18600

From: christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 0:33am
Subject: Re: difficulty with Class Notes

 	
Hi Rob,

Sorry - still doesn't work. Acrobat reader is now givig a message 
that the file has been damaged and cannot be repaired. 

I wonder if anyone else has been having trouble, or has anyone else 
been successful?

I had a wonderful holiday season thank you Rob, and I hope you did 
also. :-)

metta,
Christine

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult <rob.moult@j...>" 
<rob.moult@j...> wrote:
> Hi Christine,
> 
> Even better News! I think that the problem has been fixed.
> 
> Please let me know if it still does not work.
> 
> Metta,
> Rob M :-)
>
	
18601

From: James <buddhatrue@y...> <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 0:34am
Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long)

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive <nidive@y...>" 
<nidive@y...> wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> My interpretation of "freed, dissociated, & released" in this 
> (Bahuna) sutta is different.
> 
> "Freed, dissociated, & released" means that the three roots of 
> attachment, aversion and ignorance have been uprooted.
> 
<snip> 
> Do you mean the Tathagata is putting up a show for Ananda?
> 
> Do you mean that the Tathagata is putting up the world's greatest 
> show at his parinibbana?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> NEO Swee Boon

Hi NEO,

You write:
"Freed, dissociated, & released" means that the three roots of 
attachment, aversion and ignorance have been uprooted"
How do you know that is what it means? If that is what it meant, 
that is what the Buddha would have said. No, he said that he 
dwells 'Freed, dissociated, and released'. Look at it this way, the 
aggregates and the round of becoming is like a prison. The Buddha 
realized this early on in life, that is why he wanted to be released 
from the prison. And so what happened? By his own efforts he 
became 'freed, dissociated, and released." He wasn't in prison 
anymore. What you are saying is that he was still in prison but he 
just learned to deal with it. You are suggesting that enlightenment 
is like 'putting on a happy face'. I believe it is much deeper than 
that. You seem to believe it just affects the brain/mind, I believe 
it affects the whole being. Enlightenment is a transformation and 
release down to the molecular level of the entire person, not just 
the brain. Those who were around the Buddha saw this and felt it. 
He didn't have to convince 'those with little dust in their eyes'; 
he didn't have to play twenty questions to prove that he was 
enlightened. They knew it automatically.

I don't know if you meditate, but if you do you will know what I am 
talking about. Usually, meditation is like sitting in a prison of 
skin, bones, and bloody guts. But, the more you do it, the more you 
become released. When wisdom or insight 'arises' in you, it doesn't 
just arise in your mind; it arises in your whole body. You know 
that release is possible with your entire body. This is not a trick 
of the mind, this is a reality. Unless you have experienced it, you 
will try to figure these things out with your mind. That is a 
fruitless endeavor.

Was the Buddha 'putting on a show'? Gosh, I never said that! The 
Buddha acted with compassion for the benefit of the unenlightened--
if you want to see that as 'putting on a show', so be it. He did 
not purposefully startle people, tell them things they were 
unprepared for, demonstrate his powers, and he acted in a way that 
they could relate to. He did this out of compassion, not to 'put on 
a show.' The sutta you quote about Ananda rubbing the Buddha's 
aching back is quite interesting. To Ananda, the Buddha's back was 
aching, the Buddha was looking old, etc.; the Buddha told Ananda 
what was appropriate for him to hear. Do I believe the Buddha's 
back was really aching? No. I believe that is what Ananda 
projected onto the Buddha. For example, since we keep talking about 
the parinibbana of the Buddha. The Buddha died because he ate bad 
food, bad meat. Have you ever eaten bad meat? If you haven't, 
please don't ever. It is the absolute worse experience in the 
world!! Here is a quote about food poisoning:

"Food poisoning refers to an acute illness caused by ingestion of 
food contaminated by bacteria, bacterial toxins, viruses, natural 
poisons, or harmful chemical substances. It is characterized by a 
short incubation period (1 wk or less). The symptoms, varying in 
degree and combination, include abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, 
headache, and prostration; more serious cases can result in life-
threatening neurologic, hepatic, and renal syndromes leading to 
permanent disability or death."

Now, you think that the Buddha's back hurt so bad that Ananda had to 
rub it and yet when the Buddha was dying from food poisoning he did 
not scream out in pain, did not act adversely, and was actually able 
to meditate and reach all four Jhanas? No, that would be quite 
impossible. In other words, at that time you quote the Buddha was 
humoring Ananda; but at the Buddha's parinibbana, the Buddha acted 
just in the way he was supposed to act. None of it was real to him.

Metta, James
	
18602

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 1:25am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long)

 	
Hi Swee Boon,

--- "nidive <nidive@y...>" <nidive@y...> wrote: > Hi Sarah,
> 
> > I think the question is, when we read "The Tathagata
> > is `deep' ..." is it referring to the present state or
> > the future Parinibbana of the Tathagata?
> 
> It refers to the parinibbana of the Tathagata.
.....
I’m not sure this is right as I wrote before..... we may have to leave it
for now. 
.....
> I think it is very clear that the intention of Vaccha in asking 
> whether "the Tathagata `reappears' or not" refers to the death of 
> the Tathagata.
.....
agreed
.....
> If the Tathagata was alive, the Tathagata `appears' (right before 
> the eyes of Vaccha).
> 
> If the Tathagata was dead, does the Tathagata `reappear'? This was 
> the intention of Vaccha's question.
.....
agreed
....
> > Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize,
> > tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle,
> > to-be-experienced by the wise.
> 
> This statement refers to nibbana. Nibbana is the unconditioned 
> phenomenon.
.....
as you corrected later, this refers to the Dhamma and thereby to realizing
nibbana (as in the SN quote you gave also).
.....
> > "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.
> 
> The Tathagata, having realized the unconditioned phenomenon, 
> nibbana, has uprooted the roots for future arising. This refers to 
> the Tathagata alive.
.....
agreed
.....
> > 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.
> 
> The Tathagata can only be freed from the classification of form at 
> death, parinibbana. While alive, the Tathagata is not yet freed from 
> form (though he has uprooted the roots by which form arises). The 
> five aggregates still remain in existence.
.....
agreed. The phrase in brackets is the key, I think.
....
> FREED (note past tense) from the classification of the five 
> aggregates, there is no longer wisdom.
> 
> FREED (note past tense) from the classification of the five 
> aggregates, there is no longer any more liberation from samsara.
> 
> Once FREED (parinibbana), the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to 
> fathom, like the sea (note that this is a different description by 
> the Buddha than the one given for nibbana earlier in the sutta). 
> Which means that any way by which we `point' to the Tathagata, 
> that `pointing' doesn't apply.
.....
I don’t have the Pali (and know little Pali myself). :
Freed may also be present passive - i.e (he is)freed.
BB translation gives: “The Tathagata has abandoned that material form by
which one describing the Tathagata might describe him; he has cut it off
at the root...”
Note: present perfect tense, i.e up til the present. 
sub-commentary note “adds that the material form has been abandoned by the
abandonment of the fetters connected with it, and it has thus become
incapable of arising again in the future.” 
.....
> And, IMHO, the Tathagata, though freed from the classification of 
> the five aggregates, is not nibbana. We cannot `point' to the 
> Tathagata as nibbana. Nibbana itself is a phenomenon, the 
> unconditioned phenomenon. Whereas the Tathagata, freed, is no longer 
> any phenomenon. The Tathagata, freed, is non-phenomenon, for a lack 
> of a better word.
.....
Agreed. In context, I think ‘freed’ refers to freed from all kilesa and
thereby freed from any future becoming by way of having experienced the
unconditioned. 

I quite appreciate your reasoning and support all your other comments
here.
....
> My own reflections and considerations.

> Mostly translations of suttas. No access to commentaries. Reads ADL 
> and ATI.
.....
I highly respect these and thank you for sharing with us.
.....
> I think it is only proper to correct my mistakes.
.....
My respect again. 

Sarah
=====


	
18603

From: christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 1:27am
Subject: Hanging around :-)

 	
Hi Antony,

Glad you made it into the album at photo number 69! Hopefully others 
will follow your good example, and make a resolution to hang around 
in the gallery as well this New Year. Delightful to see another 
great Aussie smiling out at us, Antony :-) For those unused to 
navigating their way around dhammastudygroup, click on this link:
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst
(then click on 'show all', then click on any photo to 'enlarge' it.)

metta,
Christine
	
 	
 	
18604

From: christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 2:08am
Subject: Golden Lotus

 	
Hi Sarah,

I was browsing the Useful Posts and came across one (16672) where you 
asked for a reference to the Buddha giving a monk a golden lotus. Not 
sure if anyone sent you this previously...
It is mentioned at the link below - Fundamentals of Vipassana 
Meditation by Mahasi Sayadaw. Click on "The dull young monk"
http://www.palikanon.com/english/fundamentals/fundamentals.htm

metta,
Christine
	

 	 

	
18605

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 11:05pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Why did Buddha concentrate?

 	
Hi, TG -

In a message dated 1/8/03 12:35:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> 
> Last month someone asked why did Buddha continue to concentrate even after 
> he 
> had been enlightened. Here is a relevant passage...
> 
> "Now, Brahmin, it might be that you think: 'Perhaps the recluse Gotama is 
> not 
> free from lust, hate, and delusion even today, which is why he still 
> resorts 
> to jungle-thicket resting places in the forest.' But you should not think 
> thus. It is because I see two benefits that I still resort to 
> jungle-thickets resting places in the forest: I see a pleasant abiding for 
> myself here and now, and I have compassion for future generations."
> (The Buddha...Majjhima Nikaya Sutta # 4)
> 
> TG
> 
> 
===========================
Both of these reasons are interesting. Each calls for elucidation, it 
seems to me. The first reason *suggests* that the Buddha might have still had 
preferences - specifically the preference for pleasant over unpleasanat and 
neutral. The second leaves open the question of *how* the Buddha's resorting 
"to jungle-thicket resting places in the forest" was of service to future 
generations. By example? By psychic influence?

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) 




	
18606

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 11:16pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....)

 	
Hi, Robert (and Sarah, and Jon) -

In a message dated 1/8/03 12:43:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... 
writes:

> Howard: a number of people on this list, you a little bit, Sarah a 
> little more, and Jon even moreso, and others (all of whom I admire 
> and have great fondness for) consider that no-control is a 100% kind 
> of thing, and that, because there is no self, volition cannot be 
> exercised. """
> ______
> Sounds like Jon is a real no-control freak! Interestingly out the 
> three of us I would estimate Jon is the most restrained in behaviour. 
> 
============================
I can't wait to hear what Sarah has to say about this! (C'mon, Sarah, 
isn't Jon really a crypto-wild-man? ;-)) 

With metta,
Howard

P.S. I hope you all can hear the affection in my voice. :-) 


/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) 




	
18607

From: nidive <nidive@y...> <nidive@y...> 
Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 6:15am
Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long)

 	
Hi James,

> How do you know that is what it means? If that is what it
> meant, that is what the Buddha would have said. No, he said
> that he dwells 'Freed, dissociated, and released'.

And how do you know that the "unrestricted awareness" refers to 
the "Pure Mind" concept of yours?


> He wasn't in prison anymore. What you are saying is that he
> was still in prison but he just learned to deal with it. You
> are suggesting that enlightenment is like 'putting on a happy 
face'.

Yes, the Buddha was still in prison while alive. But he did not have 
attachment, aversion and ignorance with regard to this prison. He 
knew prison as prison. He had comprehended this prison to its very 
end. In this manner, *his mind* was freed, dissociated and released 
with regard to this prison. No new kamma was created with regard to 
this prison.

The Buddha did not learn to deal with this prison after he was 
enlightened. At the point of enlightenment, the three roots are 
destroyed. Destroyed, the Buddha knows this prison as this prison. 
He did not need to put on a happy face for anyone, even himself. He 
felt physical pain, but he endured it. While enduring the pain, do 
you think he had a happy face at the same time? Or a sad face? No, 
he was tranquil, ever mindful of the pain.


> Now, you think that the Buddha's back hurt so bad that Ananda had 
to 
> rub it and yet when the Buddha was dying from food poisoning he 
did 
> not scream out in pain, did not act adversely, and was actually 
able 
> to meditate and reach all four Jhanas?

Whether Ananda had rubbed the Buddha's back or not, the Buddha would 
still be ever mindful of the pain. The fact that Ananda had rubbed 
his back is inconsequential. By the way, the sutta I quoted did not 
say anything about back pain.


