18800 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 3:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi James, Thanks for all yr comments and answers. --- "James " wrote: > (James: No, actually I wouldn't say. Words and `considering' are > quite inadequate to reach the state you are aiming for. Also, I > don't recognize the word `dhammas' since I don't agree with a > reductionism view of reality; I prefer `Ultimate Truth' > and `Conventional Truth'. ..... I’m very happy to talk about ‘Ultimate Truth’ and ‘Conventional Truth’. I don’t think anyone here is suggesting words and ‘considering’ are in anyway adequate. Still, the Buddha encouraged us to listen and consider a lot in the suttas as essential conditions for developing understanding and this is why he also taught at such length. What do you understand him to be referring to by “Ultimate Truth’? ..... >Along those lines, I believe that > conventional truth is a bridge to ultimate truth and it is a very > long and arduous bridge to walk. When you reach the other side, you > see both truths…and that both are one truth. If you try shortcuts, > you end up not being able to see either truth, or the one truth, > properly.) ..... Why do you think the Buddha talks about the khandhas, the dhatus (elements), the sense objects and so on? Perhaps by ‘ultimate truth’ you are just referring to nibbana. Does the Buddha talk about any other truths (other than conventional ones) in your opinion? ..... > (James: As they say, it's good to know the enemy. ;-) ..... Hey James, it (abhidhamma) may even become your friend at this rate ;-) You gave a good summary in a post to KKT. ..... > (James: If this is so, it is in direct contradiction to the suttas. > The Buddha stated many times that he did not know what started the > round of becoming and transmigration; he only knew how to stop it. > I am not going to pull out a bunch of sutta quotes unless I know we > are speaking about the same thing. Since the Buddha didn't say > anything about `dhammas', I have a hard time following the exact > meaning of your contention.) ..... We may not be speaking about the same thing. I understood from your earlier post that you weren’t just referring to the origins of the rounds of becoming, but referring to the causes for phenomena arising at this moment. I forget what I was referring to, but in a post to KKT you wrote: “Even though the Abhidhamma demonstrates that the self doesn’t exist in all these ‘dhammas’, it still doesn’t account for the fact that the unenlightened think they have a self. It doesn’t explain how all the pieces fit together to create the illusion of self-hood..” I believe the paccaya (conditions) provide the answers to all these nuts and bolts. Of course it is a very complicated process as you’ve said. I understood the Buddha had plenty to say about ‘ad nauseum’ dhammas, but maybe we can use realities, elements, aggregates or anything you prefer. I was probably trying to avoid the other ad nauseum ones not to be mentioned;-) You object to what you refer to as the ‘reductionism theory of reality’. Do you accept there are mental phenomena and physical phenomena experienced through the body and senses as being discussed in the ‘Way’ corner at the moment? Do you accept that kaya (body) refers in this context to rupas? ..... > (James: Hmmm…when I am ready. You are clever Jedi Master, but I > cannot be drawn to the dark side of the force that easily! ;-) ..... Warning: any Star Wars or Star Trek metaphors are quite lost on me ;-) ..... > (James: I would agree with this…except you seem to be missing a > little something here. Namely you are not stressing the other seven > arms of the eight-armed path. Right View is only one part, not > everything. There is a lot more to be done than to keep cultivating > Right View. And I don't believe that Abhidhamma view is Right View > anyway. BTW, thank you for avoiding those ad nauseum namas and > rupas for me ;-) ..... OK, let’s say Right View with its accompanying 7 arms. Right view is the ‘forerunner’ or leader as I understand and that’s why I stress it. From MN 43, I was just reading: “Friend, with what does one understand a state that can be known?” “Friend, one understands a state that can be known with the eye of wisdom,’ “Friend, what is the purpose of wisdom?” “The purpose of wisdom, friend, is direct knowledge, its purpose is full understanding, its purpose is abandoning.” commentary note: “MA:The eye of wisdom (pa~n~nacakkhu) is wisdom itself, called an eye in the sense that it is an organ of spiritual vision.” How is Abhidhamma panna (Right View) any different from Right View as taught in other parts of the Tipitaka? ..... > OK, we're agreed here....just start as is - no need to change our > lifestyle at all. But what, James, is the truth HERE? When you say > that you have experiences in your body, what is this body if there > are no rupas? I'd be genuinely glad to hear more. > > (James: Maybe later Sarah, when you are ready…;-) ..... Great;-) Meanwhile, let me put it another way. What do you understand the Buddha to be referring to by ‘the body’and did he refer to experiences in ‘the body’? If so, what did he mean? ..... > (James: I'm a chariot ;-) ..... You know, I came across a dissected chariot in a sutta yesterday too. It’s not just those pesky ad nauseum abhidhammists that are into ‘reductionism theory’;-) You find the theory too “simplistic because it doesn’t explain how all of these parts come together to create the ‘illusion of self-hood’.” You also suggest that ‘if you don’t pinpoint the cause, the result is quite irrelvant’. I’d be very happy to discuss the causes or conditions further with you - we might both learn something in the process. You suggested that the ‘illusory self’ is unstable, impermanent and unsatisfactory. I’d suggest these are the characteristics of ultimate realities which can be directly known, unlike illusory concepts. These are all good areas to consider more. “If you don’t agree, okay.”;-) Sarah ====== 18801 From: nidive Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi Larry, I like this point which you posted: VIII 39: Life, person, pleasure pain--just these alone join in one consciousness moment that flicks by. Ceased aggregates of those dead or alive are all alike, gone never to return. No [world is] born if [consciousness is] not produced; when that is present, then it lives; when consciousness dissolves, the world is dead: the highest sense this concept will allow. (Nd1 42) I know that James is wrong when he says that the Buddha is that "unrestricted awareness". Any form of awareness is simply 'consciousness'. Whatever 'awareness' that appears during meditation is inconstant. Any form of 'awareness' is inconstant. Even 'awareness' of the nibbana element is inconstant. As Ven. Anuruddha said at the Buddha's parinibbana: Like a flame's unbinding was the liberation of awareness. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18802 From: Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 2:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control Hi, James - In a message dated 1/15/03 11:25:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > I am not sure why many people in this group keep going round and > round this basic tenet of Buddhism. The Buddha explained it very > simply and plainly: Dukkha is caused by thirst. Dukkha is caused by > the thirst of ignorance. How do you quench the thirst of > ignorance? You quench the thirst of ignorance with the truth. With > truth you control that thirst…when you reach ultimate control, the > thirst is eliminated forever…never to return. There is control of > this thirst and there is ultimate control. Whereas, control of > anything else, like gravity, plant growth, or taxes, is beyond the > realm of Buddhism and a non-issue. > ============================ I think you make a very good point here. I would just like to add one comment. I think that the Buddha pointed out that that we have no (full) control over what happens in and through us, such as the multutude and variety of our experiences, the aging of our bodies etc because it is a common attitude, very much extant at the time of the Buddha, that an alleged self is a controller, a controller which exercises control over "me" and "mine"; the purpose of teaching our relative lack of control over what we experience and of the aging and illness that befall "our" bodies was to help disabuse us of our notions of "me" and "mine". 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) 18803 From: Robert Eddison Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 7:19am Subject: Questions about Questions [was: Re: No-control & Destiny] Victor: >> I would suggest reading Dhammapada 12, learning from it, and putting >> into practice. Howard: > I've read it. (sigh.) Stalemate it seems. Or more precisely, if Howard and Victor were playing chess the game would have long since ended through the 50-move rule, where a draw is declared if 50 moves elapse with neither player taking a piece or advancing a pawn. In the Pa~nhabyaakara.na Sutta the Buddha states: "Monks there are these four ways of answering a question. What four? There is a question which is to be given a categorical answer (eka.msabyaakara.niiya). There is a question which is to be analysed (vibhajjabyaakara.niiya). There is a question which is to be answered with a counter-question (pa.tipucchaabyaakara.niiya) There is a question which is to be set aside (.thapaniiya)" -- A ii 46 If I have followed the Howard-Victor exchange correctly, the crux of the disagreement is that Howard (and perhaps most of the dsg regulars) take such questions as "Is there a self outside of the khandhas?" as being questions that can be (and perhaps ought to be) given a direct or categorical answer, whereas Victor takes them as questions to be set aside. So with one side repeatedly posing a question and pressing for an answer, while the other insists on setting the question aside, it's no surprise that the discussion just goes round in circles. Perhaps it would help to move the discussion onto more fruitful ground if each party would explain *why* they judge such questions as "Is there a self outside of the aggregates?" to be eka.msabyaakara.niiya or .thapaniiya. It might also be useful to consider the meaning of the 4 types of question given in the above sutta. I have read little on this subject, so there is much that is far from clear to me, especially regarding the last of the 4 types. Two questions that come immediately to mind: Does the term .thapaniiya pa~nhaa (which I will translate neutrally as "questions to be set aside") mean that they *ought* to be set aside (perhaps implying that it would be in some way to one's detriment to attempt to answer them), or does it mean they *may* be set aside (i.e. there would be no particular value in answering them, since any answer -- whether right or wrong -- would be irrelevant to the aim of the Buddha's teaching, the ending of dukkha). In my understanding, the Pali suffix ".niiya" would allow both possibilities. But what does Theravaadin tradition understand it to mean? What is it that determines whether a particular question is one that may be answered directly, or requires a counter-question, or is to be set aside/answered with noble silence? From the little that I've read on this issue I think Buddhist commentarial writers usually explain these different types of questions just by giving examples of each. Unfortunately the examples given are usually pretty disparate in form and content. It seems difficult to reduce them to some common calculus, such that one could look at any given question and say: "Hmmm, that one needs a counter-question," or, "Ah, it's a thapaniiya! I shan't answer it. (I'll just give the questioner the noble silence treatment...tum te tum te tum...)