there is no means of describing it, circumscribing it, defining it, or grasping it. "Freed from the classification of form [etc], Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does &does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply" is what is said. What is deep, boundless, and hard to fathom is not nothing. 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) 18445 From: nidive Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 7:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Howard, > The real cannot be seen from here, > from this realm of ignorance and illusion, > and where it can be seen there is no means of describing it, > circumscribing it, defining it, or grasping it. I disagree. Samsara is REAL. Nibbana is REAL. That which is UNREAL does not exist at all. The Tathagata, unbound, gone parinibbana, is UNREAL. You and I, still bound to samsara, are REAL. The other REAL, nibbana, is to be realized! The path of the Tathagata is from the REAL to the UNREAL. > What is deep, boundless, and hard to fathom is not nothing. What is deep, boundless and hard to fathom is simply 'out'. It is simply 'kicked out' of the REAL to the UNREAL. The UNREAL is not Nothingness. It simply doesn't exist. That which doesn't exist, can we say it is Nothingness? Nothingness is an activity in naming. That which doesn't exist at all can't be named. It can't even be named Nothingness. Nothingness doesn't apply. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18446 From: nidive Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 7:09am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Howard, Just to add another point ... > That which doesn't exist at all can't be named. It can't even be > named Nothingness. That which doesn't exist at all also can't even be named 'non- existent', for 'non-existent' is also an activity in naming. That which doesn't exist at all simply can't be described, simply can't be named. Deep, boundless and hard to fathom indeed is the Tathagata. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18447 From: Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi, Swee Boon - You write below in part: "Samsara is REAL. Nibbana is REAL. That which is UNREAL does not exist at all. The Tathagata, unbound, gone parinibbana, is UNREAL. You and I, still bound to samsara, are REAL. The other REAL, nibbana, is to be realized! ----------------------------------------------- Howard: And what exactly is that? What is it to "realize" nibbana except to drop all illusion? (And you and I are REAL???) ------------------------------------------------ The path of the Tathagata is from the REAL to the UNREAL. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Now that's an interesting path: a path from the REAL to the UNREAL I can hardly think of a better definition of annihilationism than that. ======================== With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/2/03 10:04:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > >The real cannot be seen from here, > >from this realm of ignorance and illusion, > >and where it can be seen there is no means of describing it, > >circumscribing it, defining it, or grasping it. > > I disagree. > > Samsara is REAL. Nibbana is REAL. > > That which is UNREAL does not exist at all. > > The Tathagata, unbound, gone parinibbana, is UNREAL. > > You and I, still bound to samsara, are REAL. > > The other REAL, nibbana, is to be realized! > > The path of the Tathagata is from the REAL to the UNREAL. > > > >What is deep, boundless, and hard to fathom is not nothing. > > What is deep, boundless and hard to fathom is simply 'out'. > > It is simply 'kicked out' of the REAL to the UNREAL. > > The UNREAL is not Nothingness. It simply doesn't exist. > > That which doesn't exist, can we say it is Nothingness? > > Nothingness is an activity in naming. > > That which doesn't exist at all can't be named. It can't even be > named Nothingness. > > Nothingness doesn't apply. > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 18448 From: nidive Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 7:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Howard, > What is it to "realize" nibbana except to drop all illusion? Samsara is not an illusion. It is REAL. If it were an illusion, we can all continue in our fantasies. Why bother about nibbana? > (And you and I are REAL???) You and I are Samsara. And Samsara is REAL. You and I are "rupa, citta and cetasika". These three dhammas are REAL. They do exist. > Now that's an interesting path: a path from the REAL to the UNREAL. > I can hardly think of a better definition of annihilationism than that. Friend, deep, boundless and hard to fathom is the Tathagata freed from all naming activities. Annihilation doesn't apply. 'Does not exist' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. Nothingness doesn't apply. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18449 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 9:19am Subject: Re: The Tathagatha exists after death? Dear Robert and all, Thanks to everybody to answer to my post. Because what I wrote has merely the value of a << speculation >> so I prefers not to engage into details of discussions but to stick to the main idea in order to see clearly. My << speculation >> is: The Tathagata << does exist >> as Omniscience. And this Omniscience is not << something >> nor a << Self >> nor of the domain of the << 5 khandhas >> Yesterday, after writing that post, I suddenly realized something interesting that maybe the first Mahayana Buddhists had the same << intuitive >> observation as mine :-)) Why? Because the first Mahayana Sutras to appear are the many voluminous Prajnaparamita Sutras (Perfection of Wisdom) (now available in English by the translations of E. Conze) Prajnaparamita literally means << The Transcendental Wisdom that Brings One to the Other Shore >> If you read those Sutras then you will see that from the first page to the last page, the Prajnaparamita were constantly stressed to satiety ! :-)) So the Omniscience I mention above << IS >> this Prajnaparamita. Peace, KKT 18450 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 9:30am Subject: Re: The Tathagatha exists after death? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: So the Omniscience I mention above << IS >> this Prajnaparamita. KKT: Prajnaparamita is also called << Mother of All Buddhas >> KKT 18451 From: James Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 9:58am Subject: Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman Hi Ken H., You write, Hi Charles and Andrew, "It is often said on dsg that the Dhamma is descriptive not prescriptive. I think this is possibly the most valuable piece advice any Dhamma student can receive …So, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to know what you both think of it…In the previous message, for 'Charles,' please read 'James." Well, this is a big subject! ;-) Before I go into the long explanation, let me give the conclusion. I do not believe that the `dhamma' of the Triple Gem is best taken as descriptive rather than prescriptive. I am not sure who has been writing that in this group, I haven't come across that statement yet, but it surely wasn't me. If you take the dhamma as descriptive over prescriptive, it is dead and useless. It becomes a set of philosophical ponderings, much like those of Aristotle, which will have little benefit to anyone in a practical sense. Additionally, such a position is impossible to take when related to dhamma. Dhamma, by its very nature, is prescriptive. Just look at your above statement, "It is often said on dsg that the Dhamma is descriptive not prescriptive. I think this is possibly the most valuable piece advice any Dhamma student can receive." Now, no offense, but this position is oxymoronic. `Advice' is prescriptive; you are writing that the best advice for a dhamma student is that the dhamma is not meant as advice. If that is so, why offer any advice? Why does there exist a `dhamma student'? You further write: "Why would anyone prescribe a course of action, knowing that there is only this present trilli-second of a moment? Ultimately, there are no courses of action, no prescribers, no prescribees." Okay, this position is `anatta' gone haywire. Even though there is `no self' that doesn't let us all off the hook for recognizing proper behavior, karma, and responsibility. This is hard to explain with cognitive thought, but `anatta' is a `closed system'. Though `we' don't exist except as a collection of vibrations (aggregates), one must never forget what caused those vibrations in the first place: ignorance, craving, and desire for existence. Those are the things that must be negated, not just their result. If you just cut down the tree, if you just adhere to a philosophy of `non-self', you will miss the roots. The tree will grow back again as quickly as it is cut down. This is my view. One takes refuge in the Triple Gem because it the medicine which will cure us. Thanisarro Bhikkhu expressed it well with these words: "On the internal level, the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha are the skillful qualities we develop in our own minds in imitation of our external models. For instance, the Buddha was a person of wisdom, purity, and compassion. When we develop wisdom, purity, and compassion in our own minds, they form our refuge on an internal level. The Buddha tasted Awakening by developing conviction, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, and discernment. When we develop these same qualities to the point of attaining Awakening too, that Awakening is our ultimate refuge. This is the point where the three aspects of the Triple Gem become one: beyond the reach of greed, anger, and delusion, and thus totally secure." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/refuge.html#goi I hope this response answers your question. I still hold the position that to be `focusing everything one has on the benefit of others' is the proper way to practice `selflessness'. It doesn't mean to deny self and other. Metta, James Ps. Your writing and ability to express yourself are exemplary. I meant that you do not hold me in high regard because I do not adhere to your mode of thinking. Though I feel that is not the case anymore; since you ask to understand and not to disprove. 18452 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 9:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Way 31, Comm, the goal op 31-12-2002 23:35 schreef peterdac4298 op peterdac4298@y...: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom > wrote: >> N: This is clear. Past is past already, the present has already > arisen and >> then gone, so fast. Through the Path the latent tendencies are > eradicated, >> so that defilements cannot arise in the future. Thus, I can > understand that >> past or present defilements are not abandoned. > > So, presumably, the goal of the holy life is to realize this with > total clarity, at all times, without any trace of doubt or confusion? Dear Peter, I am not sure whether I understand your question. Please could you elaborate a little? As to doubt, only the sotapanna has eradicated this. When we have theoretical understanding we have doubts, but when there is awareness we learn to understand realities. Latent tendencies of defilements can be eradicated by panna developed to the degree of lokuttara panna. This is the goal of the holy life. Nina. 18453 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 9:58am Subject: Dhamma Issues, 2, fruition-attainment, no. 5 Dhamma Issues, 2, fruition-attainment, no. 5 All arahats abide by nature in the following three kinds of vipassanå, insight knowledge: the void abiding (suññata vihåra), the signless abiding (animitta vihåra) and the desireless abiding (appanihita vihåra)12. In the Commentary to the ³Path of Discrimination², to Chapter IX, Equanimity about Formations (sankhårupekkhåñåna), we read: ³With regard to the abiding in the three kinds of insight by the arahats who wish to abide in vipassanå, without fruition-attainment: they see the clinging to oneself as a danger, and they are inclined to the void abiding (suññatå vihåra, voidness of self); they see the decline(of conditioned dhammas) by equanimity about formations under the aspect of the void abiding. They see as a danger the characteristics of conditioned realities (sankhåranimitta), and they are inclined to the signless abiding (animitta vihåra); they see the decline (of conditioned dhammas) by equanimity about formations under the aspect of the signless abiding. They see as a danger the steadfastness of clinging, and they are inclined to the desireless abiding (appanihita vihåra); they see the decline (of conditioned dhammas) by equanimity about formations under the aspect of the desireless abiding. With regard to the arahats who are sukkhavipassaka, with ³dry² insight (insight alone), they have attained arahatship with lokuttara cittas without jhåna factors of the different stages of jhåna, but they have calm of citta since defilements have been completely eradicated. If they have accumulated the inclination to calm of the degree of jhånacitta, then they are able to enter fruition-attainment, which is ³abiding in bliss here now² (ditthadhamma sukhavihåra [13 ). With respect to this, we read in the Subcommentary (Tíka) to the Vinaya, the Såratthadípaní, in the section ³Through wisdom (vijjå)²: ³As to the words stating the benefit of citta which has a single object, thus, the benefit of citta with samådhi, concentration, these have been explained as follows: the benefit of ³abiding in bliss here now² (ditthadhamma sukhavihåra). The abiding in bliss (sukha) here now, the commentator describes this with the leading words that the citta has a single object and that the citta having a single object has that benefit. This refers to the arahat who has dry insight (sukkha vipassaka).²[14 Footnotes: 13. Dittha dhamma: dhammas which are seen (dittha), nam