And lastly, what is the difference between the "awareness" in this 
sutta below and the "unrestricted awareness" that we talked about? :


When the Blessed One was totally Unbound, simultaneously with the 
total Unbinding, Ven. Anuruddha uttered this verse: 

He had no in-&-out breathing,
the one who was Such, the firm-minded one,
imperturbable
& bent on peace:
the sage completing his span. 
With heart unbowed
he endured the pain.
Like a flame's unbinding
was the liberation
of awareness. 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16a.html


Regards,
NEO Swee Boon
	
18608

From: James <buddhatrue@y...> <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 7:17am
Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long)

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive <nidive@y...>" 
<nidive@y...> wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> > How do you know that is what it means? If that is what it
> > meant, that is what the Buddha would have said. No, he said
> > that he dwells 'Freed, dissociated, and released'.
> 
> And how do you know that the "unrestricted awareness" refers to 
> the "Pure Mind" concept of yours?
> 
> 
> > He wasn't in prison anymore. What you are saying is that he
> > was still in prison but he just learned to deal with it. You
> > are suggesting that enlightenment is like 'putting on a happy 
> face'.
> 
> Yes, the Buddha was still in prison while alive. But he did not 
have 
> attachment, aversion and ignorance with regard to this prison. He 
> knew prison as prison. He had comprehended this prison to its very 
> end. In this manner, *his mind* was freed, dissociated and 
released 
> with regard to this prison. No new kamma was created with regard 
to 
> this prison.
> 
> The Buddha did not learn to deal with this prison after he was 
> enlightened. At the point of enlightenment, the three roots are 
> destroyed. Destroyed, the Buddha knows this prison as this prison. 
> He did not need to put on a happy face for anyone, even himself. 
He 
> felt physical pain, but he endured it. While enduring the pain, do 
> you think he had a happy face at the same time? Or a sad face? No, 
> he was tranquil, ever mindful of the pain.
> 
> 
> > Now, you think that the Buddha's back hurt so bad that Ananda 
had 
> to 
> > rub it and yet when the Buddha was dying from food poisoning he 
> did 
> > not scream out in pain, did not act adversely, and was actually 
> able 
> > to meditate and reach all four Jhanas?
> 
> Whether Ananda had rubbed the Buddha's back or not, the Buddha 
would 
> still be ever mindful of the pain. The fact that Ananda had rubbed 
> his back is inconsequential. By the way, the sutta I quoted did 
not 
> say anything about back pain.
> 
> 
> And lastly, what is the difference between the "awareness" in this 
> sutta below and the "unrestricted awareness" that we talked 
about? :
> 
> 
> When the Blessed One was totally Unbound, simultaneously with the 
> total Unbinding, Ven. Anuruddha uttered this verse: 
> 
> He had no in-&-out breathing,
> the one who was Such, the firm-minded one,
> imperturbable
> & bent on peace:
> the sage completing his span. 
> With heart unbowed
> he endured the pain.
> Like a flame's unbinding
> was the liberation
> of awareness. 
> 
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16a.html
> 
> 
> Regards,
> NEO Swee Boon

Hi NEO,

So, we come down to your opinion vs. mine. That is fine. Most of 
my evaluation comes from personal meditation experience. Though 
rudimentary compared to the Buddha, probably not too shabby. So 
tell me, when you meditate do you find that insight arises only in 
your mind or through out your body? Does your whole body feel 
liberated at moments of insight, or just your mind? Do your body 
feel different, or the same?

Metta, James
	
18609

From: nina van gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 10:29am
Subject: Perfections Ch 7, Patience, no 11

 	
Perfections Ch 7, Patience, no 11

The present which is superior is the Triple Gem. We have met each other life
after life in the cycle of birth and death, in some lives as friends, in
other lives as enemies or as parents and relatives. However, to be born as
friends in the Dhamma who are cooperating to spread the teachings is most
beneficial. Such a life is superior to other lives in the cycle of birth and
death, where we were born elsewhere without such an opportunity.
We read further on in the Commentary:

As regards King Pukkusåti, he arranged for decorations beginning with the
border area in the following manner:
King Pukkusåti arranged that the city would be decorated so that the royal
present from King Bimbisåra could be received. When the royal present
arrived in Takkasilå it was a day of vigil (uposatha). The courtiers who
received the royal present announced the contents of the royal official
letter to the King. After the King had listened to this he considered the
duties he had to fulfill towards the courtiers who had come to offer the
royal present. He let the royal present be carried to the palace and he
said, ²Let nobody enter here². He asked people to guard the gate, he opened
the window (used for receiving at official occasions), he had the royal
present placed on a high bed, and he himself sat down on a low seat. He
broke the royal seal, and he took off the coverings. When he opened the
boxes subsequently and saw the box made of bamboomatting, he considered, ³I
believe that other Gems do not have such accompaniments, and thus we should
listen to this Jewel. This Jewel was certainly born in the Middle Country.²
When he had opened those boxes and broken the royal seal, he took away from
both sides the delicate blanket made of animal hair, he saw the golden sheet
and unrolled this. He considered:
³These letters are really beautifully carved out in all details: they are of
equal size, neat and quadrangle. I will start to read them from the
beginning.² An intense feeling of joy arose in the King when he read and
reread about the excellent qualities of the Buddha who appeared in this
world.
The tips of the ninetynine thousand bodyhairs stood on end. Because of his
extreme delight and rapture the King did not know whether he should stand or
sit down. 
When intense rapture arose within the King he said: ²We heard the teachings
which are difficult to come across, even in a hundred thousand aeons, and
this could happen because of a friend.² When the King was unable to read on
he sat down until his rapture quieted down. Then he started to read on about
the excellent qualities of the Dhamma: ³The Dhamma that was wellspoken by
the Buddha...² The King experienced intense rapture and he sat down again
until the strength of his rapture quieted down. After that he read about the
excellent qualities of the Sangha, ³The ariyan disciples practise in the
right way...² and he experienced intense rapture in the same way.
	
18610

From: nina van gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 10:29am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 35, Comm, Breathing

 	
Larry, this whole passage is not in my Pali text, and the same for the
following page. The Co just mentions that this is in the Visuddhimagga.
Nina. 

op 08-01-2003 02:10 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...:

> "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, The Section on Breathing, p.47
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html
> 
> Sabbakayapatisamvedi Assasissami... passasissamiti sikkhati... =
> "Experiencing the whole body I shall breathe in... breathe out, thinking
> thus, he trains himself." He trains himself with the following idea: I
> shall breathe in making known, making clear, to myself the beginning,
> middle, and end of the whole body of breathings in;
	
18611

From: rjkjp1 <rjkjp1@y...> <rjkjp1@y...> 
Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 2:48pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....)

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
wrote:
> Hi Robert K
> 
> KC: I still remember I discuss this issue before. I think I was
> wrong the previous times about cetana. You are right to say that
> there is no control over the khandas but these are for pple who have
> achieved a certain level of development. I do not know which 
level. 
> In the meantime, there is a need to direct cetana or not Buddha will
> not talk about Sila, livelihood and sati. Or during his times, what
> is to be done what is not to be done bc he knows we are fallable
> Until we could do unprompted kusala behaviour and latent tendecies
> are not that strong, there is a need to direct cetana and that needs
> a certain form of directing cetana and hence Buddha talk about the
> Eight Noble path which are cater for both mundane and supramundane
> state. Ultimately, the Buddha path is no control when one developed
> from citta to maga citta, there is no need for any control as it
> becomes unprompted kusala behaviour like a tidal wave.
> 
> 
> kind rgds
> KC
> 
> ++++++++++
Dear KenO,
Thanks for coming into the discussion. Someone asked A. Sujin on a 
tape I heard, why she stressed anatta so much. She said that for 
those who have the ability to understand it this deepest aspect of 
the teachings can only be heard during a Buddhasasana. 

We can develop sila and samatha whether there exists the teachings of 
a buddha or not. I think it is not that one who learns about anatta 
necessarily neglects sila or samatha - rather they will drop away the 
wrong path (which can include a wrong approach to sila and samatha, 
silabbataparamasa).

In thailand from childhood people chant "sabbe dhamma anatta": it may 
not be well comprehended but should we tell the monks not to teach it 
unless someone is at a certain stage? Can we choose when we will hear 
about anatta and its characteristic (no control)? 
RobertK
	
18612

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 3:42pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 35, Comm, Breathing

 	
Thanks Nina, I see what you were saying now. Do you think this extra
material is misleading?

Larry
----------------
Nina: Larry, this whole passage is not in my Pali text, and the same for
the following page. The Co just mentions that this is in the
Visuddhimagga. Nina.
	
18613

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 11:58am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Why did Buddha concentrate?

 	
In a message dated 01/08/2003 4:05:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
upasaka@a... writes:

<< Both of these reasons are interesting. Each calls for elucidation, it 
seems to me. The first reason *suggests* that the Buddha might have still 
had 
preferences - specifically the preference for pleasant over unpleasanat and 
neutral. The second leaves open the question of *how* the Buddha's resorting 
"to jungle-thicket resting places in the forest" was of service to future 
generations. By example? By psychic influence?

With metta,
Howard >>

I read "compassion for future generations" to mean that he is setting an 
example of what to follow/do. One resorting to a jungle-thicket would be 
doing so because it is an ideal abiding for: -- seclusion, concentration, and 
insight.

TG
	
18614

From: nina van gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 9:00pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 34, Comm, Breathing

 	
Hi Larry, maybe I was not clear, after the leopard passage, starting with
nisidati pallankam (sits down, etc.), then digham va assasato, etc. , then
he states: From patisambhida Magga, and after that
sabbakayapatisamvedi...next pages, Passambhayam... until : indeed to the
yogin training in... all these pages are not in my Pali text. Pali text
says, pe, pe (etc.) and: in Visuddhimagga.
I heard of a new translation, on Pali yahoo, here is a link you and
Christine could try:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/files/thepalicentre/anapanasati.zip
I am curious, but have no time, and my access is not so good.
Insight is from the first to the last item in this sutta, it is all about
satipatthana. I shall highlight a few things.
op 08-01-2003 06:33 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...:

> L: I appended a Pm passage from a note by B. ~Nanamoli to clarify a
> point in Ven. Soma's text which was the same as one in Visuddimagga. One
> thing that is a little confusing is that in Vism the path is divided
> into sila, samadhi, and panna and apparently satipatthana is mostly
> discussed under the samadhi category. But we want to discuss it as
> panna. So a textual clarification would be helpful here. Personally, I
> like satipatthana as samadhi. Early on in the commentary it said body
> contemplation and feeling contemplation were concerned with developing
> calm and citta and dhamma contemplation were concerned with developing
> insight. So we might have to wait until we get to cittanupassana before
> we see anything like an insight. Several of the 16 topics of anapanasati
> seem to be insight oriented but I don't know if they are discussed in
> this commentary.
> 


	
18615

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 10:31pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Golden Lotus

 	
Hi Christine,

--- "christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...>" <cforsyth@v...>
wrote: > Hi Sarah,
> 
> I was browsing the Useful Posts and came across one (16672) where you 
> asked for a reference to the Buddha giving a monk a golden lotus. Not 
> sure if anyone sent you this previously...
> It is mentioned at the link below - Fundamentals of Vipassana 
> Meditation by Mahasi Sayadaw. Click on "The dull young monk"
> http://www.palikanon.com/english/fundamentals/fundamentals.htm
.....
Exactly what I was looking for. The point of the story was that in this
case, even Sariputta did not know what the suitable meditation object (of
samatha) was. Only the Buddha knew....as it mentions, it turns out the
monk had been a goldsmith for 500 existences and so was fascinated by the
golden lotus. When the Buddha made it fade away, he realized the
tri-lakkhana after developing jhana.

The question at the time of the discussion was whether teachers really
know what is suitable for students in this regard.

Now Chris, we have a few more details, but I still can't see any sutta
reference. If you or anyone else manages to track one down, pls let me
know again;-)

Thanks.

Sarah
======




	
18616

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 11:50pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....)

 	
Hi Howard,

--- upasaka@a... wrote: 

> I can't wait to hear what Sarah has to say about this! (C'mon,
> Sarah, 
> isn't Jon really a crypto-wild-man? ;-)) 
.....
Showing restraint, my lips are sealed <--->
(hope I get some brownie points for this;-))

> P.S. I hope you all can hear the affection in my voice. :-) 
.....
:-) always.

Glad the cataract surgery went so smoothly - I was amazed that you were
back on line the same day.

Ok, Howard, now you’ve dragged me into the discussion, you’ll have to put
up with a few more ‘no-control’ comments. Apologies in advance for any
misunderstanding of your points below ---

1. H. to Ken: “We start right in the midst of samsara, right in the midst
of this world of illusion, and “here” WE must ACT. The ultimate fact that
such acting is a mere seeming, mere illusion, does not dictate inacction. 
The nonexistent “self” must engage in “unreal actions”.
.....
S: This sounds like the argument KC also presented (I think) and which
I’ve heard quite often from others - namely that there is one rule for us
worldlings with wrong view of self and another for those without any
illusions. In other words, self rules and acts until it is seen as the
illusion. 

I believe this is contrary to the comment you’ve been making recently to
effect that regardless of whether the Buddha taught the dhamma or whether
we’ve ever heard it, the truth is the truth. In other words, regardless of
any wrong view there may be of self acting, there never is any self to
act.
*****
2. H to Ken: “..what I take exception to is the implication of
powerlessness and hopelessness. It is all well and good to intellectually
grasp that there is nothing but the present moment and that nothing is as
it seems, but to not take conventional action........”
.....
S: That would be wrong view. There will always be ‘conventional action’
and there is nothing ‘powerless’ or ‘hopeless’ about any wholesome mental
states. If there is any idea that the ‘no-control aspect of anatta’ means
nothing can be done or all is hopeless, this would be a dangerous wrong
view. I haven’t seen it expressed by Jon, Rob or myself.
*****
3. H to Robert K: “..consider that no-control is a 100% kind of thing, and
that, because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised.”
.....
According to the conditional relations, no-control is “a 100% kind of
thing”. Outside of the various conditions which work together to bring
about certain results, there is no other factor or agent, regardless of
whether or not there is any insight. Cetana (volition) plays its part,
along with all the other namas and rupas. Cetana arises with every citta
and coordinates or directs the other mental factors. While it ‘wills’ or
urges wholesome and unwholesome cittas (in the javana process), it is
never exercised by any agent.