." I vaguely recall reading one attempt by a Buddhist scholastic writer (it may have been Buddhaghosa, but it could equally well have been Vasubandhu) to provide a rubric for determining how to treat any given question. According to the author's scheme a question is 'to be set aside' if its premises consist of an illicit blend of conventional and ultimate ideas. This formulation does seem to work with those questions which the Buddha himself treated as thapaniiya. Does anyone know the source I'm referring to? Well, that's enough for now. Best wishes, Robert 18804 From: James Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 7:43am Subject: [dsg] Re: Control --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > > In a message dated 1/15/03 11:25:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, > buddhatrue@y... writes: > > > I am not sure why many people in this group keep going round and > > round this basic tenet of Buddhism. The Buddha explained it very > > simply and plainly: Dukkha is caused by thirst. Dukkha is caused by > > the thirst of ignorance. How do you quench the thirst of > > ignorance? You quench the thirst of ignorance with the truth. With > > truth you control that thirst…when you reach ultimate control, the > > thirst is eliminated forever…never to return. There is control of > > this thirst and there is ultimate control. Whereas, control of > > anything else, like gravity, plant growth, or taxes, is beyond the > > realm of Buddhism and a non-issue. > > > ============================ > I think you make a very good point here. I would just like to add one > comment. I think that the Buddha pointed out that that we have no (full) > control over what happens in and through us, such as the multutude and > variety of our experiences, the aging of our bodies etc because it is a > common attitude, very much extant at the time of the Buddha, that an alleged > self is a controller, a controller which exercises control over "me" and > "mine"; the purpose of teaching our relative lack of control over what we > experience and of the aging and illness that befall "our" bodies was to help > disabuse us of our notions of "me" and "mine". > > With metta, > Howard > Howard, Yes, I completely agree. Control doesn't extend to everything…only to thirst. Control of aging, environment, appearance, disease, etc., is impossible and not within the realm of Buddhism….those interested in that kind of control need to explore Wicca and Magik rituals (as I did as a child) until their futility becomes apparent. Perhaps the reason thirst (craving) is controllable and everything else isn't controllable is due to the fact that thirst is the only thing that is real and everything else is perception; at least that I what I believe. But I will compose a post along those lines later… I have some Star Kids letters piling up I need to respond to first. Metta, James 18805 From: Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 2:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Questions about Questions [was: Re: No-control & Destiny] Hi, Robert (and Victor) - Thank you for a very intelligent post. In fact, Victor has several times alluded to the business of setting aside certain issues. But then he has written other things which have led me in a different direction as to his meaning. My main goal in these conversations has been to come to see clearly what Victor's "position" actually is. (Whatever it is is fine with me. I just wanted to be sure I understand him.) Your post, with the middle excised, follows at the end, Robert. With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/16/03 10:23:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, robedd@i... writes: > > Victor: > > >>I would suggest reading Dhammapada 12, learning from it, and putting > >>into practice. > > Howard: > > >I've read it. (sigh.) > > > Stalemate it seems. Or more precisely, if Howard and Victor were playing > chess the game would have long since ended through the 50-move rule, where > a draw is declared if 50 moves elapse with neither player taking a piece or > advancing a pawn. > > In the Pa~nhabyaakara.na Sutta the Buddha states: > > "Monks there are these four ways of answering a question. > What four? > There is a question which is to be given a categorical answer > (eka.msabyaakara.niiya). > There is a question which is to be analysed > (vibhajjabyaakara.niiya). > There is a question which is to be answered with a counter-question > (pa.tipucchaabyaakara.niiya) > There is a question which is to be set aside (.thapaniiya)" > -- A ii 46 > > > If I have followed the Howard-Victor exchange correctly, the crux of the > disagreement is that Howard (and perhaps most of the dsg regulars) take > such questions as "Is there a self outside of the khandhas?" as being > questions that can be (and perhaps ought to be) given a direct or > categorical answer, whereas Victor takes them as questions to be set aside. > So with one side repeatedly posing a question and pressing for an answer, > while the other insists on setting the question aside, it's no surprise > that the discussion just goes round in circles. > > Best wishes, > > Robert > > /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) 18806 From: James Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 8:15am Subject: Re: dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > I know that James is wrong when he says that the Buddha is > that "unrestricted awareness". Any form of awareness is > simply 'consciousness'. Whatever 'awareness' that appears during > meditation is inconstant. Any form of 'awareness' is inconstant. > Even 'awareness' of the nibbana element is inconstant. Hi NEO, Hmmmm….talking about me behind my back I see. Thought I wouldn't find out, but I have my sources! ;-) just kidding. It is funny because the more I learn about the Abhidhamma, the more I disagree with it. At first I had just a few disagreements, but they seem to be growing and multiplying as I learn more. The proposition that nibbana, or any insight for that matter, is only known momentarily until such mind states that know it slip away is a logical absurdity. Not only does it directly contradict the teachings of the Lord Buddha, like the Third Noble Truth for example, it also doesn't make logical sense. Allow me to explain in simple terms. The gathering of insight and wisdom is not comparable to a mundane activity like building the muscles for example. When one exercises and builds the muscles, they grow large and strong; however, when the exercise stops, the muscles atrophy and become weak. Insight is not like that. It doesn't go away even when the practice stops. Whatever insight one gains, that insight sticks around until the final culmination in nibbana. If one meditates for a while and gains some insight into his/her true nature, that insight doesn't go away when the meditation stops. Even if the person didn't meditate for years more, when they start again they will go right back to where they left off. The same applies to lifetime after lifetime. Whatever one learns about the truth in one lifetime is carried to the next; it doesn't go away. That is why any amount of meditation, even for five minutes a day, is beneficial because it will accumulate insight. Now, if mind states that know insight arise and fall away as the Abhidhamma states, how would this be possible? It wouldn't be possible. The Abhidhamma is dead wrong about this issue. Of course, you think that I am wrong. That is okay also. I don't want to convince anyone that I am right and they are wrong; I just encourage people to think about these issues for themselves. The truth is the truth and it will always win out in the end. Metta, James 18807 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 9:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control > > > Herman James says: This is a very nice post. I like it because it doesn't contain a single Pali term! ;-) I want to reply. I do agree that it does depend on how one defines control to know the correct approach to the issue. And while I like your middle way approach to the control issue, I must disagree with your final conclusions. My understanding is that control must be absolute to reach the attainment of nibbana, and then control is a moot point. I am not sure why many people in this group keep going round and round this basic tenet of Buddhism. The Buddha explained it very simply and plainly: Dukkha is caused by thirst. Dukkha is caused by the thirst of ignorance. How do you quench the thirst of ignorance? You quench the thirst of ignorance with the truth. With truth you control that thirst.when you reach ultimate control, the thirst is eliminated forever.never to return. There is control of this thirst and there is ultimate control. Whereas, control of anything else, like gravity, plant growth, or taxes, is beyond the realm of Buddhism and a non-issue. Hi James, I would disagree that the Buddha taught that one controls thirst or craving. I think you had it right when you said "How do you quench the thirst of ignorance?" The Buddha taught that the thirst of carving is quenched, not controlled. It is put out through dispassion towards conditioned things. Put out through dispassion towards greed and aversion. The thirst is not "controlled" but rather ended because the conditions for it's arising have been abandoned. Ray 18808 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 10:18am Subject: nibbana Dear Neo and Num, Neo's question and my answer: Besides gotrubhu, magga and phala cittas, are there any other cittas that can experience nibbana? __________ N: No other cittas that directly experience nibbana. I received additional info from Num and I like to be corrected as to this difficult subject. --------------- Num classified the cittas, from Abh Sangaha, Ch 3, 4: ---------------------- Nina: I found this difficult, is this a reflecting on or direct experience ? It may not be in the same way as lokuttara citta, not so direct, and therefore, I made a change in my answer above, adding: *directly* experience nibbana. I sensed that it was delicate here. Moreover, I was merely thinking of the sukkhavipassakas, not of lokuttara jhanas, since Neo's other qu related to that. So, no abhinnas. -------------------- Num: ---------------------------------------- Nina: the sixth abhinna is eradication of all defilements, I understand. I find abhinna the most difficult one, I like to avoid this subject. Moreover, I am not taken to the subject of nibbana, far beyond me. When considering paccavekkhana: reflecting on nibbana, nibbana is the reality of nibbana, not a concept of it. It may be a matter of terms: experiencing nibbana or directly experiencing it. Anyway, I will not be able to understand this subject. Perhaps Aunt Krishna could help here? Nina. 18809 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 10:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing, nimitta Dear Larry, op 16-01-2003 02:16 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > IV, 22, n.4: (snipped) "Apprehends the sign": he apprehends in that with > knowledge connected with meditative development the sign of earth of the > kind about to be described, as one does with the eye the sign of the > face in a looking-glass... > > So, is a sign a concept signaled by a paramattha dhamma? If a particular > touch sensation on the nostrils is perceived (sanna, recognized?) as > "in-breath", for example, is that concept (in-breath) the nimita? It > doesn't need to be an image, correct? If there _is_ an image, the nimita > would be whatever concept that image evoked, as with "earth" in the > earth kasina. Correct? -------------------------------------- N: Earth, first you look it, there is colour, but the aim is not knowing the characteristic of colour, but calm of samatha, subduing attachment and the other hindrances. While you look at the kasina you concentrate on the concept of earth. It becomes more and more sublimated and refined. When jhanacitta arises there is no seeing, no sense impression, the meditation subject, nimitta, is experienced through the mind-door. The same for breath, no matter it is in or out: through touch, but in samatha the aim is not realizing as just tangible object, a rupa. The very refined and subtle nimitta, appears, it can be by touch, and then, no more sensation of touch. It is a nimitta, a concept, the object of jhana. > VIII, 217: And here, the consciousness that has in-breath as its object. We can translate nimtta by image, sign or concept. ----------------- L: is one, the consciousness that has out-breath as its object is another, > and the consciousness that has the sign as its object is another. For > the meditation subject reaches neither absorption nor even access in one > who has not got these three things [clear]. But it reaches access and > also absorption in one who has got these three things [clear]. > > L: Is in-breath and out-breath the two touch sensations and the concept > (in-breath or out-breath) the sign (nimita)? ----------------- N: as to , it starts by touch, but as said before, the aim is to acquire a mental image and to subdue all sensations, and the akusala bound up with these. Nina. 18810 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 10:59am Subject: Questions about Questions [was: Re: No-control & Destiny] Dear Robert, There is this from Buddhaghosa which shows that sometimes one can deflect questions out of ditthi: Net of views (Bhikkhu Bodhi) p177. "the endless equivocator (amaravikkhepavada)does not approve of the eternalist view of self, or of any other view, he practises equivocation by saying 'I do not take it thus' etc. These statements of his equivocate by repudiating each point on which he is questioned" Query: "Isn't it true that as far as he takes a stand on the side of equivocation, he makes a positive affirmation of the equivocal position?" Reply: "no, because he is utterly deluded about that as well and because the doctrine of equivocation occurs only by way of rejection"......."he is not called a theorist merely because he resorts to equivocation when asked a question, but because he holds a wrong conviction. For this person actually holds the wrong conviction of eternalism" p178" but how does this view come to be included under eternalsm? Because he does not hold the view of anihilationism." p26 Note from Bodhi explains the meaning of amaravikkhepa: "the theorist who adopt this approach go on hedging without limits, refusing to make a definite assertion".... On p173 the commentary says "that it does not die, thus it is endless" (amara-immortal)"" RobertK 18811 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 1:28pm Subject: Questions about Questions [was: Re: No-control & Destiny] Hi Robert and all, I was trying to find the discourse that you mentioned and this is what I found online: Anguttara Nikaya IV.42 Pañha Sutta Questions http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-042.html I see the question "Is there a self outside of the khandhas?" to be set aside because it is speculative, not beneficial, leading to dukkha, not conducive to the goal of the cessation of dukkha. I find your analysis accurate. Regards, Victor > Stalemate it seems. Or more precisely, if Howard and Victor were playing > chess the game would have long since ended through the 50-move rule, where > a draw is declared if 50 moves elapse with neither player taking a piece or > advancing a pawn. > > In the Pa~nhabyaakara.na Sutta the Buddha states: > > "Monks there are these four ways of answering a question. > What four? > There is a question which is to be given a categorical answer > (eka.msabyaakara.niiya). > There is a question which is to be analysed > (vibhajjabyaakara.niiya). > There is a question which is to be answered with a counter- question > (pa.tipucchaabyaakara.niiya) > There is a question which is to be set aside (.thapaniiya)" > -- A ii 46 > > > If