“..there is no such thing as volition in the four planes of existence
without the characteristic of coordinating; all volition has it. but the
function of ‘willing’ is only in moral (kusala) and immoral (akusala)
states...It has directing as manifestation. It arises directing
associated states, like the chief disciple, the chief carpenter, etc, who
fulfil their own and others’ duties.” Atthasalini (1, part 1V, Ch 1, 111)

(see Nina’s ‘Cetasikas’ for more details on cetana)

As I wrote to Rob Ep in a post on sakkaya ditthi (self view), we were
discussing in Thailand how easily one kind or other can slip in even when
we’ve heard and considered so much about different namas and rupas.
*****
4. H to Rob K: “The Buddha made differeing statements to different people
to address differing “ailments”. He also directed his followers to engage
in various actions, i.e. to exercise their will”.
.....
S: I agree with the first comment. With regard to the second, I think as
Rob K suggested, it depends how we read and understand directions to
‘engage in various actions’. When I give instructions to my students to
work harder, not forget their books and so on.....these instructions can
be said and received both with and without any idea of self. The
instructions don’t change; the understanding does.
*****
5. H to Kom: On hearing a melody - “it is based on the existence of an
actual pattern of relations holding among the
notes.........pannati......is well-grounded.....useful information to the
mind.”
.....
S: I agree with your comments. I’d put it that depending on the actual
sounds heard, the particular combination leads to pannatti forming a
pattern of relations.....well-grounded and so on. It’s a good point
because sometimes when people hear that seeing sees visible object only or
hearing hears sound only, they then think this means some blank neutral
visible object or sound without any variation. Clearly that would be
nonsense and there would be no concepts and no functioning in the world in
that case.
*****
This last point was from another thread, but I thought I’d add it. I’d
also like to say, Howard, that though I only ever seem to pick out points
of yours that I may not agree with, you also write a lot which I really
appreciate and fully support. For example, in your last post to Rob M you
make some very helpful points about the limits of intellectual analysis
and how “it has the capacity to generate...plenty of murkiness along with
light.” you go on to explain how it is not a substitute for dhammavicaya
and for sati and sampajanna and so on.* You put it all beautifully as you
often do. I just mention this one example as I wouldn’t wish anyone to end
up with the idea that we never agree. It’s just that we seldom discuss
agreements here;-)

As always, I greatly value all your sincere and honest comments and
sharing of understanding.

Sarah
* (quote of yours more fully)
H: “Just one more point: The intellectual analysis that we engage in, by 
individual thought and through our conversations, while often useful,
doesn't 
always foster wisdom; it has the capacity to generate, I have no doubt, 
plenty of murkiness along with light. Intellectual analysis, while often 
supportive of the practice, is not the practice, and it is not a
substitute 
for the enlightenment factor of investigation (dhammavicaya), which, as I
see 
it, goes hand in hand with direct application of sati and sampaja~n~na to 
what actually arises from moment to moment. Investigation in the Dhammic 
sense will never run counter to the development of compassion in my
opinion, 
though cold, dry intellectual examination may.”
===============================================


	
18617

From: James <buddhatrue@y...> <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 1:38am
Subject: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....)

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
wrote:
<snip>
When I give instructions to my students to
> work harder, not forget their books and so on.....these 
instructions can
> be said and received both with and without any idea of self. The
> instructions don't change; the understanding does.
<snip>

Hi Sarah,

Now honestly, when you give instructions to your students, do you 
really know that there is no `you' giving assignments to `them'? I 
would bet that you are stuck in self-view just like the rest of us 
unenlightened folk; if I am mistaken I apologize. But assuming that 
I am right, given that you are stuck in self-view, of what benefit 
does it serve you to say that there is no self when you don't know 
directly that there is no self? Is that a method of eliminating 
craving? Does it lead to insight? I don't understand the point of 
anyone talking like they are enlightened when they aren't. What is 
the point of that?

Before the Buddha reached enlightenment, did he have self-view? 
From my studies he did. After all, he wanted to find out where 
his `self' was and why it was that he existed. Now, if Gotama had 
self-view, operated under self-view, did not know anything other 
than self-view, how was it that he could become enlightened? I 
would assume it was because we all can become enlightened with self-
view. How? By OUR OWN efforts. If that weren't possible, Gotama 
Siddhartha wouldn't have become enlightened. He wouldn't have 
become the Buddha. 

So why did he teach anatta after he discovered it? First of all, he 
only taught it a fraction of how the Abhidhamma goes on about it. 
Secondly, he only taught it to those who were serious about 
renunciation and meditation, he did not teach it to lay people. In 
other words, he didn't want a teacher dispersing instructions to 
students thinking `there is no self in this process.' What is the 
point of that? That will lead the teacher and the students to 
confusion. I don't believe the teaching of anatta is supposed to be 
dispersed to everyone like a polio vaccination. It is only supposed 
to be followed by those people who dedicate the entirety of their 
lives to it. If anyone really wants to know non-self, they need to 
give up everything, shave their head, wrap themselves in a sheet, 
and go live in the jungle-- with nothing! Maybe then they can begin 
to understand non-self; but even then it is difficult!

This preaching of nama/rupa, no control, anatta, only the present 
moment, etc., etc., etc., is putting the cart before the horse, in 
my estimation. We all need to start right where we are..just like 
Gotama did. If where we are is in the middle of suburban life, with 
a job, responsibilities, and little time or energy to meditate-- 
then we need to start there. Otherwise, all of this emphasis on 
anatta is like trying to `wish your self away'; which is another 
form of conceit. If you push down one problem, it will more than 
likely just pop up somewhere else. Just some ideas I thought I 
would share. If you don't agree, okay. 

Metta, James
	
18618

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 1:45am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state

 	
Hi Larry,

I really liked the way you answered your own question and found your own
reference to the point you were discussing with Rob K, i.e “textual
reference to the point that the sotapanna magga citta eradicates ditthi”.
I like the simile of the archer very much:

“Vism XXII 12: Here is a simile for this. An archer, it seems, had a
target set up at a distance of eight usabhas (about 100 yards), and
wrapping his face in a cloth and arming himself with an arrow, he stood
on a wheel contrivance (a revolving platform). Another man turned the
wheel contrivance, and when the target was opposite the archer, he gave
him a sign with a stick. Without pausing after the sign the archer shot
the arrow and hit the target.

Herein, change-of-lineage knowledge is like the sign with the stick.
Path knowledge is like the archer. Path knowledge's making nibbana its
object without pausing after the sign given by change-of-lineage, and
its piercing and exploding the mass of greed, hate and delusion never
pierced and exploded before is like the archer's hitting the target
without pausing after the sign. <end quote>”
*****
I also agree with your conclusion here, whereby ‘act’ is the magga citta
accompanied by the 8-fold path factors:
.....
“L: I interpret this to mean the act of apprehending nibbana eradicates
the anusaya as per whichever of the four path moments it may be.”
.....
While I’m talking to you, I understand the middle way to be the 5-fold or
8-fold path. So at any moment of satipatthana, it is the way. I wasn’t
sure about some of your other comments on ways, though, such as the middle
way being samsara, kamma and so on.

You also mentioned that you ‘like satipatthana as samadhi’. I don’t
understand this comment at all. There cannot be any way or satipatthana
development without panna (wisdom) and indeed without satipatthana, there
cannot be any insights (vipassana). However, there has to be right
concentration accompanying moments of satipatthana. 

I think the Visuddhimaga discusses all kinds of wholesome states and
mental development. We can see that all the phenomena discussed are namas
and rupas. When you say ‘satipatthana is mostly discussed under the
samadhi category’, I’m not clear. Perhaps you’d give a quote. Also, I
think some of your comments suggesting that kayanupassana and
vedanupassana ‘are associated
more with cultivation of quietude while cittanupassana and dhammanupassana
are associated more with the cultivation of insight” are rather
misleading. I understand why you make these comments from your reading of
‘Way’, but repeatedly in the texts we are encouraged to develop awareness
of all realities with detachment and without any selection. 

After signing off, I want to find and quote some earlier very helpful
comments you made about the inventory of reality and understanding of
self-view. This applies to all realities (the 5 khandhas as discussed
under the 4 sections in ‘Way’) as I understand it.

Sorry for yet another long post, Larry. I always start off intending to
send you a short reply, but like we read in the chicken and egg sutta, it
depends on conditions what turns out, regardless of the initial
intention;-)

Sarah
======

“L: I've been studying and contemplating on "views" and have found that
the Purification of View in the Path of Purification is basically an
inventorying of reality with the result that a self is not found
there-in. So saying "there is no self" or "there is no self in reality"
or "this part of reality is not self and any other part of reality is
not self"amounts to the same thing. However, for me, in order for this
inventory to be convincing I need to recognize that grasping "I am" is
the reality of grasping a usually meaningless concept. So, self-view is
actually a reality even though a self is not found when sought. Also I
should add there is a big difference between the Purification of View
and the eradication of view that is Stream Entry. Purification of View
is somewhat on the level of being 'politically correct' while Stream
Entry is a glimpse of nibbana. For more info on Purification of View see
ch. XVIII Visuddhimagga.”
==========================


	
18619

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 11:50pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....)

 	
Hi, Sarah -

In a message dated 1/9/03 2:52:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
sarahdhhk@y... writes:

> 
> Hi Howard,
> 
> --- upasaka@a... wrote: 
> 
> > I can't wait to hear what Sarah has to say about this! (C'mon,
> >Sarah, 
> >isn't Jon really a crypto-wild-man? ;-)) 
> .....
> Showing restraint, my lips are sealed <--->
> (hope I get some brownie points for this;-))
> 
> >P.S. I hope you all can hear the affection in my voice. :-) 
> .....
> :-) always.
> 
> Glad the cataract surgery went so smoothly - I was amazed that you were
> back on line the same day.
> 
> Ok, Howard, now you’ve dragged me into the discussion, you’ll have to put
> up with a few more ‘no-control’ comments. Apologies in advance for any
> misunderstanding of your points below ---
> 
> 1. H. to Ken: “We start right in the midst of samsara, right in the midst
> of this world of illusion, and “here� WE must ACT. The ultimate fact that
> such acting is a mere seeming, mere illusion, does not dictate inacction. 
> The nonexistent “self� must engage in “unreal actions�.
> .....
> S: This sounds like the argument KC also presented (I think) and which
> I’ve heard quite often from others - namely that there is one rule for us
> worldlings with wrong view of self and another for those without any
> illusions. In other words, self rules and acts until it is seen as the
> illusion. 
> 
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
There is no self who acts. There is no *acting*, if 'acting' implies a 
self/agent which acts. But there is intention which has consequences, and 
that, formulated conventionally, is what I mean by "acting". There is kamma 
and kamma vipaka. 
-----------------------------------------------------------

> 
> I believe this is contrary to the comment you’ve been making recently to
> effect that regardless of whether the Buddha taught the dhamma or whether
> we’ve ever heard it, the truth is the truth. In other words, regardless of
> any wrong view there may be of self acting, there never is any self to
> act.
> 
-------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
No, not contrary. Just differing modes of expressing. When the two 
modes become conflated, which is a very easy thing for the run-of-the-mill 
worldling to do, the implication of "no-control because no self to do any 
controlling" comes to be understood as the impossibility of intentional 
action. (Nina wrote in Listening to Dhamma the following: "The dhammas which 
arise in our daily life are beyond control, we cannot own them. Seeing and 
hearing do not belong to us, they are non-self. We cannot choose what we see 
and hear, this depends on the appropriate conditions." Now all three of 
these sentences are true
. But they can but they can be misunderstood. In fact, what dhammas are 
experienced are *not* beyond control, precisely because intention can serve 
as a condition. Closing one's eyes is a (conventional) volitional action 
which changes what is seen, just as looking elsewhere does, or, for that 
matter, taking a trip to a different locale. If the fact that there is, in 
reality, no agent to act is taken to mean that conventional action is 
impossible, then, among other things, people will be convinced that nobody is 
capable of following the Buddha's instructions.
--------------------------------------------

> *****
> 2. H to Ken: “..what I take exception to is the implication of
> powerlessness and hopelessness. It is all well and good to intellectually
> grasp that there is nothing but the present moment and that nothing is as
> it seems, but to not take conventional action........�
> .....
> S: That would be wrong view. There will always be ‘conventional action’
> and there is nothing ‘powerless’ or ‘hopeless’ about any wholesome mental
> states. If there is any idea that the ‘no-control aspect of anatta’ means
> nothing can be done or all is hopeless, this would be a dangerous wrong
> view. I haven’t seen it expressed by Jon, Rob or myself.
> 
---------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Wonderful. :) I think that pointing this out from time to time could 
be useful.
---------------------------------------------------

> *****
> 3. H to Robert K: “..consider that no-control is a 100% kind of thing, and
> that, because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised.�
> .....
> According to the conditional relations, no-control is “a 100% kind of
> thing�. Outside of the various conditions which work together to bring
> about certain results, there is no other factor or agent, regardless of
> whether or not there is any insight. Cetana (volition) plays its part,
> along with all the other namas and rupas. Cetana arises with every citta
> and coordinates or directs the other mental factors. While it ‘wills’ or
> urges wholesome and unwholesome cittas (in the javana process), it is
> never exercised by any agent.
> 
----------------------------------------------------
Howard:
When I speak of control - and I prefer 'influence' to 'control' - I do 
*not* presume a controller. To me, influence is merely the intentional 
creation of events which serve as conditions, it is merely cetana (or, in the 
case of an arahant, kiriya kamma) in action. I see no more need for a 
"controller" than I do for a "thinker". Neither exists as far as I'm 
concerned.
-----------------------------------------------------

> 
> “..there is no such thing as volition in the four planes of existence
> without the characteristic of coordinating; all volition has it. but the
> function of ‘willing’ is only in moral (kusala) and immoral (akusala)
> states...It has directing as manifestation. It arises directing
> associated states, like the chief disciple, the chief carpenter, etc, who
> fulfil their own and others’ duties.� Atthasalini (1, part 1V, Ch 1, 111)
> 
> (see Nina’s ‘Cetasikas’ for more details on cetana)
> 
> As I wrote to Rob Ep in a post on sakkaya ditthi (self view), we were
> discussing in Thailand how easily one kind or other can slip in even when
> we’ve heard and considered so much about different namas and rupas.
> *****
> 4. H to Rob K: “The Buddha made differeing statements to different people
> to address differing “ailments�. He also directed his followers to engage
> in various actions, i.e. to exercise their will�.
> .....
> S: I agree with the first comment. With regard to the second, I think as
> Rob K suggested, it depends how we read and understand directions to
> ‘engage in various actions’. When I give instructions to my students to
> work harder, not forget their books and so on.....these instructions can
> be said and received both with and without any idea of self. The
> instructions don’t change; the understanding does.
> 
------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I completely agree.
------------------------------------------------------

> *****
> 5. H to Kom: On hearing a melody - “it is based on the existence of an
> actual pattern of relations holding among the
> notes.........pannati......is well-grounded.....useful information to the
> mind.�
> .....
> S: I agree with your comments. I’d put it that depending on the actual
> sounds heard, the particular combination leads to pannatti forming a
> pattern of relations.....well-grounded and so on. It’s a good point
> because sometimes when people hear that seeing sees visible object only or
> hearing hears sound only, they then think this means some blank neutral
> visible object or sound without any variation. Clearly that would be
> nonsense and there would be no concepts and no functioning in the world in
> that case.
> *****
> This last point was from another thread, but I thought I’d add it. I’d
> also like to say, Howard, that though I only ever seem to pick out points
> of yours that I may not agree with, you also write a lot which I really
> appreciate and fully support. For example, in your last post to Rob M you
> make some very helpful points about the limits of intellectual analysis
> and how “it has the capacity to generate...plenty of murkiness along with
> light.� you go on to explain how it is not a substitute for dhammavicaya
> and for sati and sampajanna and so on.* You put it all beautifully as you
> often do. I just mention this one example as I wouldn’t wish anyone to end
> up with the idea that we never agree. It’s just that we seldom discuss
> agreements here;-)

------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Well, that would be dull! (And no one likes "dull"! ;-)
------------------------------------------------------

> 
> As always, I greatly value all your sincere and honest comments and
> sharing of understanding.
> 
> Sarah
> * (quote of yours more fully)
> H: “Just one more point: The intellectual analysis that we engage in, by 
> individual thought and through our conversations, while often useful,
> doesn't 
> always foster wisdom; it has the capacity to generate, I have no doubt, 
> plenty of murkiness along with light. Intellectual analysis, while often 
> supportive of the practice, is not the practice, and it is not a
> substitute 
> for the enlightenment factor of investigation (dhammavicaya), which, as I
> see 
> it, goes hand in hand with direct application of sati and sampaja~n~na to 
> what actually arises from moment to moment. Investigation in the Dhammic 
> sense will never run counter to the development of compassion in my
> opinion, 
> though cold, dry intellectual examination may.�
> 
=============================
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) 





	
18620

From: nidive <nidive@y...> <nidive@y...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 8:38am
Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long)

 	
Hi James,

> Most of my evaluation comes from personal meditation experience.
> Though rudimentary compared to the Buddha, probably not too shabby.

That's where the risk lies! What kind of insights do you perceive 
when you meditate? Things like 'Ananda projecting pain onto the 
Buddha'?

It seems that you are trying to fit the Suttas into your meditation 
experiences.

For me, I try to fit my meditation experiences into the Suttas. 
Whatever that is experienced during meditation that is not supported 
by the Suttas, I throw away.

For example, I had experienced this so-called White Bright 
Radiant 'Mind', a.k.a. rigpa or whatever. Tibetan Buddhists (I had 
read a work on the so-called Book of the Dead) attribute this rigpa 
to one's true nature. But I rejected it. This rigpa is inconstant 
and a source of stress. It does not lead to liberation. This is not 
mine.


> So tell me, when you meditate do you find that insight arises only
> in your mind or through out your body? Does your whole body feel
> liberated at moments of insight, or just your mind? Do your body
> feel different, or the same?

I do not know what kind of insight do you mean that is experienced 
by your body.

But my body do feel rapturous (piti). It is like electricity running 
down the body and disappearing like a seawave. But this is not 
insight.

As far as I know, insight only arises in the mind.


Regards,
NEO Swee Boon
	
18621

From: yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> <yu_zhonghao@y...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 8:56am
Subject: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....)

 	
Hi Howard and all,

I would like to point to some passages about self-control:

Dhammapada 12
The Self

159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train 
others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is 
self-control. 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html


Sutta Nipata I.10
Alavaka Sutta

Endowed with these four qualities,
-- truth,
self-control,
stamina,
relinquishment --
a householder of conviction,
on passing away, doesn't grieve. 

Now, go ask others,
common priests & contemplatives,
if anything better than
truth,
self-control,
endurance,
& relinquishment
here can be found. 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp1-10.html


103-105: 

Greater in battle
than the man who would conquer
a thousand-thousand men,
is he who would conquer
just one -- 
himself. 
Better to conquer yourself
than others.
When you've trained yourself,
living in constant self-control,
neither a deva nor gandhabba,
nor a Mara banded with Brahmas,
could turn that triumph
back into defeat. 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp/08.html


Metta,
Victor



> Howard:
> No, not contrary. Just differing modes of expressing. When 
the two 
> modes become conflated, which is a very easy thing for the run-of-
the-mill 
> worldling to do, the implication of "no-control because no self to 
do any 
> controlling" comes to be understood as the impossibility of 
intentional 
> action. (Nina wrote in Listening to Dhamma the following: "The 
dhammas which 
> arise in our daily life are beyond control, we cannot own them. 
Seeing and 
> hearing do not belong to us, they are non-self. We cannot choose 
what we see 
> and hear, this depends on the appropriate conditions." Now all 
three of 
> these sentences are true
> . But they can but they can be misunderstood. In fact, what dhammas 
are 
> experienced are *not* beyond control, precisely because intention 
can serve 
> as a condition. Closing one's eyes is a (conventional) volitional 
action 
> which changes what is seen, just as looking elsewhere does, or, for 
that 
> matter, taking a trip to a different locale. If the fact that there 
is, in 
> reality, no agent to act is taken to mean that conventional action 
is 
> impossible, then, among other things, people will be convinced that 
nobody is 
> capable of following the Buddha's instructions.
> --------------------------------------------
> 
> > *****
> > 2. H to Ken: “..what I take exception to is the implication of
> > powerlessness and hopelessness. It is all well and good to 
intellectually
> > grasp that there is nothing but the present moment and that 
nothing is as
> > it seems, but to not take conventional action........�
> > .....
> > S: That would be wrong view. There will always be ‘conventional 
action’
> > and there is nothing ‘powerless’ or ‘hopeless’ about any 
wholesome mental
> > states. If there is any idea that the ‘no-control aspect of 
anatta’ means
> > nothing can be done or all is hopeless, this would be a dangerous 
wrong
> > view. I haven’t seen it expressed by Jon, Rob or myself.
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Wonderful. :) I think that pointing this out from time to 
time could 
> be useful.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> > *****
> > 3. H to Robert K: “..consider that no-control is a 100% kind of 
thing, and
> > that, because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised.�
> > .....
> > According to the conditional relations, no-control is “a 100% 
kind of
> > thing�. Outside of the various conditions which work together 
to bring
> > about certain results, there is no other factor or agent, 
regardless of
> > whether or not there is any insight. Cetana (volition) plays its 
part,
> > along with all the other namas and rupas. Cetana arises with 
every citta
> > and coordinates or directs the other mental factors. While it 
‘wills’ or
> > urges wholesome and unwholesome cittas (in the javana process), 
it is
> > never exercised by any agent.
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> When I speak of control - and I prefer 'influence' 
to 'control' - I do 
> *not* presume a controller. To me, influence is merely the 
intentional 
> creation of events which serve as conditions, it is merely cetana 
(or, in the 
> case of an arahant, kiriya kamma) in action. I see no more need for 
a 
> "controller" than I do for a "thinker". Neither exists as far as 
I'm 
> concerned.
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 
> > 
> > “..there is no such thing as volition in the four planes of 
existence
> > without the characteristic of coordinating; all volition has 
it. but the
> > function of ‘willing’ is only in moral (kusala) and immoral 
(akusala)
> > states...It has directing as manifestation. It arises directing
> > associated states, like the chief disciple, the chief carpenter, 
etc, who
> > fulfil their own and others’ duties.� Atthasalini (1, part 
1V, Ch 1, 111)
> > 
> > (see Nina’s ‘Cetasikas’ for more details on cetana)
> > 
> > As I wrote to Rob Ep in a post on sakkaya ditthi (self view), we 
were
> > discussing in Thailand how easily one kind or other can slip in 
even when
> > we’ve heard and considered so much about different namas and 
rupas.
> > *****
> > 4. H to Rob K: “The Buddha made differeing statements to 
different people
> > to address differing “ailments�. He also directed his 
followers to engage
> > in various actions, i.e. to exercise their will�.
> > .....
> > S: I agree with the first comment. With regard to the second, I 
think as
> > Rob K suggested, it depends how we read and understand directions 
to
> > ‘engage in various actions’. When I give instructions to my 
students to
> > work harder, not forget their books and so on.....these 
instructions can
> > be said and received both with and without any idea of self. The
> > instructions don’t change; the understanding does.
> > 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I completely agree.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> > *****
> > 5. H to Kom: On hearing a melody - “it is based on the 
existence of an
> > actual pattern of relations holding among the
> > notes.........pannati......is well-grounded.....useful 
information to the
> > mind.�
> > .....
> > S: I agree with your comments. I’d put it that depending on the 
actual
> > sounds heard, the particular combination leads to pannatti 
forming a
> > pattern of relations.....well-grounded and so on. It’s a good 
point
> > because sometimes when people hear that seeing sees visible 
object only or
> > hearing hears sound only, they then think this means some blank 
neutral
> > visible object or sound without any variation. Clearly that would 
be
> > nonsense and there would be no concepts and no functioning in the 
world in
> > that case.
> > *****
> > This last point was from another thread, but I thought I’d add 
it. I’d
> > also like to say, Howard, that though I only ever seem to pick 
out points
> > of yours that I may not agree with, you also write a lot which I 
really
> > appreciate and fully support. For example, in your last post to 
Rob M you
> > make some very helpful points about the limits of intellectual 
analysis
> > and how “it has the capacity to generate...plenty of murkiness 
along with
> > light.� you go on to explain how it is not a substitute for 
dhammavicaya
> > and for sati and sampajanna and so on.* You put it all 
beautifully as you
> > often do. I just mention this one example as I wouldn’t wish 
anyone to end
> > up with the idea that we never agree. It’s just that we seldom 
discuss
> > agreements here;-)
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Well, that would be dull! (And no one likes "dull"! ;-)
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> > 
> > As always, I greatly value all your sincere and honest comments 
and
> > sharing of understanding.
> > 
> > Sarah
> > * (quote of yours more fully)
> > H: “Just one more point: The intellectual analysis that we 
engage in, by 
> > individual thought and through our conversations, while often 
useful,
> > doesn't 
> > always foster wisdom; it has the capacity to generate, I have no 
doubt, 
> > plenty of murkiness along with light. Intellectual analysis, 
while often 
> > supportive of the practice, is not the practice, and it is not a
> > substitute 
> > for the enlightenment factor of investigation (dhammavicaya), 
which, as I
> > see 
> > it, goes hand in hand with direct application of sati and 
sampaja~n~na to 
> > what actually arises from moment to moment. Investigation in the 
Dhammic 
> > sense will never run counter to the development of compassion in 
my
> > opinion, 
> > though cold, dry intellectual examination may.�
> > 
> =============================
> With metta,
> Howard
	
18622

From: James <buddhatrue@y...> <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 9:19am
Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long)

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive <nidive@y...>" 
<nidive@y...> wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> > Most of my evaluation comes from personal meditation experience.
> > Though rudimentary compared to the Buddha, probably not too 
shabby.
> 
> That's where the risk lies! What kind of insights do you perceive 
> when you meditate? Things like 'Ananda projecting pain onto the 
> Buddha'?
> 
> It seems that you are trying to fit the Suttas into your 
meditation 
> experiences.
> 
> For me, I try to fit my meditation experiences into the Suttas. 
> Whatever that is experienced during meditation that is not 
supported 
> by the Suttas, I throw away.
> 
> For example, I had experienced this so-called White Bright 
> Radiant 'Mind', a.k.a. rigpa or whatever. Tibetan Buddhists (I had 
> read a work on the so-called Book of the Dead) attribute this 
rigpa 
> to one's true nature. But I rejected it. This rigpa is inconstant 
> and a source of stress. It does not lead to liberation. This is 
not 
> mine.
> 
> 
> > So tell me, when you meditate do you find that insight arises 
only
> > in your mind or through out your body? Does your whole body feel
> > liberated at moments of insight, or just your mind? Do your body
> > feel different, or the same?
> 
> I do not know what kind of insight do you mean that is experienced 
> by your body.
> 
> But my body do feel rapturous (piti). It is like electricity 
running 
> down the body and disappearing like a seawave. But this is not 
> insight.
> 
> As far as I know, insight only arises in the mind.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> NEO Swee Boon

Hi NEO,

Well, I see that you and I are quite different. I look at the 
suttas as only a rudimentary finger pointing the direction to go. 
They are not the destination and they do not contain everything 
there is to know. Not only did the Buddha not intend that, the 
passage of time and translation makes that impossible. If you want 
to adhere to the suttas like Holy Scripture, more power to you. I 
refuse to do that. I have a mind of my own.