I have followed the Howard-Victor exchange correctly, the crux of the > disagreement is that Howard (and perhaps most of the dsg regulars) take > such questions as "Is there a self outside of the khandhas?" as being > questions that can be (and perhaps ought to be) given a direct or > categorical answer, whereas Victor takes them as questions to be set aside. > So with one side repeatedly posing a question and pressing for an answer, > while the other insists on setting the question aside, it's no surprise > that the discussion just goes round in circles. > > Perhaps it would help to move the discussion onto more fruitful ground if > each party would explain *why* they judge such questions as "Is there a > self outside of the aggregates?" to be eka.msabyaakara.niiya or .thapaniiya. > > It might also be useful to consider the meaning of the 4 types of question > given in the above sutta. I have read little on this subject, so there is > much that is far from clear to me, especially regarding the last of the 4 > types. Two questions that come immediately to mind: > > Does the term .thapaniiya pa~nhaa (which I will translate neutrally as > "questions to be set aside") mean that they *ought* to be set aside > (perhaps implying that it would be in some way to one's detriment to > attempt to answer them), or does it mean they *may* be set aside (i.e. > there would be no particular value in answering them, since any answer -- > whether right or wrong -- would be irrelevant to the aim of the Buddha's > teaching, the ending of dukkha). In my understanding, the Pali suffix > ".niiya" would allow both possibilities. But what does Theravaadin > tradition understand it to mean? > > What is it that determines whether a particular question is one that may be > answered directly, or requires a counter-question, or is to be set > aside/answered with noble silence? From the little that I've read on this > issue I think Buddhist commentarial writers usually explain these different > types of questions just by giving examples of each. Unfortunately the > examples given are usually pretty disparate in form and content. It seems > difficult to reduce them to some common calculus, such that one could look > at any given question and say: "Hmmm, that one needs a counter- question," > or, "Ah, it's a thapaniiya! I shan't answer it. (I'll just give the questioner > the noble silence treatment...tum te tum te tum...)." > > I vaguely recall reading one attempt by a Buddhist scholastic writer (it > may have been Buddhaghosa, but it could equally well have been Vasubandhu) > to provide a rubric for determining how to treat any given question. > According to the author's scheme a question is 'to be set aside' if its > premises consist of an illicit blend of conventional and ultimate ideas. > This formulation does seem to work with those questions which the Buddha > himself treated as thapaniiya. Does anyone know the source I'm referring to? > > Well, that's enough for now. > > Best wishes, > > Robert 18812 From: Egberdina Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 2:28pm Subject: The Problems with Chariots (was Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive .) Hi everybody, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James, > > ..... > > (James: I'm a chariot ;-) > ..... > You know, I came across a dissected chariot in a sutta yesterday too. > It's not just those pesky ad nauseum abhidhammists that are into > `reductionism theory';-) You find the theory too "simplistic because it > doesn't explain how all of these parts come together to create the > `illusion of self-hood'." You also suggest that `if you don't pinpoint the > cause, the result is quite irrelvant'. I'd be very happy to discuss the > causes or conditions further with you - we might both learn something in > the process. You suggested that the `illusory self' is unstable, > impermanent and unsatisfactory. I'd suggest these are the characteristics > of ultimate realities which can be directly known, > unlike illusory concepts. My cards are on the table. I too have a problem with reductionism. The disassembled chariot is, to me, not a good illustration of anything other than how the mind kan kid (delude) itself. A pile of bits of chariot is not a chariot because....... it does not have the function of a chariot. I cannot take the wife and kids to town in a pile of Saddhu brand chariot parts. Aggregated components have properties and functions not found in the properties and functions of the parts. Wetness is not a property of Hydrogen or Oxygen, but mix two parts of one and one part of the other in a Sunbeam Mixmaster, and you have liquidity, wetness. Some further remarks. The mind takes objects and depending on the amount of clinging, these objects become things. Static things to be considered. But there are no static things. There is flux, process, function. Divisions are mental in nature. When you are looking at a pile of junk on the ground, you are looking at a pile of junk on the ground. When you are looking at a chariot, you are looking at a chariot. Perhaps a scrap metal dealer looks at the chariot and sees components, and a tinkerer sees a pile of scrap and sees a beautifully restored Saddhu brand chariot. It is the mind that converts the pile of junk to a chariot and reverse engineers it again. This is thinking, proliferating, reductionism. It is kamma. It is apprehending a small part of the whole, and applying an intention, a purpose to it To say there is no chariot in a pile of chariot bits is true, but useless. Wishing you well Herman 18813 From: James Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 2:29pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Control --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" > Hi James, > > I would disagree that the Buddha taught that one controls thirst or > craving. I think you had it right when you said "How do you quench the > thirst of ignorance?" The Buddha taught that the thirst of carving is > quenched, not controlled. It is put out through dispassion towards > conditioned things. Put out through dispassion towards greed and aversion. > The thirst is not "controlled" but rather ended because the conditions for > it's arising have been abandoned. Ray Ray, In my usage, there is no difference in meaning between the two words. To control the thirst or craving is to quench the thirst of craving. It can be done in small measure, medium measure, or complete measure; but they both mean the same thing: Control: To exercise restraining or governing influence over; to check; to counteract; to restrain; to regulate; to govern; to overpower. Quench: To put out (a fire, for example); extinguish, to suppress; squelch, to put an end to; to slake; satisfy I am not completely sure what you are driving at since you don't provide alternative definitions or analysis. If I am understanding your contention, my response is that control doesn't mean just to manipulate; it also means to overpower and counteract. And as my post clearly stated, "I do agree that it does depend on how one defines control to know the correct approach to the issue." Ray, I believe that the definition of control you are using as the basis for your contention is limited. Metta, James 18814 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 3:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 2:29 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Control > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" > Hi > James, > > > > I would disagree that the Buddha taught that one controls > thirst or > > craving. I think you had it right when you said "How do you > quench the > > thirst of ignorance?" The Buddha taught that the thirst of > carving is > > quenched, not controlled. It is put out through dispassion towards > > conditioned things. Put out through dispassion towards greed and > aversion. > > The thirst is not "controlled" but rather ended because the > conditions for > > it's arising have been abandoned. Ray > > > > Ray, > In my usage, there is no difference in meaning between the two > words. To control the thirst or craving is to quench the thirst of > craving. It can be done in small measure, medium measure, or > complete measure; but they both mean the same thing: > > Control: To exercise restraining or governing influence over; to > check; to counteract; to restrain; to regulate; to govern; to > overpower. > > Quench: To put out (a fire, for example); extinguish, to suppress; > squelch, to put an end to; to slake; satisfy > Hi James, I think the two definitions do a good job in showing the difference. Take for example a controlled burn (that firemen use to clear overgrown brush.) To control the fire is to monitor or influence the way it burns. To quench the fire is to put it out, to extinguish it, thus control is no longer necessary since there is nothing to control, ie the fire is out. Control implies that further action is still necessary, quenching implies no further action is necessary. IMO the Buddha taught the way towards quenching craving, self help books teach views on how to control actions, thoughts, etc. Ray 18815 From: Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state Hi Sarah, I thought pure insight vehicle was satipatthana without jhana. It is mundane. Nibbana is not the object. My question is, do we need access concentration to practice satipatthana? Is access concentration, in the pure insight vehicle, merely the clear, intimate experience of the object, or something else? Is the counterpart sign different if one is intending to practice insight rather than jhana? I am understanding the two vehicles, tranquility and pure insight, to be part of the satipatthana process. In other words, it could go either way. After jhana or access concentration, satipatthana resumes. Is this correct? Larry 18816 From: nidive Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:45pm Subject: Re: dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi James, > Now, if mind states that know insight arise and fall away as the > Abhidhamma states, how would this be possible? It wouldn't be > possible. The Abhidhamma is dead wrong about this issue. Of > course, you think that I am wrong. That is okay also. I don't want > to convince anyone that I am right and they are wrong; I just > encourage people to think about these issues for themselves. The > truth is the truth and it will always win out in the end. The truth is that mind states that know insight arise and fall away, but insight is not forgotten. Insight is remembered. When you emerge out of meditation, does the mind states during meditation still exists? When you are replying to my post, what mind state are you in? When you are asleep, what mind state are you in? Do you know each and every mind state of yours? Are your mind states permanent? How do you know that you have the truth? For all that matters, you might be wrong and the Abhidhamma is correct. I think it is very detrimental to judge the Abhidhamma as 'dead wrong'. Perhaps you should leave an opening in your mind for the Abhidhamma. Perhaps it is correct after all. Perhaps... don't you have any doubts at all? Why are you so sure that the Abhidhamma is 'dead wrong'? Are you Enlightened already? If you are, I hope you will share your experience. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18817 From: Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 5:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing Hi Nina, I'm a little confused about the role of concentration in satipatthana. In Way 37 jhana seems to be the middle part of the satipatthana practice. Is concentration, (access or absorption), part of the satipatthana process? In the quotation below there seems to be a difference between insight vehicle and satipatthana. What is the difference? Vism. I, 6: In some instances this path of purification is taught by insight alone(3)...In some instances by jhana and understanding...In some instances by deeds (kamma)...In some instances by virtue...And in some instances by the Foundations of Mindfulness... But in answer to this question it is taught by virtue and the other two. [L: sila, samadhi, panna?] (3) 'The words "insight alone" are meant to exclude, not virtue,etc., but serenity (i.e. jhana), which is the opposite number in the pair, serenity and insight. This is for emphasis. But the word "alone" actually excludes only that concentration with distinction [of jhana], for concentration is classed as both access and absorption. Takng this stanza as the teaching for one whose vehicle is insight does not imply that there is no concentration; for no insight comes about without momentary concentration. And again, insight should be understood as the three contemplations of impermanence, pain, and not-self; not contemplation of impermanence alone' (Pm. 9-10) Larry 18818 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:40pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Control Dear everyone, If we accept that there is absolutely << no-control >> and that everything happens << strictly >> by << conditions >> i.e. even the smallest act such as turning left or right was already determined << in advance >> by << conditions >> then we fall into the case of << STRICT DETERMINISM >>, do we not? __In this case, liberation is impossible since everything was determined in advance and personal initiative was excluded. __We can interchange the words << conditionality >> and << God's Will >> and we find the same reasoning: Nobody knows << God's Will >> except God. Same thing, nobody knows << conditionality >> (i.e. all conditions for an event to happen) except a Buddha. In the case of God's Will, the smallest act like turning left or right was already determined by God (like conditionality) These are some funny thoughts I've found :-)) Metta, KKT 18819 From: James Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 