In meditation, you should not `reject' or `attach' to anything. You 
simply observe everything closely as non-self, (i.e. with 
equanimity). When the white light arises in your mind, there is no 
need to `reject' it, but there is no need to put special 
significance to it either. It is just there. Let it be.

The electricity-like energy running through your body that 
disappears in waves is more than likely not piti. Piti is the 
feeling of intense joy as one begins the process of release of the 
aggregates. It is a factor of the mind, an emotion, and must be 
abandoned (not rejected, nor attached to) as one progresses to 
higher stages. What I believe you are experiencing is the beginning 
to a realization of the aggregates themselves, a precursor to piti. 
As your mind becomes more tranquil and refined, the waves of 
electricity-like energy you feel running through your body will 
become smaller and smaller. You will them begin to feel them as 
minute vibrations throughout the body. You will then see that the 
vibrations: phase `in-and-out'. This will bring about the first 
stages of the feeling of piti, but not the most powerful feelings. 
Those powerful feelings come when you begin to `know' the vibration-
nature of the mind itself: consciousness, thoughts, feelings, and 
perception. However, in all of this vibration-mass of energy 
phasing in and out, the one thing that remains constant…at least for 
me…is awareness. Awareness of this process seems to be separate 
from the mind or the body. This is what I call `Pure Mind'. If 
there weren't a pure, unrestricted awareness, Nibbana wouldn't be 
possible. The reason I say that Nibbana affects the whole body is 
because this awareness isn't restricted to the head alone. It 
doesn't seem to `dwell' anywhere; the entire body, including the 
brain and its functions, dwells within it. It is unrestricted by 
space or time.

If this matches sutta references or not, I don't care. I know what 
I know. As the Lord Buddha advised, 'Be a light unto yourself'.

Metta, James
	
18623

From: nina van gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 10:12am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 35, Comm, Breathing

 	
op 09-01-2003 00:42 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...:

> Thanks Nina, I see what you were saying now. Do you think this extra
> material is misleading?
> 
Dear Larry, 
well it depends on the citta of the reader.
Nina.
	
18624

From: nina van gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 10:12am
Subject: right thinking

 	
Dear Christine,
I saw that you mentioned right thinking, but I was so hurried, I threw it.
This was my last day of hard work and tomorrow I can react. I would like to
share something with you: in Bgk at the house of Kunying Nopparath we all
read the Vibhangasutta and commentary and discussed right thinking. I look
it up,
Nina.
	
18625

From: christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 11:29am
Subject: Re: right thinking

 	
Dear Nina,

Thank you, I look forward to reading your post. I would really 
appreciate any clarification you may be able to give on 'right 
thought'. The previous message was at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/18585

metta,
Christine

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom <nilo@e...> 
wrote:
> Dear Christine,
> I saw that you mentioned right thinking, but I was so hurried, I 
threw it.
> This was my last day of hard work and tomorrow I can react. I would 
like to
> share something with you: in Bgk at the house of Kunying Nopparath 
we all
> read the Vibhangasutta and commentary and discussed right thinking. 
I look
> it up,
> Nina.
	
18626

From: christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 11:52am
Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long)

 	
Hello James, Swee Boon and any interested meditators.

I have been following with great interest your exchanges, but 
particularly the recent ones about meditation. I stopped meditation 
in the formal sense over a year ago, but recently read an article 
that has given me further to consider.
I wonder if either of you, or anyone else, has time to read this 
article and share any considerations that may arise. (It is about 
ten pages long.) The article is called "Experiments in Insight 
Meditation" and is written by Rod Bucknell who was the translator of 
Ajahn Buddhadasa's 'Handbook for Mankind'. 
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/toc.htm#4

A little about the author:
"Rod Bucknell first became seriously interested in Buddhism in the 
mid -1960's, when, during a visit to Thailand, he was introduced to 
the techniques of Insight Meditation. After spending a year in 
various Thai meditation centers and monasteries, he took ordination 
as a bhikkhu (monk) under the guidance of Ajahn Pannananda of Wat 
Cholapratan Rangsarit. He soon became interested also in the 
teachings of Ajahn Buddhadasa, and, recognizing their potential value 
to westerners, began translating some of the Ajahn's more important 
works into English. During the four years he spent in the Sangha, he 
translated altogether six works of varying length, usually in close 
consultation with the Ajahn in order to ensure accuracy in the 
rendering of key concepts. Despite his return to lay life, he 
maintains a close interest - both scholarly and practical - in Ajahn 
Buddhadasa's teachings, and has published several related articles in 
religious studies journals. He is currently a lecturer in the 
Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Queensland, 
Australia."
(actually, I think he is an assoc. prof. now.)

metta,
Christine

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James <buddhatrue@y...>" 
<buddhatrue@y...> wrote:
> --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive <nidive@y...>" 
> <nidive@y...> wrote:
	
18627

From: christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 11:54am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Golden Lotus

 	
Hi Sarah,

The only connection I found was a reference to Dhammapada v. 285
It mentions a lily in the verse, but a lotus in the story attached, 
though not a golden lotus, or Sariputta.

metta,
Christine
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
> Hi Christine,
> 
> --- "christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...>" <cforsyth@v...>
> wrote: > Hi Sarah,
> > 
> > I was browsing the Useful Posts and came across one (16672) where 
you 
> > asked for a reference to the Buddha giving a monk a golden lotus. 
Not 
> > sure if anyone sent you this previously...
> > It is mentioned at the link below - Fundamentals of Vipassana 
> > Meditation by Mahasi Sayadaw. Click on "The dull young monk"
> > http://www.palikanon.com/english/fundamentals/fundamentals.htm
> .....
> Exactly what I was looking for. The point of the story was that in 
this
> case, even Sariputta did not know what the suitable meditation 
object (of
> samatha) was. Only the Buddha knew....as it mentions, it turns out 
the
> monk had been a goldsmith for 500 existences and so was fascinated 
by the
> golden lotus. When the Buddha made it fade away, he realized the
> tri-lakkhana after developing jhana.
> 
> The question at the time of the discussion was whether teachers 
really
> know what is suitable for students in this regard.
> 
> Now Chris, we have a few more details, but I still can't see any 
sutta
> reference. If you or anyone else manages to track one down, pls let 
me
> know again;-)
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Sarah
> ======

18628

From: Robert Eddison <robedd@i...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 0:12pm
Subject: Re: Why did Buddha concentrate?

 	
TG:

>> thus. It is because I see two benefits that I still resort to 
>> jungle-thickets resting places in the forest: I see a pleasant abiding for 
>> myself here and now, and I have compassion for future generations."

Howard:

> Both of these reasons are interesting. Each calls for elucidation, it 
>seems to me. The first reason *suggests* that the Buddha might have still had 
>preferences - specifically the preference for pleasant over unpleasanat and 
>neutral. The second leaves open the question of *how* the Buddha's resorting 
>"to jungle-thicket resting places in the forest" was of service to future 
>generations. By example? By psychic influence?


I would think by example. The same two benefits are stated in an expanded
form by Mahaakassapa when the Buddha asks him why he continues with the
practice of forest dwelling, wearing rag-robes and other forms of ascesis
now that he is an old man and no longer has any personal need to live in
this way. Kassapa's reply is ranked by the commentary as a lion's roar:

"For myself I see a pleasant dwelling in this very life, and I have
compassion for later generations, thinking, 'May those of later generations
follow my example! For when they hear, 'The enlightened disciples of the
Buddha were for a long time forest dwellers and spoke in praise of forest
dwelling, were almsfood eaters and spoke in praise of eating almsfood, were
rag-robe wearers and spoke in praise of wearing rag-robes, were triple-robe
users and spoke in praise of using the triple-robe, were of few wishes and
spoke in praise of fewness of wishes, were content and spoke in praise of
contentment; were secluded and spoke in favour of seclusion, were aloof
from society and spoke in praise of aloofness from society, were energetic
and spoke in praise of arousing energy,' then they will practise
accordingly, and that will lead to their welfare and happiness for a long
time."

(Ji.n.na Sutta, S ii 203. Bodhi, Connected Discourses I 667)

Best wishes,

Robert
	
18629

From: Peter Da Costa <peterdac4298@y...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 3:29pm
Subject: Wrong view

 	
Hi Jon

Just to say that your comments below have been quite valuable in the time 
since receiving them.

Even attempts to rectify a given mental situation, regardless of how 
'skillful' the remedy, can be seen as a predicament, which for its remedy 
requires just simple knowing.

In other posts you assert that there is 'nothing to do'. I now understand 
this to mean that there is nothing to do but just know or be purely aware, 
since these are the fundamental function of mind. In other words, if there 
is no knowing or awareness then the mind is in fact doing something. If it 
seems as though nothing at all is happening then it is either dead (what 
ever that may be), or it is overwhelmed with background noise, or 'white' 
noise, just mass, random activity with no discernable, resultant 
signal. Happily the remedy is in just that knowing. It suddenly makes 
Dhamma universally applicable in daily life regardless of the current 
activity, or situation.

Right now, I have decided to put my time into reading through Nina's AinDL 
as located on Zolag. I should have done this decades ago, but better late 
than never. I hope to be able to follow posts more closely and make 
contributions more in keeping with the tradition of the group.

In appreciation

Peter

p.s. I've sent a cc to dsg.

At 21:14 07/01/2003 +0800, you wrote:
>Peter
>
>Delighted to hear that you are benefitting from the recent discussion.
>
> --- Peter Da Costa <peterdac4298@y...> wrote: > Thank you Jon
><snip>
Jon:-
>There is of course no magic bullet, since the root cuse of our problems is
>the accumulated ignorance and wrong view, which is so tenacious and deeply
>ingrained. But just knowing that much can help. At least our
>expectations are that much more realistic!
>
>Jon


	
18630

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 3:58pm
Subject: Way 36, Comm, Breathing

 	
"The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on
Breathing, p. 48 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html

Passambhayam kayasamkharam assasissamiti... passasissamiti sikkhati =
"Calming the activity of the body I shall breathe in... breathe out,
thinking thus, he trains himself." He thinks: " I shall breathe in and I
shall breathe out, quieting, making smooth, making tranquil and peaceful
the activity of the in-and-out-breathing body. And in that way, he
trains himself." 

"In this connection coarseness, fineness and calm should be understood
thus: Without contemplative effort, the body and the mind of this
bhikkhu are distressed, coarse. When the body and the mind are coarse,
the in-and-out-breathings too are coarse and proceed uncalmly; the nasal
aperture becomes inadequate and he has to breathe through the mouth,
too. But when the body and the mind are under control then the body and
the mind become placid, restful. When these are restful, the breathings
proceed so fine that the bhikkhu doubts whether or not the breathings
are going on." 

"The breathing of a man who runs down from a hill, puts down a heavy
burden from his head, and stands still is coarse; his nasal aperture
becomes inadequate and he breathes through the mouth, too. But when he
rids himself of his fatigue, takes a bath and a drink of water, and puts
a wet cloth over his heart and is sitting in the shade, his breathing
becomes fine, and he is at a loss to know whether it exists or not.
Comparable to that man is the bhikkhu whose breaths become so fine after
the taking up of the practice of contemplation that he finds it
difficult to say whether he is breathing or not. What is the reason for
this? Without taking up the practice of meditation he does not perceive,
concentrate on, reflect on, or think over, the question of calming the
gross activity of the breathing body, the breaths, but with the practice
of meditation he does. Therefore, the activity of the breath-body
becomes finer in the time in which meditation is practiced than in the
time in which there is no practice. So the men of old said: 

"In the agitated mind and body the breath is of the coarsest kind.