8:31pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Control --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > Hi James, > Control > implies that further action is still necessary, quenching implies no further > action is necessary. Ray, I wouldn't agree that the Buddha taugh Nibbana or nothing. I believe the fire of desire must be controlled, boxed in, lessened, dampened, etc., until it is finally extinguised forevermore. Allow me to give some sutta quotes to illustrate this point that the Buddha did teach control: Monks, I know not of any other single thing that brings such woe as the mind that is untamed, uncontrolled, unguarded and unrestrained. Such a mind indeed brings great woe. Monks, I know not of any other single thing that brings such bliss as the mind that is tamed, controlled, guarded and restrained. Such a mind indeed brings great bliss. `No Other Single Thing' (Anguttara, Ones) *************************************************************** "'Come you, monk, be of moral habit, live controlled by the control of the Obligations, endowed with [right] behavior and posture, seeing peril in the slightest fault and, undertaking them, train yourself in the rules of training.' So fare along controlling it, guard the organ of sight, achieve control over the organ of sight. Having heard a sound with the ear... Having smelt a smell with the nose... Having savored a taste with the tongue... Having felt a touch with the body... Having cognized a mental state with the mind, do not be entranced with the detail. For if one dwells with the organ of mind uncontrolled, covetousness and dejection, evil, unskillful states of mind, may flow in. So fare along controlling it; guard the organ of mind, achieve control over the organ of mind.' Discourse to Ganaka-Moggallana (Majjhima Nikaya 107) ***************************************************************** When, indeed, bhikkhus, evil unskillful thoughts due to reflection on an adventitious object are eliminated, when they disappear, and the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated just within (his subject of meditation), through his reflection on an object connected with skill, through his pondering on the disadvantages of unskillful thoughts, his endeavoring to be without attentiveness and reflection as regards those thoughts or through his restraining, subduing, and beating down of the evil mind by the good mind with clenched teeth and tongue pressing on the palate, that bhikkhu is called a master of the paths along which thoughts travel. The thought he wants to think, that, he thinks; the thought he does not want to think, that, he does not think. He has cut down craving, removed the fetter, rightly mastered pride, and made an end of suffering." He is called a master of the paths taken by the turns of thought (vasi vitakka pariyaya pathesu). He is called one who is expert of control in the paths taken by the turns of thoughts, one who is conversant with the art of control in the paths taken by the turns of thought (vitakka carapathesu cinnavasi pagunavasi ti vuccati). The Removal of Distracting Thoughts (Vitakka-Santhana Sutta; Majjhima Nikaya No. 20) **************************************************************** 92. This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Even if a monk, taking hold of my outer cloak, were to follow right behind me, placing his feet in my footsteps, yet if he were to be greedy for sensual pleasures, strong in his passions, malevolent in mind, corrupt in his resolves, his mindfulness muddled, unalert, uncentered, his mind scattered, & his faculties uncontrolled, then he would be far from me, and I from him. Why is that? Because he does not see the Dhamma. Not seeing the Dhamma, he does not see me. Itivuttaka 50-99;The Group Of Threes ****************************************************************** 22. This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard:…The thought occurred to me: 'Of what action of mine is this the fruit, of what action the result, that I now have such great power & might?' Then the thought occurred to me: 'This is the fruit of my three [types of] action, the result of three types of action, that I now have such great power & might: i.e., generosity, self- control, & restraint.'" Itivuttaka 1-27;The Group Of Ones ******************************************************************* Just as a storm throws down a weak tree, so does Mara overpower the man who lives for the pursuit of pleasures, who is uncontrolled in his senses, immoderate in eating, indolent, and dissipated. Just as a storm cannot prevail against a rocky mountain, so Mara can never overpower the man who lives meditating on the impurities, who is controlled in his senses, moderate in eating, and filled with faith and earnest effort. Whoever being depraved, devoid of self-control and truthfulness, should don the monk's yellow robe, he surely is not worthy of the robe. But whoever is purged of depravity, well-established in virtues and filled with self-control and truthfulness, he indeed is worthy of the yellow robe. Dhammapada 1;The Pairs ******************************************************************* [The Buddha:] Now, go ask others, common priests & contemplatives, if anything better than truth, self-control, endurance, & relinquishment here can be found. Samyutta Nikaya X.12;Alavaka Sutta ******************************************************************* Even though he be well-attired, yet if he is posed, calm, controlled and established in the holy life, having set aside violence towards all beings -- he, truly, is a holy man, a renunciate, a monk. Irrigators regulate the waters, fletchers straighten arrow shafts, carpenters shape wood, and the good control themselves. Dhammapada 10; Violence ******************************************************************** Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed: Little thoughts, subtle thoughts, when followed, stir up the heart. Not comprehending the thoughts of the heart, one runs here & there, the mind out of control. But comprehending the thoughts of the heart, one who is ardent, mindful, restrains them. When, followed, they stir up the heart, one who is awakened lets them go without trace. Udana IV.1; Meghiya Sutta ******************************************************************** Associate with good friends and choose a remote lodging, secluded, with little noise. Be moderate in eating. Robes, alms-food, remedies and a dwelling, -- do not have craving for these things; do not be one who returns to the world. Practice restraint according to the Discipline, and control the five sense-faculties. Sutta Nipata II.11; Rahula Sutta ******************************************************************** Metta, James 18820 From: James Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 9:11pm Subject: Re: dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi James, How do you know that you have the truth? For all that matters, you > might be wrong and the Abhidhamma is correct. I think it is very > detrimental to judge the Abhidhamma as 'dead wrong'. Perhaps you > should leave an opening in your mind for the Abhidhamma. Perhaps it > is correct after all. Perhaps... don't you have any doubts at all? > Why are you so sure that the Abhidhamma is 'dead wrong'? Are you > Enlightened already? If you are, I hope you will share your > experience. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon NEO, Please read these words: "But truly, Ananda, it is nothing strange that human beings should die. But if each time it happens you should come to the Tathagata and ask about them in this manner, indeed it would be troublesome to him. Therefore, Ananda, I will give you the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, possessing which the noble disciple, should he so desire, can declare of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'" 9. "And what, Ananda, is that teaching called the Mirror of Dhamma, possessing which the noble disciple may thus declare of himself? "In this case, Ananda, the noble disciple possesses unwavering faith in the Buddha thus: 'The Blessed One is an Arahat, the Fully Enlightened One, perfect in knowledge and conduct, the Happy One, the knower of the world, the paramount trainer of beings, the teacher of gods and men, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One.' "He possesses unwavering faith in the Dhamma thus: 'Well propounded by the Blessed One is the Dhamma, evident, timeless, [18] inviting investigation, leading to emancipation, to be comprehended by the wise, each for himself.' "He possesses unwavering faith in the Blessed One's Order of Disciples thus: 'Well faring is the Blessed One's Order of Disciples, righteously, wisely, and dutifully: that is to say, the four pairs of men, the eight classes of persons. The Blessed One's Order of Disciples is worthy of honor, of hospitality, of offerings, of veneration -- the supreme field for meritorious deeds in the world.' "And he possesses virtues that are dear to the Noble Ones, complete and perfect, spotless and pure, which are liberating, praised by the wise, uninfluenced (by worldly concerns), and favorable to concentration of mind. 10. "This, Ananda, is the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, whereby the noble disciple may thus know of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'" NEO, I have the Mirror of the Dhamma. I do not need to cling to scriptures; I do not need to cling to the Buddha; I do not need to cling to the approval of others. I can determine for myself what is right and what is `dead wrong'…without the requirement of enlightenment. I only point this out to you for your benefit, not mine. I pray that you have the Mirror of the Dhamma for yourself one day. When you do, you will have no doubt. I approached the Abhidhamma with an open-mind; that is what brought me to this group. I have studied it and pondered it intensely. I have read numerous articles, books, and written numerous posts to understand it more. Everyone in this group has been drug through that experience with me. It taught me a lot; it also taught me that I don't believe in the Abhidhamma. If I were convinced that the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma, I would quit being a Buddhist immediately. I am not alone in this disdain for the Abhidhamma; do we all need to be enlightened to know if it is wrong or not? The moderators have informed me that they do not mind my participation in this group even though I do not agree with the Abhidhamma. All disagreements that I have, I have supported with evidence and logic. Neo, you have not argued my contentions in this post. You have put up a smoke screen to distract from the real issues. I have no desire to defend myself personally to you. Please discuss dhamma, but don't discuss me. Thank you. Metta, James 18821 From: Egberdina Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 9:51pm Subject: Re: Control Dear KKT, I very much enjoyed (I was filled with joy) your explanation of the meaning of KKT. Thank you for this and all your other posts. I personally reject the idea of absolutely no control. I do so on an empirical basis. I do not think in the following way : that by the ripening of kamma of a particular colour there was the experience of typing in a password, which was previously set by the ripening of other kamma of other colour, and there was the experience of being on the Internet, smiling quietly while reading words from KKT, which were the predestined consequences of conditions. A minute ago I thought like this: The sink is full of dishes, my son's computer isn't working properly, it is 35C outside, my garden is withering even as I ponder the choices available to me, I should water the garden, but no, I choose to go on the Net and see what's a happening there. And yes, there are enormous expanses of time when I am totally oblivious to the fact that I have choices. Then I am out of control and driven by conditionality, karma, you name it. But when there is awareness, there is choice, and when there is choice there is control. Middle road sounds good. All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > Dear everyone, > > > If we accept that there is absolutely > << no-control >> and that everything > happens << strictly >> by << conditions >> > i.e. even the smallest act such as > turning left or right was already determined > << in advance >> by << conditions >> > then we fall into the case of > << STRICT DETERMINISM >>, do we not? > > > __In this case, liberation is impossible > since everything was determined in advance > and personal initiative was excluded. > > > __We can interchange the words > << conditionality >> and << God's Will >> > and we find the same reasoning: > > Nobody knows << God's Will >> except God. > Same thing, nobody knows << conditionality >> > (i.e. all conditions for an event to happen) > except a Buddha. > > In the case of God's Will, the smallest > act like turning left or right was already > determined by God (like conditionality) > > > These are some funny thoughts I've found :-)) > > > Metta, > > > KKT 18822 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 10:18pm Subject: More on Forest and Lone Dwelling Dear All, (Nina & Swee Boon, pls see footnotes at the end), I recently quoted from the Commentary to the Sammanaphala Sutta on the topic of forest dwelling: ..... "He goes taking all his minimal eight requisites, carrying them on his body. He has no attachment or bondage to "my monastery, my cell, my attendant." He is like an arrow released from the bow or like an elephant in rut which has left the herd. Using whatever dwelling he likes - a jungle thicket, the foot of a tree, a wooded slope -- he stands alone and sits alone; in all postures, he is alone, without a companion. Thus he conducts himself in a manner similar to that of the rhinoceros, as explained (in the Rhinoceros Sutta): At home in the four quarters of the world, harbouring no aversion in one’s heart, content with anything one gets, bearing all hardships undismayed - one should walk alone like the rhinoceros. (Sn v 42)" ***** In the sutta itself in this section under contentment, it says: "Just as a bird, wherever it goes, flies with its wings as its only burden, in the same way a bhikkhu is content with robes to protect his body and almsfood to sustain his belly; wherever he goes he sets out taking only (his requisites) along with him. In this way, great king, the bhikkhu is content". ..... We then read about how forest dwelling alone was only appropriate for those with the right ‘prerequisites’. As we went for an early morning walk today, Jon was listening to a Thai tape with A.Sujin discussing the Thera Sutta about a bhikkhu who liked to live alone(11, 282 in Samyutta Nikaya). I was being passed titbits for reflection and was thus prompted to look it up just now. We often read in the suttas about groups of bhikkhus gathered together, entered a village for alms together and so on. In the Thera Sutta, it seems a number of bhikkhus thought it was strange for Thera to live alone, go for alms alone, return alone, sit and walk alone and so they raised the issue with the Buddha. The Buddha summons Thera who confirms he lives and follows all these activities alone and also praises living alone. The Buddha doesn’t disagree, but says (B.Bodhi transl., p721): "That is a way of dwelling alone, Elder, I do not deny this. But as to how dwelling alone is fulfilled in detail, listen to that and attend closely, I will speak." "Yes, venerable sir." "And how, Elder, is dwelling alone fulfilled in detail? Here, Elder, what lies in the past has been abandoned, what lies in the future has been relinquished, and desire and lust for present forms of individual existence has been thoroughly removed.* It is in such a way, Elder, that dwelling alone is fulfilled in detail." This is what the Blessed One said. Having said this, the Fortunate One, the Teacher, further said this: "The wise one, all-conqueror, all-knower, Among all things unsullied, with all cast off, Liberated in the destruction of craving: I call that person ‘one who dwells alone.’ "** So there are the two meanings of 'living alone'.For some by inclination or natural tendency (pakati or bokati in Thai)they will live alone in the first sense like Thera. However, we all have to learn to live alone without 'desire and lust' regardless of whether we're in the forest or the village, alone or with others. Of course, this is very similar to the Migajala Sutta which I like to quote and reflect on a lot. Only by understanding the sounds, odours, tactile objects, menta phenomena and other namas and rupas discussed can one’s partner -- craving -- be abandoned, allowing one to live alone: ***** ‘There are, Migajala, sounds cognizable by the ear..odours cognizable by the nose..tastes cognizable by the tongue..tactile objects cognizable by the body..mental phenomena cognizable by the mind that are desirable, lovely, agreeable, pleasing, sensually enticing, tantalizing. If a bhikkhu does not seek delight in them..he is called alone dweller. ‘Migajala, even though a bhikkhu who dwells thus lives in the vicinity of a village, associating with bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, with male and felmale lay follower, with kings and royal ministers, with sectarian teachers and their disciples, he is still called a lone dweller. For what reason? Because craving is his partner and he has abandoned it; therefore his is called a lone dweller." (SN, Bk of 6 Sense Bases.63, B.Bodhi trans) ***** Sarah ===== Footnotes to Thera Sutta (B.bodhi trans): *Commentary "(Spk): "The past is said to be abandoned (pahina.m) by the abandoning of desire and lust for the five aggregates of the past; the future is relinquished (pa.tinissa.t.tha.m) by the relinquishig of desire and lust for the five aggregates of the future. : "The plural ‘attabhaavapa.tilaabhesu’ is hard to account for; perhaps it means the five aggregates taken individually, though this would be an unusual use of the expression." **"(Spk): ‘All-conqueror’(sbbaabhibhu.m): one who abides having overcome all aggregates, sense bases, and elements, and the three kinds of existence. ‘Unsullied’(anupalitta.m, or "unstuck") among hose very things by the paste (lepa) of craving and views. : "Liberated in the destruction of craving (ta.nhakkhaye vimutta.m): liberated in Nibbana, called the destruction of craving by way of the liberation that takes this as its object." =============== 18823 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Issues -abiding in bliss Dear Nina & All, --- Sarah wrote: > Under the next section on the ‘Attainment of Cessation’ > (Nirodha samåpatti, we read: > > “Why do they attain it? Being wearied by the occurrence and dissolution > of formations, they attain it thinking, “let us dwell in bliss by being > without consciousness here and now and reaching the cessation that is > nibbana.” > comm to this: “..as though reaching nibbana without remainder of result > of > past clinging, “in bliss” means without suffering.” > > Obviously there is no mental suffering for the arahant anyway, so this > applies to bodily suffering such as the back-ache. ,,,,, Pls forget the last comment under this quote as it makes no sense;-) ;-) Also the one about experience of nibbana which followed was meant to relate the the earlier fruition attainment quote and not this one. On my last post about attabhava, K.Sujin was discussing this more in relation to the sutta and present moment, I believe. I'm not sure as I just heard Jon's brief comments. Sarah ====== 18824 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 0:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:31 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Control --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > Hi James, > Control > implies that further action is still necessary, quenching implies no further > action is necessary. Ray, I wouldn't agree that the Buddha taugh Nibbana or nothing. I believe the fire of desire must be controlled, boxed in, lessened, dampened, etc., until it is finally extinguised forevermore. Allow me to give some sutta quotes to illustrate this point that the Buddha did teach control: Wow, lots of Sutta quotes :) I never said that the Buddha never used the word control in his teachings. Your original point was that the end of teaching was absolute control. You will notice that what the Buddha is talking about in these Suttas is the guarding and controlling of actions thoughts and speech. In none of them does he say to control ignorance or control greed or control hatred. Why? Because the only way for those to be dealt with is through quenching. Let me see what we can find in the Suttas on this :) From SN XII.31 "One sees with right discernment that 'this has come into being.' Seeing with right discernment that 'this has come into being,' one is -- through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, through lack of clinging/sustenance -- released from what has come into being. One sees with right discernment that 'it has come into being from this nutriment.' Seeing with right discernment that 'it has come into being from this nutriment,' one is -- through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, through lack of clinging/sustenance -- released from the nutriment by which it has come into being. One sees with right discernment that 'from the cessation of this nutriment, what has come into being is subject to cessation.' Seeing with right discernment that 'from the cessation of this nutriment, what has come into being is subject to cessation,' one is -- through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, through lack of clinging/sustenance -- released from what is subject to cessation. This is how one is a person who has fathomed the Dhamma. " From SN XII.19 "The ignorance with which the wise person is obstructed, the craving with which he is conjoined, through which this body results: that ignorance has been abandoned by the wise person; that craving has been destroyed. Why is that? The wise person has practiced the holy life for the right ending of stress. Therefore, at the break-up of the body, he is not headed for a [new] body. Not headed for a body, he is entirely freed from birth, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is, I tell you, entirely freed from stress & suffering." From SN From SN XII.52 "Just as if a great mass of fire of ten... twenty... thirty or forty cartloads of timber were burning, into which a man simply would not time & again throw dried grass, dried cow dung, or dried timber, so that the great mass of fire -- its original sustenance being consumed, and no other being offered -- would, without nutriment, go out. In the same way, in one who keeps focusing on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena, craving ceases. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging, illness & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress." SN XXII.23 The Blessed One said, "And which are the phenomena to be comprehended? Form is a phenomenon to be comprehended. Feeling ... Perception ... Fabrications ... Consciousness is a phenomenon to be comprehended. These are called phenomena to be comprehended. "And which is comprehension? Any ending of passion, ending of aversion, ending of delusion. [1] This is called comprehension." Another good example is the Satta Sutta, A Being... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn23-002.html This idea of ending craving through dispassion runs throughout the Nikayas. So I see control as a matter of practice, control based on the precepts, based on the vinaya, based on the suttas. But it is a method, like meditation, it is not the goal of practice. You will also notice that the method you quoted from MN 20 is the last ditch method, those the Buddha describes first or things like substitution and insight into the nature of the distracting thoughts. The interesting question is that if the self is not controlling, then how is any control possible? How is practice possible, if our understandings arise due to conditions and not some imagined self-control? Why does dependent origination not mean we are trapped in determinism? I think it is because there can be observation without an observer, decisions without a decider, for that means our actions, our thoughts this moment have a large impact on what happens the next...Ray 18825 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 4:52am Subject: Hilary's letter Dear Hilary, I am Janice! I think James said that it doesn't matter even if you are not a buddhist you could still be reborn too. And I have look through other letters in the past but I could not find other answers. Metta Janice 18826 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 4:55am Subject: Rusty Dear Christine, I am Janice Chung. You might have heard from me from other letters. I have read the letter about your dog Rusty. I think if you really like your dog, you should spend some money for your dog. Do you really like your dog? Well that's it for this letter! Metta Janice Chung 18827 From: nidive Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 6:38am Subject: Re: dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi James, > NEO, I have the Mirror of the Dhamma. I do not need to cling to > scriptures; I do not need to cling to the Buddha; I do not need > to cling to the approval of others. I can determine for myself > what is right and what is `dead wrong'…without the requirement of > enlightenment. I only point this out to you for your benefit, not > mine. I pray that you have the Mirror of the Dhamma for yourself > one day. When you do, you will have no doubt. So James, you are claiming that you have attained the super-human state of a sotapanna? The sutta which you quoted describes a sotapanna. Please answer a positive YES or a negative NO. For I do not understand what you meant by "without the requirement of enlightenment". If you are a sotapanna, you are Enlightened (though not fully as yet). Only a sotapanna has eradicated all doubts about the Triple Gem. > I am not alone in this disdain for the Abhidhamma; do we all > need to be enlightened to know if it is wrong or not? Yes, we all need to be Enlightened (at least a sotapanna) to know if the Abhidhamma is wrong or not (or whether your view is right or not). > Neo, you have not argued my contentions in this post. How had I not argued them? I said that insight is remembered, but the mind states that know insight arise and fall away. Memory is different from mind states. > You have put up a smoke screen to distract from the real issues. It seems that you are a Dhamma guru when you say "The truth is the truth and it will always win out in the end.". You are implying that you have the truth, aren't you? That's why I asked those "smoke screen" issues. I probably would not have asked them if I knew that you are a sotapanna (whether out of over-estimation or not). And how does the truth 'win'? Who wins? James? :-) > I have no desire to defend myself personally to you. Please discuss dhamma, but don't discuss me. I see no difference between discussing about the Dhamma and discussing about your views on the Dhamma. We are still discussing Dhamma. You don't have to take it so "personal". Why are you so conscious of your "self"? A person who isn't conscious of his "self" would not have uttered such a statement. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18828 From: nidive Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 6:44am Subject: Re: dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi James, > Yes, we all need to be Enlightened (at least a sotapanna) to know if > the Abhidhamma is wrong or not (or whether your view is right or > not). Should be rephrased as: Yes, we all need to be Enlightend (at least a sotapanna) to know 100% without doubt if the Abhidhamma is wrong or not (or whether your view is right or not). So take note that saying "I know that James is wrong" is different from saying "I know 100% without doubt that James is wrong". Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18829 From: nidive Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 7:20am Subject: Questions about Questions [was: Re: No-control & Destiny] Hi All, > I see the question "Is there a self outside of the khandhas?" to > be set aside because it is speculative, not beneficial, leading > to dukkha, not conducive to the goal of the cessation of dukkha. I see this question is to be counter-questioned. But I may be wrong. Majjhima Nikaya 109 Maha-punnama Sutta The Great Full-moon Night Discourse Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of a certain monk: "So -- form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?" Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: "It's possible that a senseless person -- immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving -- might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in this way: 'So -- form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?' Now, monks, haven't I trained you in counter- questioning with regard to this & that topic here & there? What do you think -- Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn109.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18830 From: James Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 8:29am Subject: Re: dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi James, > > > NEO, I have the Mirror of the Dhamma. I do not need to cling to > > scriptures; I do not need to cling to the Buddha; I do not need > > to cling to the approval of others. I can determine for myself > > what is right and what is `dead wrong'…without the requirement of > > enlightenment. I only point this out to you for your benefit, not > > mine. I pray that you have the Mirror of the Dhamma for yourself > > one day. When you do, you will have no doubt. > > So James, you are claiming that you have attained the super-human > state of a sotapanna? The sutta which you quoted describes a > sotapanna. > > Please answer a positive YES or a negative NO. For I do not > understand what you meant by "without the requirement of > enlightenment". If you are a sotapanna, you are Enlightened (though > not fully as yet). Only a sotapanna has eradicated all doubts about > the Triple Gem. > > > > I am not alone in this disdain for the Abhidhamma; do we all > > need to be enlightened to know if it is wrong or not? > > Yes, we all need to be Enlightened (at least a sotapanna) to know if > the Abhidhamma is wrong or not (or whether your view is right or > not). > > > > Neo, you have not argued my contentions in this post. > > How had I not argued them? I said that insight is remembered, but > the mind states that know insight arise and fall away. Memory is > different from mind states. > > > You have put up a smoke screen to distract from the real issues. > > It seems that you are a Dhamma guru when you say "The truth is the > truth and it will always win out in the end.". You are implying that > you have the truth, aren't you? That's why I asked those "smoke > screen" issues. I probably would not have asked them if I knew that > you are a sotapanna (whether out of over-estimation or not). > > And how does the truth 'win'? Who wins? James? :-) > > > I have no desire to defend myself personally to you. Please > discuss dhamma, but don't discuss me. > > I see no difference between discussing about the Dhamma and > discussing about your views on the Dhamma. We are still discussing > Dhamma. > > You don't have to take it so "personal". Why are you so conscious of > your "self"? A person who isn't conscious of his "self" would not > have uttered such a statement. > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon NEO, I meant what I wrote. To discuss me is not to discuss the dhamma. I am not the dhamma. The Buddha was the dhamma because he was nibbana; as he said about himself. I see that further discussion with you will not be possible. Metta, James 18831 From: James Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 8:45am Subject: Nibbana Stored in Memory? Hi All, Can memory store nibbana? To answer that question, we must determine if nibbana is an object of the mind or a state of being. Let's rephrase the original question in terms simpler to understand: Can memory store sickness? Well, memory can store the experiences associated with sickness: runny nose, cough, fever, etc., but is that really `sickness'? Is the memory of sickness anything like the actual experience? To me it isn't. Doesn't sickness have to be something that has to be experienced first-hand and cannot be adequately stored in memory? Therefore, is nibbana an object of the mind or a state of being? This is an important question because I think there is a big difference between the two. However, since I am not enlightened I cannot say for sure. My vote goes toward nibbana as a state of being….and states of being cannot be adequately stored in memory. Metta, James 18832 From: Frank Kuan Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 8:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Forest and Lone Dwelling Sarah, I can appreciate the alternate understanding of "alone", but I personally doubt that kind of "alone" can be realized without the aid of the standard understanding of alone. As the crested, blue-necked peacock, when flying, never matches the wild goose in speed: Even so the householder never keeps up with the monk, the sage secluded, doing jhana in the forest. Sn.I.12 bodhisattva practice #3 of 37 Withdrawing completely from things that excite us, Our mental disturbances slowly decline. And ridding our mind of directionless wandering, Attention on virtue will surely increase. As wisdom shines clearer, the world comes in focus, Our confidence grows in the Dhamma we've learned. Live all alone far away in seclusion - The Sons of the Buddhas all practice this way. 18833 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hi James, just some remarks, see below op 16-01-2003 17:15 schreef James op buddhatrue@y...: Insight is not like that. It doesn't go away even when the > practice stops. Whatever insight one gains, that insight sticks > around until the final culmination in nibbana. --------------- N: Yes, a stage of insight is not forgotten. One goes on building upon it. -------- J: The same applies to > lifetime after lifetime. Whatever one learns about the truth in one > lifetime is carried to the next; it doesn't go away. That is why > any amount of meditation, even for five minutes a day, is beneficial > because it will accumulate insight. --------------------- N:Yes, life after life, it does not go away. Unfortunately also as regards lobha. Life after life, it does not go away. ---------------------- J: Now, if mind states that know insight arise and fall away as the > Abhidhamma states, how would this be possible? It wouldn't be > possible. ----------- N: Yes, it is possible. Seeing just a moment ago is no more, there can be thinking or hearing. Only one citta at a time, because each citta experiences only one object at a time. Still, you can prove that what you learnt as a child did not go away. Because each citta (sorry, moment of consciousness, or mental moment, or, as Suan says, mental event) that falls away is succeeded by the next one, and so on and on, life after life. There is no moment without citta, then you would be dead. Still, they are different cittas, not one long lasting citta. Since each citta is succeeded by the next one accumulated tendencies are carried on from one life to the next. Therefore insight can be accumulated. I quote from some old posts, first about accumulations: When one realizes the falling away of realities, one knows that they do not last, that there is nothing eternal or permanent. By seeing conditions one keeps the Middle Way: no annihilation belief, no eternalism. As I said, the theory is not too difficult, but the direct realization of the truth is difficult for all of us, it takes a long time. Here comes in the patience, the highest ascetism.> Life passes just in a flash. I quote from Visuddhimagga, XX, 72, which contains actually quotes from the Maha-Niddesa, Sutta on Old Age: Life, person, pleasure, pain-just these alone Join in one conscious moment that flicks by. Gods, though they life for four-and eighty thousand Aeons, are not the same for two such moments. Ceased khandhas of those dead or alive Are all alike, gone never to return; And those that break up meanwhile, and in future, Have traits no different from those ceased before. No (world is) born if (consciousness) is not Produced; when that is present, then it lives; When consciousness dissolves, the world is dead: The highest sense this concept will allow. No store of broken states, no future stock; Those born balance like seeds on needle points. Break-up of states is foredoomed at their birth; Those present decay, unmingled with those past. The visible object impinges on the eyesense and then seeing-consciousness arises, and the meeting or association of them is unthinkably short, like the seed balancing on a needle point. Life is so short, this is Mindfulness of death. Abhidhamma and satipatthana, which is actually Abhidhamma applied, lead to mindfulness of death. James, your expectations, your fear and sadness of yesterday have gone, today you are different, you may laugh. You wrote to Christine about your experiences when you were about to become a monk. Thank you for sharing these. Understandable that you also become sad when recollecting these. But sadness does not last. I find it consoling that it is said, A dear person we cling to has to die. Life is so short, there is death and rebirth at each moment. This is reality. You can verify that James now is no longer James as a child, and that still, in a way, there is still James. From milk comes curd. Here you are with all your accumulated tendencies, good and bad. In a former life you may have studied Dhamma, and that conditions your interest today. ____________ J:The Abhidhamma is dead wrong about this issue. ------------ N. I want to quote part of a post by my friend Suan. He gives a good explanation of Abhidhamma: End quote. Nina. 18834 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Questions about Questions [was: Re: No-control & Destiny] Dear Rob Ed, thank you, this is an interesting post. Something to think about, Nina op 16-01-2003 16:19 schreef Robert Eddison op robedd@i...: > > In the Pa~nhabyaakara.na Sutta the Buddha states: > > "Monks there are these four ways of answering a question. > What four? > There is a question which is to be given a categorical answer > (eka.msabyaakara.niiya). > There is a question which is to be analysed > (vibhajjabyaakara.niiya). > There is a question which is to be answered with a counter-question > (pa.tipucchaabyaakara.niiya) > There is a question which is to be set aside (.thapaniiya)" > -- A ii 46 > 18835 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:08am Subject: Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no 14 Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no 14 In the early morning the Buddha saw to his bodily needs and surrounded by bhikkhus he went on his almsround in the city of Såvatthí. After he had received almsfood he returned from his almsround and entered his fragrant chamber. He paused after the exertion of walking just for a moment and he did not say anything to the elderly monks. The Venerable Såriputta, the venerable Moggallåna and other monks were present. The Lord took his bowl and robe and went out alone. While on his way, he did not fly through the air nor did he make the stretch he walked shorter [13]. He considered again: ²That son of a prominent family has shame and awe for me, he does not even sit in a vehicle, on an elephant, horse, chariot or golden palaquin, etc. and finally, he does not even use one layer of footwear, nor does he carry a sunshade. Therefore, I should walk afoot.² Thus, the Buddha travelled just by walking. The Buddha hid the splendour of his Buddhahood: his eighty minor attributes, his halo of two yards and the thirtytwo characteristics of a Great Man [14]. He travelled in the guise of an ordinary bhikkhu, as the full moon which is hidden by a misty cloud. In less than one day (after the meal), he walked fortyfive leagues and reached at sundown the workshop of that potter. When the Buddha walked in this way he did not intimidate people, saying, ³I am the Sammåsambuddha.² Thus, he just went to the potter¹s workshop and stood at the gate. In order to give the son of a prominent family an opportunity [15], he said: ³Bhikkhu, if it is not inconvenient to you, I would like to lodge in this dwelling for just one night.² Pukkusåti answered: ³Spacious, friend, is the potter¹s dwelling; stay, friend, according to your pleasure.² The Lord of the World who was of a most delicate constitution had left his fragrant Chamber which is like a divine dwelling, he spread out a covering of grass in the potter¹s workshop, where ashes were scattered all over the place, which was dirty because of broken ustensils, dry grass and so on and which was like a heap of garbage. He spread out his ragrobe and sat down as if he had entered his fragrant chamber with a divine odour, just as if it was a divine dwelling. Thus he sat down. If we want to develop the perfection of patience, we should not forget to accumulate endurance in each situation, be it with regard to seats, beds or anything else in our environment. The Buddha was born into a prominent family and also Pukkusåti had grown in the womb of a mother of prominent family, a Khattiya family 16. The Buddha attained what he had aspired to, and so did the son of a prominent family. Each of them had left his kingdom to become a monk. The Buddha was of a golden skin colour and so was the son of a prominent family. Both of them possessed specific attainments (samåpatti). Both of them were Kings... both of them had left their status of royalty to go forth... They entered the potter¹s workshop and sat down in that way. For that reason the potter¹s workshop became extremely beautiful and delightful. Footnotes: 13. By supranatural powers. 