In the unexcited body, fully subtle does it wind." 

"How does he train himself with the thought: Calming the activity of the
body, I shall breathe in... breathe out? What are the activities of the
body? Those things of the body of breaths, those things bound up with
that body, are the activities of the body. Causing the body-activities
to become composed, to become smooth and calm, he trains himself... He
trains himself thinking thus: Calming the body-activity by way of
(quieting) the bodily activities of bending forwards, sidewards, all
over, and backwards, and (by way of the quieting of) the moving,
quivering, vibrating, and quaking of the body, I shall breathe in... I
shall breathe out. I shall breathe in and I shall breathe out, calming
the activity of the body, by way of whatsoever peaceful and fine
body-activities of non-bending of the body forwards, sidewards, all over
and backwards, of non-moving, non-quivering, non-vibrating, and
non-quaking of the body."[19]

19. In the explanation of the contemplation on breathing, the passage
beginning with "When breathing in long, how does he understand, 'I
breathe in long'" and ending with the words "non-quaking of the body",
consists of extracts from pages 272-277 of the Visuddhi Magga, Part 1.
P.T.S. Edition.
	
18631

From: rjkjp1 <rjkjp1@y...> <rjkjp1@y...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 4:56pm
Subject: Re: Wrong view

 	
--- Dear Peter,
I liked what you said below and thought you might appreciate this 
piece from a talk A. Sujin gave:

""..if one thinks that one should rather have objects other
than the present one, since these appear to be more
wholesome, one will never study the object which
appears now. And how can one know their true nature
when there is no study, no awareness of them?
So it must be the present object, only what appears now. This is more 
difficult because it is not the object of desire. If desire can move 
one away to another object, that object satisfies one's
desire. Desire is there all the time. If there is no
understanding of lobha (desire) as lobha, how can
it be eradicated? One has to understand different
degrees of realities, also lobha which is more subtle,
otherwise one does not know when there is
lobha. Seeing things as they are. Lobha is lobha.
Usually one does not see the subtle lobha which
moves one away from developing right understanding of the
present object.""endquote
Robertk



In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Peter Da Costa 
<peterdac4298@y...> wrote:
> Hi Jon
> 
> 
> Even attempts to rectify a given mental situation, regardless of 
how 
> 'skillful' the remedy, can be seen as a predicament, which for its 
remedy 
> requires just simple knowing.
> 
> In other posts you assert that there is 'nothing to do'. I now 
understand 
> this to mean that there is nothing to do but just know or be purely 
aware, 
> since these are the fundamental function of mind. In other words, 
if there 
> is no knowing or awareness then the mind is in fact doing 
something. If it 
> seems as though nothing at all is happening then it is either dead 
(what 
> ever that may be), or it is overwhelmed with background noise, 
or 'white' 
> noise, just mass, random activity with no discernable, resultant 
> signal. Happily the remedy is in just that knowing. It suddenly 
makes 
> Dhamma universally applicable in daily life regardless of the 
current 
> activity, or situation.
	
18632

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 5:17pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state

 	
Hi Sarah,

Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately I can't respond to many of the
questions you raised concerning what I wrote because I don't remember
the context and anything more than a week old is no longer "me" :))

Of current interest, I am a little puzzled by how satipatthana is
treated in the Visuddhimagga. It seems to be discussed mostly as a
preliminary to jhana. However, there is also incidental mention of two
vehicles, pure insight and jhana. I haven't made a thorough search yet,
but so far I haven't found a description of what a pure insight vehicle
is and I haven't seen "pure insight vehicle" equated with satipatthana.
So, where is the insight in satipatthana in Visuddhimagga?

Larry
	
18633

From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu <sanz@n...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 6:14pm
Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Wrong view

 	
Dear Friends, For a long time I have been pondering if I should ask this
question. Now that you have again mention the name of A. Sujin, I feel I
should ask. I have never met or know a thing about Sujin, I have started
asking a few Thai monks here and the USA what they think of her or if they
could give me some information. The answers. They hate her, the reason is
that according to all the Thai monks, she is the one who hates the Shanga.
They gave me all kind of other things which I am compeled to be quiet. So
can somebody tell me why is it that she is so much dislake it by the Thai
Shanga. Venerable Yanatharo

-----Mensaje original-----
De: rjkjp1 <rjkjp1@y...> [mailto:rjkjp1@y...]
Enviado el: Viernes, Enero 10, 2003 11:57 a.m.
Para: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
Asunto: [dsg] Re: Wrong view


--- Dear Peter,
I liked what you said below and thought you might appreciate this
piece from a talk A. Sujin gave:

""..if one thinks that one should rather have objects other
than the present one, since these appear to be more
wholesome, one will never study the object which
appears now. And how can one know their true nature
when there is no study, no awareness of them?
So it must be the present object, only what appears now. This is more
difficult because it is not the object of desire. If desire can move
one away to another object, that object satisfies one's
desire. Desire is there all the time. If there is no
understanding of lobha (desire) as lobha, how can
it be eradicated? One has to understand different
degrees of realities, also lobha which is more subtle,
otherwise one does not know when there is
lobha. Seeing things as they are. Lobha is lobha.
Usually one does not see the subtle lobha which
moves one away from developing right understanding of the
present object.""endquote
Robertk



In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Peter Da Costa
<peterdac4298@y...> wrote:
> Hi Jon
>
>
> Even attempts to rectify a given mental situation, regardless of
how
> 'skillful' the remedy, can be seen as a predicament, which for its
remedy
> requires just simple knowing.
>
> In other posts you assert that there is 'nothing to do'. I now
understand
> this to mean that there is nothing to do but just know or be purely
aware,
> since these are the fundamental function of mind. In other words,
if there
> is no knowing or awareness then the mind is in fact doing
something. If it
> seems as though nothing at all is happening then it is either dead
(what
> ever that may be), or it is overwhelmed with background noise,
or 'white'
> noise, just mass, random activity with no discernable, resultant
> signal. Happily the remedy is in just that knowing. It suddenly
makes
> Dhamma universally applicable in daily life regardless of the
current
> activity, or situation.




18634

From: phamdluan2000 <phamdluan@a...> <phamdluan@a...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 6:48pm
Subject: No-control & Destiny

 	
Dear everybody,


I have some questions and
I'd like to hear your opinion.


__If there is absolutely
<< no-control >> in the sense
that everything happens (or arises)
because of << conditions >>
then what is the difference 
with << destiny, fate >> ?
Because destiny also means that
things happen outside of << our >> control.


__If deep down we realize that
we have no control over any situation,
no free will to << do >> anything
then we become calm and un-disturbed
by whatever happens in life.

Is this a correct approach to life?


__Can we say that the Buddha
taught two levels of understanding?

On the first level He stressed people
to make effort, to exercise their
<< free will >> as if there were
effectively a << doer or entity >> 
capable of << doing >> anything.

But on a higher level of understanding,
there were absolutely no-control, no free will,
no entity, no doer whatsoever.
Everything just happens by << conditions >>


What do you think?

Thanks.


Regards,


KKT
	

 	
	
	


18635

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 7:44pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] No-control & Destiny

 	
Hi KKT,

Everyone will have different answers, so here are mine and then you can
give us yours:

KKT: __If there is absolutely
<< no-control >> in the sense
that everything happens (or arises)
because of << conditions >>
then what is the difference
with << destiny, fate >> ?
Because destiny also means that 
things happen outside of << our >> control. 

L: There is no control and no destiny because there is no self. "No
control" and "no doer" mean exactly the same as anatta. There is no
difference.

KKT: __If deep down we realize that
we have no control over any situation,
no free will to << do >> anything
then we become calm and un-disturbed
by whatever happens in life. 
Is this a correct approach to life? 

L: This is a good approach. The correct approach is the 8-fold path that
leads to the end of dukkha. This end is without striving and possibly
even without calm, insofar as calm is like a blanket. 

KKT: __Can we say that the Buddha
taught two levels of understanding? 
On the first level He stressed people
to make effort, to exercise their
<< free will >> as if there were
effectively a << doer or entity >>
capable of << doing >> anything. 
But on a higher level of understanding, 
there were absolutely no-control, no free will, no entity, no doer
whatsoever. 
Everything just happens by <<conditions>>

L: I think the Buddha taught one thing in many ways, all conventional.
What does it mean to say "I understand" or "I don't understand"? You
could look at the experience of understanding or bewilderment when it
arises and see what is going on. Is there an "I" there? If not, where is
the understanding or bewilderment? 

Larry
	
18636

From: <oreznoone@a...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 3:22pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....)

 	
Hello Robert,

>Yes, names are not important - it is always whether there is 
>understanding of the actual moments. You say "intention is free" 
>because its not determined. You seem to believe that if there is no 
>free will that there must be determinism? I don't think so. Instead 
>there are complex conditions are both conditioned and conditioning. 
>Cetana, intention, is one of the mental factors that are part of 
>sankhara khandha . Leaving aside that each moment of sankhara khandha 
>is conditioned by past moments (e.g.anantarapaccaya ) each cetana 
>that arises is also conditioned by other elements that arise together 
>with it - (sahajata paccaya , conascence condition,) according to the 
>Abhidhamma. 

I'm not sure what we're up to here; I said that a choice or intention was 
indeed conditioned, and even multiply so. If our intentions weren't 
conditioned (= caused) they would be random, something that merely *happens*. 
But if they're determined then they're not free; that's the meaning of the 
word. So: one could have done otherwise, given the conditioning (which is 
contra-causal causality). Perhaps we're just discussing language. 
(One needs to be careful about 'conditioned and conditioning' to avoid 
causality backwards in time.)
["Determinism is the view that everything in the universe is determined to be 
what it is by come cause; and, given the prior existence of that cause, it 
could not be otherwise... If determinism is correct, then every even in the 
universe, throughout all future time, is necessarily determined in advance by 
the first state of the universe."
Keith Ward, Key Words in Philosophy.]


>> This is merely another way of saying that we're not automatons 
>> or marionettes. 

>Could we be puppets though?
>http://www.abhidhamma.org/Patthana%203%20chapter_7.htm
>In the "Kindred Sayings"(I, Sagåthå-vagga, V, Suttas of Sisters, § 9),
>Neither self-made the puppet is, nor yet By other wrought is this ill-
>plighted thing.
>By reason of a cause it came to be,
>By rupture of a cause it dies away.
>Like a certain seed sown in the field,
>Which, when it comes upon the taste of earth,
>And moisture likewise, by these two grows,
>So the five khandhas, the elements,
>And the six spheres of sense
>even all these,
>By reason of a cause they came to be;
>By rupture of a cause they die away."""

That's a good definition of determinism; no choice or intention, everything 
that happens is a result of causes over which we have no control. 
Consequently there's no religious life, no kamma. The very definition, also, 
of what it means to be inauthentic. I reject this passage either as written 
or as translated.
It's also possible that puppet is being used in some special sense, like the 
extinguishing of fire is, in the suttas.
Perhaps we can say, regarding the quotes below, that physical and chemical 
bodily events are necessary causes of intentions (because we are embodied, 
and choices work through neurons and such) but they are not sufficient 
causes; they are not fully explanatory of an intentional action. For that we 
require free choice which is conditioned but not determined, and need not be 
made by a Self.

>From the VisuddhiMagga, chap. xi. And it is when the body is
>impelled by the wind element that it performs its four functions
> of walking, standing, sitting, or lying-down, or draws in and
> stretches out its arms, or moves its hands and its feet. Thus
> does this machine made of the four elements move like a
> puppet, and deceives all foolish people with its femininity,
> masculinity, etc"endquote.


> From majjhima nikaya 82 p683 Bodhi
> "Behold a puppet here pranked out,
> a body built from sores,
> sick, an object of concern, where no stabilty abides"

> <http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic3_n.htm>
> "Just as a wooden puppet though unsubstantial, lifeless and
> inactive may by means of pulling strings be made to move
> about, stand up, and appear full of life and activity; just so are
> mind and body, as such, something empty, lifeless and inactive; but
> by means of their mutual working together, this mental and
> bodily combination may move about, stand up, and appear full
> of life and activity."


> from the Satipatthana sutta atthakatta (sections on modes of
> deportment)"Just as a ship goes on by winds impelled,
> Just as a shaft goes by the bowstring's force,
> So goes this body in its forward course
> Full driven by the vibrant thrust of air.
> As to the puppet's back the dodge-thread's tied
> So to the body-doll the mind is joined
> And pulled by that the body moves, stands, sits.
> Where is the living being that can stand,
> Or walk, by force of its own inner strength,
>Without conditions that give it support? "




>Acharn Sujin spoke to me while we were in Kaeng Krachan about that 
>anattaness of this world. She said there really are no people, no 
>Sujin, no Robert, no Nina. There are only momentary phenomena. It 
>sort of shocked me at the time because I was in a slight daydream 
>about a grilfriend , enjoying being lost in concept, I didn't want to 
>know the truth right then. Didn't want to think there was just 
>conditions, nama and rupa. But then sometimes there is awareness of a 
>dhamma, like hardness or lobha, and there is just a little insight 
>that it really is that way.