14. These are specific bodily featrures of a Buddha. 15. An opportunity to share his residence with the Buddha. 18836 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:50am Subject: Re: Rusty Dear Janice, Thank you for your good advice. Yes, I really ike my dog and I will spend whatever is necessary to keep him healthy. I joke with Rusty and tell him that the dogs you get 'for free' always cost the most money. (Rusty was a stray puppy I found at my son's school). metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear Christine, > I am Janice Chung. You might have > heard from me from other letters. I have read the > letter about your dog Rusty. I think if > you really like your dog, you should spend some money > for your dog. Do you really like your dog? > Well that's it for this letter! > > Metta Janice Chung 18837 From: dave Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 2:20pm Subject: intro Hello all, New to the group here... I will most likely lurk for a while as I have much more to learn that to contribute at this time. I set myself on the path a few years ago, and have far more questions than I know what to do with. I figure by listening I may have many of them answered. Peace, dave 18838 From: James Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 3:00pm Subject: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi James, > just some remarks, see below > > op 16-01-2003 17:15 schreef James op > buddhatrue@y...: > > Insight is not like that. It doesn't go away even when the > > practice stops. Whatever insight one gains, that insight sticks > > around until the final culmination in nibbana. > --------------- > N: Yes, a stage of insight is not forgotten. One goes on building upon it. > -------- > J: The same applies to > > lifetime after lifetime. Whatever one learns about the truth in one > > lifetime is carried to the next; it doesn't go away. That is why > > any amount of meditation, even for five minutes a day, is beneficial > > because it will accumulate insight. > --------------------- > N:Yes, life after life, it does not go away. Unfortunately also as regards > lobha. Life after life, it does not go away. > ---------------------- > J: Now, if mind states that know insight arise and fall away as the > > Abhidhamma states, how would this be possible? It wouldn't be > > possible. > ----------- > N: Yes, it is possible. Seeing just a moment ago is no more, there can be > thinking or hearing. Only one citta at a time, because each citta > experiences only one object at a time. Still, you can prove that what you > learnt as a child did not go away. Because each citta (sorry, moment of > consciousness, or mental moment, or, as Suan says, mental event) that falls > away is succeeded by the next one, and so on and on, life after life. There > is no moment without citta, then you would be dead. Still, they are > different cittas, not one long lasting citta. > Since each citta is succeeded by the next one accumulated tendencies are > carried on from one life to the next. Therefore insight can be accumulated. > I quote from some old posts, first about accumulations: > of the many conditions for citta: anantara-paccaya, contiguity condition. If > our life would not be an unbroken series of cittas, we could not stay alive. > Cittas arise and fall away extremely fast. We see only what appears through > the eyes, but it seems that we see and immediately know this or that person > is there, this or that thing, and that we also at the same time have like or > dislike of what we see. In reality there are countless moments of cittas > succeeding one another. The fact that many impressions seem to occur all at > the same time shows that cittas arise and fall away, succeeding one another > extremely fast. > Because cittas arise in succession, without a pause in between, there can be > accumulation of good and bad qualities, kusala cetasikas and akusala > cetasikas, from moment to moment, from one life to the next one. Attachment, > aversion, metta, pa~n~naa, these can be accumulated so that there are > conditions for their arising again and again. This is another type of > condition: natural strong dependance-condition, pakatupanissaya- paccaya. If > as a child you were taught generosity, generosity is accumulated, because > each citta is succeeded by a next one, and thus, there are conditions for > the arising again of generosity. There is no person who is good or bad, > there are cittas accompanied by cetasikas arising because of their own > conditions. > Where is the free will or right effort, are we automatic machines? Not at > all. We are not helpless victims of fate, as someone thought. Understanding > of our life can be developed, and this is because of the Dhamma the Buddha > realized through his enlightenment and taught for fortyfive years. > Conditions for pa~n~naa can be accumulated by listening, carefully > considering and by mindfulness of nama and rupa. We cannot control > mindfulness, sati, it is anatta, and if we try to do this there is lobha, a > factors which hinders the arising of sati. Just listening and investigation > of what occurs in our life now can condition the arising of sati. We can > study the Dhamma but, as A. Sujin reminded us very often, we should study > with the right purpose: to have more understanding of this moment now, of > seeing now, attachment now, anger now. Otherwise our study is useless. Thus, > we should ask ourselves: how is this or that point of the Abhidhamma related > to this moment now? > Intention or volition, cetana, is a cetasika arising with each citta, and > when kusala citta arises volition is kusala, when akusala citta arises, > volition is akusala. Since cittas arise and fall away in succession > extremely rapidly, can we say to ourselves, I want to have kusala cetana at > this very moment? Is it not better to see cetana as a conditioned reality? > If we understand conditions free will does not have to be an issue anymore. > It is the same with effort. There is right effort, but it is a cetasika, not > us. It arises because of conditions. > Kamma is another type of condition. Kusala kamma and akusala kamma are also > accumulated and can produce results later on by way of rebirth, or by way of > vipakacittas that experience pleasant or unpleasant objects through the > senses. Kamma-condition is a type of condition different from natural strong > dependence-condition that causes us to be attached now or to be angry now. > > The Visuddhimagga explains (XVII, 167):< And with a stream of continuity > there is neither identity nor otherness. For if there were absolute identity > in a stream of continuity, there would be no forming of curd from milk. And > yet if there were absolute otherness, the curd would not be derived from > milk.> When one realizes the falling away of realities, one knows that they > do not last, that there is nothing eternal or permanent. By seeing > conditions one keeps the Middle Way: no annihilation belief, no eternalism. > As I said, the theory is not too difficult, but the direct realization of > the truth is difficult for all of us, it takes a long time. Here comes in > the patience, the highest ascetism.> > > Life passes just in a flash. I quote from Visuddhimagga, XX, 72, which > contains actually quotes from the Maha-Niddesa, Sutta on Old Age: > > Life, person, pleasure, pain-just these alone > Join in one conscious moment that flicks by. > Gods, though they life for four-and eighty thousand > Aeons, are not the same for two such moments. > Ceased khandhas of those dead or alive > Are all alike, gone never to return; > And those that break up meanwhile, and in future, > Have traits no different from those ceased before. > No (world is) born if (consciousness) is not > Produced; when that is present, then it lives; > When consciousness dissolves, the world is dead: > The highest sense this concept will allow. > No store of broken states, no future stock; > Those born balance like seeds on needle points. > Break-up of states is foredoomed at their birth; > Those present decay, unmingled with those past. > > The visible object impinges on the eyesense and then seeing- consciousness > arises, and the meeting or association of them is unthinkably short, like > the seed balancing on a needle point. Life is so short, this is Mindfulness > of death. Abhidhamma and satipatthana, which is actually Abhidhamma applied, > lead to mindfulness of death. > James, your expectations, your fear and sadness of yesterday have gone, > today you are different, you may laugh. You wrote to Christine about your > experiences when you were about to become a monk. Thank you for sharing > these. Understandable that you also become sad when recollecting these. But > sadness does not last. I find it consoling that it is said, pleasure pain--just these alone join in one > consciousness moment that flicks by.> A dear person we cling to has to die. > Life is so short, there is death and rebirth at each moment. This is > reality. > You can verify that James now is no longer James as a child, and that still, > in a way, there is still James. From milk comes curd. Here you are with all > your accumulated tendencies, good and bad. In a former life you may have > studied Dhamma, and that conditions your interest today. > ____________ > > J:The Abhidhamma is dead wrong about this issue. > ------------ > N. > I want to quote part of a post by my friend Suan. He gives a good > explanation of Abhidhamma: > > between Suttas and Abhidhamma. > Believe it or not, the Buddha taught only abhidhamma. In plain > English, abhidhamma is the subject of what we can observe, > experience, remove, eradicate, cultivate, develop and achieve - in > short, the subject of what we can do with our minds or our lives. > And as every discourse in the Sutta Pitaka also deals with what we > can do with our minds or our lives, every discourse teaches segments > of abhidhamma. > Now, why then is there the differentiation between Sutta Pitaka and > Abhidhamma Pitaka? > The differentiation is not what they teach, but how they teach.> > End quote. > Nina. Dear Nina, Obviously I cannot reason with someone who preaches `realities' at one point, and then turns around and offers the euphemistic reasoning that the Buddha only taught the Abhidhamma because the Abhidhamma is all that he taught…never mind that he didn't actually teach it. I feel as if I am dealing with a politician. If you are sincerely interested in reality: first start with what can be demonstrated to others, then go to what is accepted by others, and finally go to what you experience first-hand for yourself. If you are honest, you will conclude that the Abhidhamma fails all three of these tests. Metta, James 18839 From: azita gill Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 3:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] intro --- "dave " wrote: > Hello all, > > New to the group here... I will most likely lurk > for a while as I > have much more to learn that to contribute at this > time. I set > myself on the path a few years ago, and have far > more questions than > I know what to do with. I figure by listening I may > have many of > them answered. > > Peace, > dave > dear Dave, welcome from another lurker. yes, you can learn things by just sitting back and 'listening' but it also raises a lot of puzzles so feel comfortable about asking questions. Someone usually kindly answers a question, especially if you are persistent!!! where do you live? would be nice if you told us a little about yourself, but under no obligation if you don't want to. i'm Azita, I live in australia and have kind of studied the Buddha's teaching for about 25 years, and i have known some of the others on the site for about the same time. may you grow in wisdom and understanding of Buddha's teachings. patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. > > > > > 18840 From: rahula_80 Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:10pm Subject: Becoming a Monk Dear Bhantes and laypersons, How do you explain, especially to non-Buddhist, the reason(s) why you are becoming a monk. (I mean, when you are becoming a monk, people would ask you, why? So, how would/did you answer? Best wishes, Rahula 18841 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:22pm Subject: Re: Control Dear Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " wrote: Dear KKT, I very much enjoyed (I was filled with joy) your explanation of the meaning of KKT. KKT: In fact, the words Kha Kha Tieu (laughing ha ha) come from a Zen poem. Two Zen masters met after many years, one made this verse: Meeting each other, we laugh ha ha :-)) So many leaves have fallen in the forest --------------- Thank you for this and all your other posts. I personally reject the idea of absolutely no control. I do so on an empirical basis. KKT: This is a very interesting (and fascinating) subject: Control or No-Control ? Free-Will or Destiny ? Self or No-Self ? -------------- I do not think in the following way : that by the ripening of kamma of a particular colour there was the experience of typing in a password, which was previously set by the ripening of other kamma of other colour, and there was the experience of being on the Internet, smiling