You do see that saying there are no people because 'people' is a concept but 
saying there is hardness, when 'hardness' is equally a concept, is a 
contradiction?
This is a repeat of KKT's banned quote; people aren't real so don't worry 
about how you treat them. You can't mistreat something that isn't real.
Nor can you mistreat someone if you can't refrain from mistreating them; that 
is, if one has no control over the situation.
BTW, if bathing in rivers purified one then fishes would be especially pure. 
If having no concepts (language) just immediate awareness of nama and rupa 
purified one then animals, who have no concepts, would exceed us in the holy 
life ;-)


>> (Someone(s) have systematically gone through the suttas putting in 
>>standard formulas for jhana and the hindrances. This isn't too harmful. 
When 
>>we come to the abhidhamma since there were 5 hindrances they decided to 
>>have 5 levels of jhana. Neato. By this point not only did these 
systematizers and 
>>copyist have no experiences to get in the way of their catalogs they're 
>>were no longer even interested in having any; truth had ceased to be a 
>>hindrance to them.)

>"truth had ceased to be a hindrance to them". You mean that 
>Buddhaghosa and the monks who recorded the early commentaries were 
>liars? "Have no experience to get in the way" : how do you know they 
>had no experience of Jhana?

Since lying requires knowing the truth they weren't lying; experience was not 
a matter of interest to them, merely categorizing. (I haven't read much of 
Buddhaghosa on the jhana so I don't have any specific comment here.)
If there are 4 jhana and 5 hindrances to simply say, 'Hey, lets have 5 jhana 
to match up with the hindrances!' is possible only in someone who hasn't had a
ny experience, nor are they interested in anyone acquiring the experiences; 
just lists. This is Samma Samadhi that's being amputated here.
I don't really want to do a post on jhana. If you've done even bit of 
meditating with concentration in mind it's not difficult to spot drivel.
(As a rule of thumb: any contemporary author who defines the first jhana in 
terms of nimitta and begins talking of kasina meditation should be ignored.)
<snip>

>You mean that consciousness lasts? 

Yes; it's called the specious present. It's empirical and investigated.
You mean it has *no* duration? Okay, then the question is: lets measure it. 
This has been done.

>Where do you get ideas about anything being 'faster than the speed of 
>light" Citta, consciousness arises and passes away- it doesn't go 
>anywhere. it's certainly not speeding around the universe. Nor does 
>it last billions of years to come to the earth as scientists talk 
>about light travelling from other planets. Not part of Abhidhamma.

This is somewhat awkward for me, but this is an oft made statement (direct 
quote) from a peer of yours and Acharn Sujin (whose first name begins with 
A). I shall be pleased to drop it.
(The fastest any mental event can occur would be measured, at the very very 
outside, in thousands of a second; really, many hundreds for even a 
subliminal consciousness. Isn't that more than fast enough?)

<snip>

Of course we shall never agree on many points of significant importance to 
both of us. I want to say: on the Big Picture. But perhaps it's the little 
picture that really matters (as Sarah sort of noted, if I don't misrepresent 
her). The passing phenomena, in themselves. 
I am not especially happy with countra-causal causality, but it's the best 
I've seen anyone do.
It's all too easy to use a personal pronoun to wash out the difficulty, 
clearly faced by the abhidhamma, of giving a precise account of cetana and 
other mental events as they occur without a Self. In this and many other 
respects I do admire and find abhidhammic analysis useful. (I tried to give 
some inner sense or feel of this with the Taoist notion of wu-wei, or 
not-doing; doing, but not self-doing; doing with the grain of reality, not 
for an individuated self.) Perhaps we can pursue the issue in this manner; as 
I noted in the second post, I will no longer do so in terms of the above.

metta, stephen
	
18637

From: <oreznoone@a...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 3:30pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....)

 	
Hello Robert,

>Dear Stephen and Howard
>In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote:
>This intention is free: = controlled without a controller,
>+++++++++++++++++++++++
>You say there is control without a controller. But where is this said 
>in the texts?

The Buddha said that kamma is intention, did he not? "People have intentions 
then perform...kamma accordingly." A.III.415
The Buddha said if you're afraid of dukkha don't perform bad kamma, did he 
not? Ud.51
That entails one can refrain from performing bad kamma. And the Buddha 
exhorted us in many places to perform good kamma, did he not? Which means 
we're free to perform good kamma. Our intention is free, we can choose: = we 
have control.
Since there's no self the conclusion above readily follows.

<snip>

>The point is not 
>whether we use conventional terms but the understanding.
>And in daily life when we drive to the garage it makes no difference 
>whether we believe in self, think that we control it all or not. We 
>can still do so. (we might be more relaxed if we understand anatta 
>though)

Belief isn't relevant. Control is.
A robot could drive into a garage without any beliefs, subject only to 
conditions of programming. That doesn't describe a human situation.
Show me how to drive into the garage with no control. Please don't use my 
garage;-)

>But when discussing profound matters such as the nature of the 
>khandhas and no-self we should be cautious of saying there is 
>control. Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59
>Anatta-lakkhana Sutta
>"Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not 
>lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to 
>form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But 
>precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. 
>And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form 
>be thus. Let this form not be thus.'
>"Feeling is not self...
>"Perception is not self...
>"[Mental] fabrications are not self...
>"Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this 
>consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible 
>[to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. 
>Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because 
>consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. 
>And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my 
>consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.'endquote
>http://www.abhidhamma.org/samyutta_nikaya_59xxii.htm
>
>
>There are simply conditioned phenomena that arise and perform their 
>functions: When we are fast asleep the khandhas are still arising and 
>passing away - no need to be watching them, trying to control or 
>influence them. The legs won't fall off (unless there are conditions 
>for that to happen). Exactly the same when we are awake.

Pure determinism. Wow, what a relief to know that I'm not responsible for any 
of my actions since they're the result of conditions over which I had no 
control. Think you can use this to cop to insanity when you wreck my garage? 
;-) The underlined portion above *defines the insanity plea* in California. 

"These words of the Buddha protect against overly extreme views that tend to 
see kamma only in terms of past kamma, portraying people as if they were 
passively lying around waiting for the fruits of their kamma to come knocking 
and determine their future. If this were the case, people need not think 
about improving or changing themselves. And this would be a most terrible 
mistake." Phra Prayudh Payutto, Buddhadhamma, p.149.
Didn't Christine say that improving, changing, control, doing didn't really 
exist, were incompatible with anatta?
Perhaps you should take your metaphysics more seriously. It's not that it's 
false, or leads to inaction: it's irresponsible.
(Imagine telling such things to a battered woman. One such wrote dsg or dl 
this past year, as did others with mental problems — who, BTW, received 
completely inappropriate dhammic advice to psychiatric situations. I'm not 
putting up any more posts on this subject and I urge you to keep it in Pali, 
as it were, to avoid harming someone who might actually act on your advice.)


>We won't forget our name or where we live (unless conditions are such 
>for this to happen). Indeed people have nervous breakdowns because 
>they try to control. If they could start to let go of obsessive ideas 
>about what they should and shouldn't do, and the fear (conditioned by 
>clinging to self) that is distorting perception they would become 
>sane in the truest sense. 

Someone who felt that they were a robot or puppet would be literally insane. 
I could introduce you to some autistic children who fit the bill. 
Someone who thought that they couldn't do anything, had no control over 
anything, that planning and improving were myths would be completely 
dysfunctional. It's just, fortunately, talk. I.e., "Ultimate Truths."


>Because anatta-sanna , perception of 
>anatta, is perhaps the most calming perception we can have. Takes a 
>long time to develop though.

I'd be very interested if you could sort of phenomenologically describe 
anatta-sanna. Does it make sense to do so, to ask for this description, in 
the context of walking down a street or among some trees?

<snip>

metta, stephen
	
18638

From: <oreznoone@a...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 3:34pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why did Buddha concentrate?

 	
It occurs to me that the Buddha had a bad back; he was once in so much pain 
that he couldn't continue a talk. (D.iii.209) Now I'm *wondering* if the 
Buddha needed to attain a fairly high state of jhana as relief; wouldn't he 
have taken a vicodin or pain pill of some sort? Jhana is (sort of) it's 
equivalent for the time. I'm not sure if there's anything about this scenario 
that's at odds with being a Buddha.
metta, stephen
	
18639

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 9:05pm
Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Wrong view

 	
Dear Ven Yanatharo,

--- "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" <sanz@n...> wrote: > 
> The answers. They hate her, the reason
> is
> that according to all the Thai monks, she is the one who hates the
> Shanga.
.....
I understand your concern. 

I would be very surprised to hear anyone be able to directly quote any
words from A.Sujin herself to suggest even mild disapproval or any
aversion at all on this topic. Certainly in the nearly 30 years I’ve known
her (including weeks staying under her roof at a time when I was young), I
haven’t heard her even discuss Thai monks in particular and almost
everything I have learnt about respect for the Sangha, I’ve learnt from
her. 

I think that others here who have also known her for a long time and gone
on numerous trips with her would say the same. Last year when we were in
Thailand, I think someone may have raised some articles in the newspaper
about corrupt Thai monks. I remember she made no comments and took no
interest. Her concern is always to help others understand the dhamma
whilst following whatever lifestyle (as monk or lay person) is suitable
according to their inclinations.

As for the response of the Thai monks you mention, I can’t comment. For
myself, I find all the reminders about not returning ‘hate’ with ‘hate’,
not reciprocating, developing metta, guarding the sense doors, seeing
kamma as the cause of our own results and so on to be very helpful.

As Victor just reminded us:

103-105: 

Greater in battle
than the man who would conquer
a thousand-thousand men,
is he who would conquer
just one -- 
himself. 
Better to conquer yourself
than others.
When you've trained yourself,
living in constant self-control,
neither a deva nor gandhabba,
nor a Mara banded with Brahmas,
could turn that triumph
back into defeat. 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp/08.html
*****

Perhaps it is thus more useful to consider our own mental states and
responses when we hear rumours than to be overly concerned about the
others’.

Wishing you a happy and wise New Year and hoping that your toe has
recovered. (Having had a few broken toes myself, I know it takes a long
time. Perhaps you will have the good fortune to meet A.Sujin yourself one
day. I have no doubt that this would very quickly settle your concerns in
this regard.

metta,

Sarah
======



	
18640

From: rjkjp1 <rjkjp1@y...> <rjkjp1@y...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 9:50pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: Wrong view

 	
---Dear Venerable yanatharo,
In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" 
<sanz@n...> wrote:

You asked about this on d-l list many months ago. I'd like to add to 
what I said.
I've recently left thailand after a 3 month spell including visits 
to the center where Sujin teaches. I think almost every time I 
visited there were Thai monks in the audience listening and asking 
questions in the large hall. If they hated Sujin I don't think they 
would come to a center where she is the head teacher.
It may be that some monks hate her (none have ever indicated this to 
me though - and I've spoken with a hundred or so) but then I have 
noticed that a fair percentage of monks in Thailand also don't like 
Abhidhamma. Before I heard of Sujin I met several Thai monks who were 
openly critical of Burmese monks based on this fact.
As sujin is a leading exponent of Abhidhamma in Thailand this may be 
the reason. 
Also there are many ex-monks who now teach at the center (friends of 
Sujin) who have a deep knowledge of Vinaya and who encourage the 
study of it by laypeople. Students of Sujin's would know, for 
example, that it is wrong for monks to accept money. As the 
foundation radio programs reach thousands I can imagine a few monks 
(who may be using money) being annoyed to be told by a follower that 
they heard on Sujin's program that they are wrong to take money. I 
was at a meeting with Sujin when one of the men at the center said 
some of the monks who come to the center buy the Cds (of Sujins 
talks) with their own money and he didn't like this. But the 
concensus was that it was not up to him (or us) to tell the monks 
what to do and that if the monks listened much to the CDS they would 
gain more respect for Dhammavinaya and stop using money by their own 
accord.
Also Sujin has a refined understanding of Dhamma that she freely 
dispenses on the radio. There are, no doubt, monks who have a 
different understanding of Dhamma who might object to being told by 
over-enthusiastic listeners to the radio that "No, you are wrong, 
Acharn sujin said..."
Last year Sujin was given an honorary degree by Mahamakut University: 
the monks university where advanced Pali ect is taught. This 
university is run by monks and no woman attend it. I understand that 
only two woman (sujin and the Kings daughter ) have ever received an 
honarary degree. I think it indicates that at least some 
knowledgeable monks don't hate Sujin. I asked her if I could add this 
to the preface of the new book (survey) but she said it was 
irrelevant. Not because of disdain but simply because it is not by 
honors or popularity that one can judge who follows Dhamma.

Sujin can be direct about wrong view. About 5 years back I spoke to 
her about the Dhammakaya group after their abbot made an annoucement 
that there actually was a subtle self in Buddhism. She said to me 
that this was wrong view. I can imagine Thai people asking similar 
questions and then going and telling monks who hold such views 
that "Acharn Sujin said.....". Offense can be taken. 
I am sure that Sujin has much respect for those monks who follow and 
teach Dhammavinaya correctly. For example she told me about a well-
known monk who runs a radio program (also on Abhidhamma) which she 
said was very good. His name slips me , it starts with a K.

RobertK
	
18641

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 10:03pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long)

 	
Hi Christine,

What sort of considerations did you have in mind?

Larry
-----------------
Christine: I wonder if either of you, or anyone else, has time to read
this article and share any considerations that may arise.
	
18642

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 10:49pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara (rather large)

 	
Dear Peter,

S:I'm combining your two posts. Hope it's not too confusing. I’ll start
with the note from the end of your post and hope that’s OK. You wrote:
.....
Peter: “Your support and encouragement are much appreciated. But 
the sad truth is that I cannot spell to save my life (spell checkers 
spare me from endless embarrassment (when I remember to use them)), 
nor can I tell my 
left hand from my right without a few moments to work it out: most 
awkward when navigating for others in heavy traffic! It takes me a 
day to read anything worthwhile, and if I don't get too ambitious 
and just keep my posting to perhaps one a day for most days, I'll 
probably get by....” 
.....
S:I think it’s helpful for others to read your comments and perhaps be
inspired by the trouble you go to. I know quite a number of posters on DSG
and I think we all have our own particular difficulties and obstacles with
regard to writing in this forum. Whether they are physical problems, time
constraints, various kilesa that play up such as impatience, expectations,
attachments, aversions or whatever, I don’t believe anyone finds it easy. 
.....
Peter:“Even sadder, to my mind, is that I never get to 
read many of the posts on this list. I am perfectly sure that I am 
missing out on quite a lot. But I have learned to count my 
blessings. It would be rather grand to wave a magic wand and wish: 
May no other beings ever have anything worse to worry about!”
.....
S: Just take your time, I suggest... I print out messages because I find
it hard to read more than a paragraph or two on the computer screen. With
regard to your left and right hand comments, it reminds me of the early
days when I was learning Tai Chi. I’m really slow at being able to watch a
demonstration by the teacher and then imitate it. I think it relates to
hopeless spatial memory, i.e I always get lost in new places and can never
retrace simple steps. So my early attempts at Tai chi were a source of
great amusement to others and embarrassment(mana - conceit)to me. It was
aggravated by the poetic Chinese used which was way over my head, but
understood by everyone else. Anyway, I persevered, practised more than
most and after a year was given a promotion to the front line. A few years
later, I’m probably about the one only one who still practises the Tai chi
regularly. 

So, in the grand scheme of things, whether we are quick or slow or what
disabilities we have really doesn’t matter much. 
*****
P:> I believe 'sati' originally 
> meant 'memory' and that 'mindfulness' is a term coined by Rhys 
> Davids. I often wonder how Buddhism in the West would have 
> developed if he had chosen instead something like the 
> term 'recollectedness'. Perhaps he needed to include the concept 
> of 'clarity' and thus needed a new word that could contain both 
> ideas. Except that according to ~Naanamoli, in his 'Abhidhamma 
> Studies', memory = attentiveness + clarity: i.e. without clarity 
> being present at a moment of attention there will be no recollection 
> of it, (or something like that anyway).
.....
S: I have no problem with ‘recollectedness’ unless someone has an idea of
thinking or conventional memory when using it. 
.....
P: > I feel this way about a few other basic terms, and regret in 
> particular that 'proliferation' isn't made more use of, 'formations' 
> seems so dry and remote to my mind. Maybe RD needed to include the 
> concept of 'accumulation', which doesn't seem to be implied 
> in 'proliferation': (noo?)
.....
S: Usually ‘proliferations’ is used for papanca, always in a negative
sense.
Formations is used for sankhara in the sense of phenomena being
conditioned or ‘formed up’ as I understand. Accumulations are different
again and usually relate to the collected wholesome and unwholesome
states.
> ===
> Peter: Too true. The 'Ajahn Dukkha' idea could easily lead to the 
> extreme view of self-mortification, at least in its more subtle 
> forms. I just felt that it was a more positive way of looking at 
> Dukkha so as to counter the other extreme view/inclination that it 
> is something wrong and needed avoiding: thus instead using it as a 
> ready tool/indicator that the mind was off balance. Within the 
> context of a balanced practice, which would include generous 
> helpings of BrahmaVihara reflections, I would have thought it 
> probably would be OK.
.....
S: Sometimes a ‘balanced practice’ can again suggest a ‘doing’ or
‘selection’. I think it’s more helpful to see the value of understanding
whatever reality appears as it is and the value of developing all kinds of
wholesome states.
As you say, it’s not a matter of avoiding, but of understanding.
> ===
> Peter: This brings me to a point further on in your post. Like so 
> many other posts, I haven't read this one. It isn't just writing 
> that is an effort, reading is too. But I will now make a point of 
> taking it in.
> ===
S: If you go to escribe and type in samvega (or any other key term you’re
looking for), you’ll get the relevant posts up:
http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/
.....
> Peter: I would agree. As I see it, understanding with wisdom is 
> one thing, but the motivation to make the effort to do this is quite 
> another. For some yogis, somewhere or other, Dukkha is present is 
> some form or other, in their motivation, at some stage in their 
> career. If instead, compassion (e.g. for all sentient beings) is 
> their motivation, such a yogi will enjoy a much more happier 
> career. However, for many of todays Westerners (well me anyway) 
> such happiness, unknowingly, often brings a sense of guilt, whereas 
> Ajahn Dukkha is for some strange reason much more acceptable.
.....
S: Perhaps we’re not used to recognising and seeing the danger in all
kinds of aversion, including the guilt? Or we just think of dukkha dukkha
(unpleasant bodily and mental feelings) without appreciating the inherent
dukkha in each reality, including the beloved? Whatever we think are the
motivations, I think it is the moment of awareness and understanding now
of what appears that leads to more awareness and understanding in future.
..... 
P: > (Please be so kind as to 
> remember that you are addressing the 
> worlds number one procrastinator!-))
> ====
S: No evidence of this so far;-) 
.....
Peter: “I think this answers the question I would have asked, 
namely: what was the wisdom that the Bodhisatta had, that was not 
the enlightenment/awakening that he attained as Buddha? Your last 
para seems to say that the Bodhisatta had enough wisdom to get 
enlightened at the very outset of his Bodhisatta career. Perhaps 
this was due to his encounter with the Buddha of that eon, to whom 
he made this vow (another requirement, as I understand from 
elsewhere). If so, this would make him a very remarkable being 
indeed (prior to his awakening): presumably this also applied to 
Yasodhara and all the rest of his close associates too.”
.....
S: Yes, see my other post with comments about the conditions for becoming
a Bodhisatta. Prior to his enlightenment, of course this wisdom was not of
vipassana or that which eradicated the idea of self. In a footnote to MN4,
describing the Bodhisatta’s wisdom, BB writes:

“~Nm originally had rendered this phrase as “perfect in understanding,”
and the correspondng phrase in the preceding section as “perfect in
concentration.” However, since it seems inappropriate to ascribe
perfection in samadhi and panna to the Bodhisatta prior to his
enlightenment, I have chosen to render the suffix ‘sampanna’ throughout as
“possessed of.” MA <the commentary> explains that this is neither the
wisdom of insight nor of the path, but the wisdom that defines the nature
of its object (aaramma.navavatthaanapa~n~a).”
..... 
P: “I can now see the appeal to some notable people of our own eon who 
have announced their own aspiration to meet the future Buddha 
Metreya. Very inspiring indeed!”
.....
S: Of course, as we know from suttas like the chicken and egg one or the
wishing one, whether such an aspiration is met or not will depend on the
conditions rather than the aspiration. 
===
Peter: Quite so. The jhanas, as I have read about them, require a 
lot of skill and patience to develop. I have never, as yet, made 
any attempt to develop such skills, and am probably too old to start.
===
S: Again, I think any development of any wholesome states, depends on the
understanding and conditions rather than the attempts and any skills. If
there is a ‘blank mind’ but no precise knowledge of the object or nature
of kusala and akusala, I don’t understand there can be any samatha
development even in the beginning stages, but I don’t think you meant any
differently.

Greatly appreciating your contributions which are very encouraging as
well.

Sarah
======


	
18643

From: James <buddhatrue@y...> <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 11:32pm
Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long)

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth 
<cforsyth@v...>" <cforsyth@v...> wrote:
> Hello James, Swee Boon and any interested meditators.
> 
> I have been following with great interest your exchanges, but 
> particularly the recent ones about meditation. I stopped 
meditation 
> in the formal sense over a year ago, but recently read an article 
> that has given me further to consider.
> I wonder if either of you, or anyone else, has time to read this 
> article and share any considerations that may arise. (It is about 
> ten pages long.) The article is called "Experiments in Insight 
> Meditation" and is written by Rod Bucknell who was the translator 
of 
> Ajahn Buddhadasa's 'Handbook for Mankind'. 
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/toc.htm#4
> 
> A little about the author:
> "Rod Bucknell first became seriously interested in Buddhism in the 
> mid -1960's, when, during a visit to Thailand, he was introduced 
to 
> the techniques of Insight Meditation. After spending a year in 
> various Thai meditation centers and monasteries, he took 
ordination 
> as a bhikkhu (monk) under the guidance of Ajahn Pannananda of Wat 
> Cholapratan Rangsarit. He soon became interested also in the 
> teachings of Ajahn Buddhadasa, and, recognizing their potential 
value 
> to westerners, began translating some of the Ajahn's more 
important 
> works into English. During the four years he spent in the Sangha, 
he 
> translated altogether six works of varying length, usually in 
close 
> consultation with the Ajahn in order to ensure accuracy in the 
> rendering of key concepts. Despite his return to lay life, he 
> maintains a close interest - both scholarly and practical - in 
Ajahn 
> Buddhadasa's teachings, and has published several related articles 
in 
> religious studies journals. He is currently a lecturer in the 
> Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Queensland, 
> Australia."
> (actually, I think he is an assoc. prof. now.)
> 
> metta,
> Christine
> 
Hi Christine,

I read this article and I will give you my `considerations' 
or `impressions' of the material contained therein. This is not 
going to be easy to write out, as there are a lot of factors to 
consider, but I will try my best. If you want to follow up with 
more discussion, that would be fine.

Overall, I feel that it is very unfortunate that Mr. Bucknell had 
such a poor introduction to Vipassana meditation as he experienced 
in Thailand. He is obviously eager, dedicated, and enthusiastic 
about the practice and the subject. What he was taught at the first 
center in Thailand was, in my estimation, very harmful to his later 
development and influenced his later development. A proper 
Vipassana teacher shouldn't direct the student toward focusing on 
any particular sensation or experience as `important'. For the 
teacher to tell him that he was having a `breakthrough' in mediation 
and to keep fostering a certain experience is not the right way. He 
discovered this himself and left the center in disgust. 
Unfortunately, that teacher gave him the wrong idea of Vipassana 
meditation. He came away with the impression that events that occur 
in the body or in the mind are significant and that if one could 
just `figure them out' insight will arise. This is wrong practice! 
Let me explain by responding to his new `experiments' in Vipassana 
mediation (which are not Vipassana mediation techniques, but are 
actually forms of bio-feedback and meta-cognition).

His techniques of `Retracing', `The Inner Voice', `Link Watching', 
etc., are just different variations of the error in practice that he 
first picked up in Thailand. He is looking at his thoughts, trying 
to figure them out, putting special significance to certain events 
and combinations, and literally `driving himself crazy' with all of 
the resulting mental gymnastics! Did you feel a little manic 
reading about how his experiments progressed? I know I did! He got 
himself so entangled in layer after layer of mental pondering that 
he hardly knew up from down! Of course, after he got the technique 
down a bit, he was able to control his thinking to some extent. But 
not for very long…it always reverted back to his thinking getting 
out of control.

Christine, I would not recommend that you follow any of these 
techniques. I believe that they could be quite dangerous as well as 
not being proper Vipassana mediation. You did not ask me to 
describe proper Vipassana mediation, only to respond to this 
article, so I will leave it at that. I don't want to tell you what 
you already know. But you may wonder, "Who is James to make this 
determination?" Well, since you gave Mr. Bucknell's qualifications 
in dhamma, I will give you a bit about my background. The following 
is a letter that the abbot of my temple wrote for me to become a 
Buddhist monk (which I ultimately didn't do because I do have 
problems with how the Sangha is being run…throughout the world. But 
some are better than others.):

June 3, 2002

Phramaha Winai Booncham
Abbot of Wat Promkunaram

Ajahn Pasanno and Ajahn Jayasaro
Wat Pah Nanachat
Ban Bung Wai, Amper Warin
Ubon Ratchathani 34310
Thailand

Re: Mr. James Mitchell

Dear Ajahan Pasanno and Ajahn Jayasaro:

I am writing on behalf of Mr. James Mitchell who wishes to take 
residence at Wat Pah Nanachat to study and eventually become 
ordained as a Buddhist monk. Mr. James has been a Temple Disciple 
of Wat Promkunaram for seven years. During that time he was a 
student to Ajahn Somporn and assisted him in the leading of week, 
weekend, and daylong meditation retreats. His assistance was 
crucial in the translation of dharma talks/instruction and Vipassana 
meditation techniques. He is practiced in Samatha and Vipassana 
meditation and can teach the techniques of standing, walking, and 
sitting meditation to Americans unfamiliar with such techniques. 
His assistance helped to make the retreats helpful and popular for 
all participants. He is also very knowledgeable about Buddhism and 
has been a Buddhist, and has practiced meditation, for 15 years. 
His knowledge and background ar