quietly while reading words from KKT, which were the predestined consequences of conditions. A minute ago I thought like this: The sink is full of dishes, my son's computer isn't working properly, it is 35C outside, my garden is withering even as I ponder the choices available to me, I should water the garden, but no, I choose to go on the Net and see what's a happening there. And yes, there are enormous expanses of time when I am totally oblivious to the fact that I have choices. Then I am out of control and driven by conditionality, karma, you name it. But when there is awareness, there is choice, and when there is choice there is control. Middle road sounds good. KKT: What you wrote << when there is awareness, there is choice, and when there is choice there is control >> seems very reasonable and of the common sense. And this is the basis of Buddhist practice that is the practice of Mindfulness. But if we look deep down in the Buddha's teachings, things do not seem so simple. The Buddha talked about: __Anatta/No-Self in His second sermon. __Paticcasamuppada/Conditionality in His third sermon. These two theories were accepted by all different Buddhist schools (Theravada as well Mahayana, Vajrayana) as the fundamental teachings of Buddhism which made Buddhism different from other religions and philosophies. But if we put these two theories to the extreme limit of their meanings (as done in Abhidhamma, I think) then << inevitably >> we arrive at the case of DETERMINISM. As I wrote in my previous post: > If we accept that there is absolutely > << no-control >> and that everything > happens << strictly >> by << conditions >> > i.e. even the smallest act such as > turning left or right was already determined > << in advance >> by << conditions >> > then we fall into the case of > << STRICT DETERMINISM >>, do we not? I really don't know the answer :-)) And I continue to probe, a very << fascinating >> probing indeed :-)) -------------- All the best Herman KKT: I'd like to share with you my favorite story on the subject of << Free-Will or Destiny ? >> Enjoy the reading :-)) KKT ============= STORY: Destiny During a momentous battle, a Japanese general decided to attack even though his army was greatly outnumbered. He was confident they would win, but his men were filled with doubt. On the way to the battle, they stopped at a Buddhist temple. After praying with the men, the general took out a coin and said, "I shall now toss this coin. If it is heads, we shall win. If tails, we shall lose. Destiny will now reveal itself." He threw the coin into the air and all watched intently as it landed. It was heads. The soldiers were so overjoyed and filled with confidence that they vigorously attacked the enemy and were victorious. After the battle, a lieutenant remarked to the general, "No one can change destiny." "Quite right," the general replied as he showed the lieutenant the coin, which had heads on both sides. 18842 From: pakdi yanawaro Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Becoming a Monk I usually reply that i want to have a new 'middle' way of life in a new environment, which will facilitate the practice of dhamma. moreover, since i got ordained at an old age (72), i want to spend my last years of life in a more meaningful way. --- "rahula_80 " wrote: > Dear Bhantes and laypersons, > > How do you explain, especially to non-Buddhist, the > reason(s) why you > are becoming a monk. (I mean, when you are becoming > a monk, people > would ask you, why? So, how would/did you answer? > > Best wishes, Rahula 18843 From: Egberdina Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 6:19pm Subject: Re: Control Dear KKT, That Zen poem is razorsharp!!! > > KKT: In fact, the words Kha Kha Tieu > (laughing ha ha) come from a Zen poem. > > Two Zen masters met after > many years, one made this verse: > > Meeting each other, we laugh ha ha :-)) > So many leaves have fallen in the forest > --------------- > > KKT: What you wrote > > << when there is awareness, there is choice, > and when there is choice there is control >> > > seems very reasonable and of the common sense. > And this is the basis of Buddhist practice > that is the practice of Mindfulness. > > But if we look deep down > in the Buddha's teachings, > things do not seem so simple. > > The Buddha talked about: > > __Anatta/No-Self in His second sermon. > __Paticcasamuppada/Conditionality in His third sermon. > > These two theories were accepted > by all different Buddhist schools > (Theravada as well Mahayana, Vajrayana) > as the fundamental teachings of Buddhism > which made Buddhism different from > other religions and philosophies. > > But if we put these two theories > to the extreme limit of their meanings > (as done in Abhidhamma, I think) > then << inevitably >> we arrive at > the case of DETERMINISM. > > As I wrote in my previous post: > > > > If we accept that there is absolutely > > << no-control >> and that everything > > happens << strictly >> by << conditions >> > > i.e. even the smallest act such as > > turning left or right was already determined > > << in advance >> by << conditions >> > > then we fall into the case of > > << STRICT DETERMINISM >>, do we not? > > > I really don't know the answer :-)) > > And I continue to probe, > a very << fascinating >> probing indeed :-)) > -------------- When I write "when there is awareness, there is choice, and when there is choice there is control" it is a statement that I can repeat again and again and again without doubt. I know this to be so. I know it does not rhyme with the very deep and subtle teachings the degree of truth which I have not yet experienced. For me it is incorrect to teach things the truth of which I am taking in faith. It is the same as saying: the things I want to be true, I want you to want them to be true as well. On occasion only, I can say "when there is awareness, there is choice, and one of the choices is acceptance, and when there is acceptance control is a moot point". But I can't say that again and again so I won't :-) All the best Herman PS Thanks for the story . I did enjoy it!> 18844 From: Frank Kuan Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Becoming a Monk --- "rahula_80 " wrote: > Dear Bhantes and laypersons, > > How do you explain, especially to non-Buddhist, the > reason(s) why you > are becoming a monk. (I mean, when you are becoming > a monk, people > would ask you, why? So, how would/did you answer? > > Best wishes, Rahula > Coincidentally, Rahula means fetter (if I recall correctly). One possible answer to your question is in your name. (Buddha named his son Rahula) Mahakassapa said: "household life is confinement, a path of dust, going forth is like the open air. It is not easy for one living at home to lead the perfectly complete, perfectly purified holy life, which is like polished conch. let me then shave off my hair and beard, put on saffron robes, and go forth form the household life into homelessness." (SN vol1 page 678) 18845 From: azita gill Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 0:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Questions about Questions [was: Re: No-control & Destiny] --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob Ed, > thank you, this is an interesting post. Something to > think about, > Nina > > op 16-01-2003 16:19 schreef Robert Eddison op > robedd@i...: > > > > > In the Pa~nhabyaakara.na Sutta the Buddha states: > > > > "Monks there are these four ways of answering a > question. > > What four? > > There is a question which is to be given a > categorical answer > > (eka.msabyaakara.niiya). > > There is a question which is to be analysed > > (vibhajjabyaakara.niiya). > > There is a question which is to be answered with a > counter-question > > (pa.tipucchaabyaakara.niiya) > > There is a question which is to be set aside > (.thapaniiya)" > > -- A ii 46 > > > dear Nina, I thought this very good also. In fact, I wrote it in my book that I keep beside my computor, for interesting and beneficial items, bc I don't yet have a printer. This comment above, I imagine, applies to any dhamma questions, but I was wondering if it could also apply to mundane questions e.g. questions that are asked on a daily basis, about work or anything. What do you think? hope you are well and hello to Lodewijk. patience, courage and good cheer Azita. 18846 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 1:18am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Which cittas experience nibbana? Dear NEO Swee Boon, After the path process, there are the reviewing processes following, one of the process reviews nibanna as its aramana. The entire process has nibbana as aramana. In this case, mano-dvara-vacana (adverting), the 7 mahakusala nana-sampayutta (unclear to me if all 4, most likely probably just 2, or may be one!!!). It is also unclear (to me) if there is the two tadalamppana in this case. The ones I know for sure is: 1) Magga 2) Phala (both inside the path process, and in phala sampatti) 3) Gotrubhu (which is again one of the 4 (or 2 or 1!!!) 4) mano-dvara-vacana 5) 7 repeating javana kom > -----Original Message----- > From: nidive [mailto:nidive@y...] > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 4:55 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Which cittas experience nibbana? > > > Hi All, > > > Besides gotrubhu, magga and phala cittas, are > there any other > cittas that can experience nibbana? > > Nobody knows? > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > 18847 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:05am Subject: Strong language Dear Group, Just some weekend thoughts ... I have always been uncomfortable with what I see as the 'strength' of the language used in Buddhism - e.g. Defilements. My dictionary doesn't even have an entry for 'defilements' (but then again, it does have an entry for 'popping-crease' so maybe it is a little too Australian). Why can't we just call them 'challenges to wholesomeness' or 'areas needing a bit of improvement', or 'obstacles to quick enlightenment'? Defilements sounds so 'Old Testament Religious'. How can one even discuss them in polite company? (Not that any of you have actually got any to discuss.:) As well, I've been reading about the Roots of Good and Evil: Lobha, Tanha, Raga, Nandi all mean Greed in one form or another. This lumps mental states like delight, fondness and affection, even wanting to have children, in with avarice, self-indulgence, and overpowering lust. Dosa meaning Hate covers things from the mildest of irritation to murderous rage. Moha and Avijja meaning Ignorance and Delusion - the primary root of all suffering - stretches from dullness and confusion to ideology, wrong view and dogmatic fanaticism. Don't you think a little differentiation might be in order? e.g. My fondness for chocolate can't be as 'bad' as the man up the road's fondness for gambling and alcohol, can it? So his could be called a 'defilement' and mine could be called a 'mere peccadillo' - right? :-) I think I've just discovered another reason for learning Pali - 'kilesa' sounds better than 'defilements'; 'raga' sounds better than 'lust'; 'dosa' sounds better than 'hate', and 'avijja' sounds better than 'delusion'. Pali is sort of more mysterious and spiritual, not so confronting as boring old english, ay? :-) metta, Christine 18848 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:13am Subject: Re: Control Dear Group, I have been following with interest the threads on control/no control. To my understanding, decisions I make and actions I take now are the result of everything that has gone before in this life, and all the previous ones. Leaving aside kamma, accumulations and the rounds of rebirth at this time, I can see for myself that this is so within this lifetime. For example, I could not choose a life that involved killing others even if it was considered lawful e.g. a mercenary soldier or a butcher of animals. This is not just a preference - it is much much stronger - I am 'unable' to choose it because of all that has gone before that led me first to an ethical position, and then to become a follower of the Buddha. I cannot choose to have no reactions such as anger or fear to a strong stimulus. They happen (or arise) instantaneously. I could not choose to feel 'delight' when with a sobbing mother holding her dead baby. I cannot even, at this stage in my development, choose to feel only compassion or equanimity for her and the babe at that time. I feel overwhelming pity, compassion, anger, helplessness, confusion - mostly dosa, I know. The feelings arise uncontrollably. I cannot make them not come, go away, or change into something else. They remain until they subside in their own good time (speaking conventionally, not of cittas). I 'seem' to make 'free' choices, but that is because of all the conditions leading up to that moment. Previous conditions have formed my desires, reactions, opinions, ambitions and plans. I know, without doubt, that 'this continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena' (currently conveniently called Christine) has no real choice, no total control. There is no Independent Controller - there is only the illusion of that. The most I can have through listening to the true Dhamma, reflecting on it, associating with 'admirable friends' is a very slow increase in panna, a slow wearing away of my defilements that will condition different reactions in the future. There will be no instantaneous change at this point in my journey. Just my two cents - what do you all reckon? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " wrote: > Dear KKT, > > That Zen poem is razorsharp!!! > > > > > > KKT: In fact, the words Kha Kha Tieu > > (laughing ha ha) come from a Zen poem. > > > > Two Zen masters met after > > many years, one made this verse: > > > > Meeting each other, we laugh ha ha :-)) > > So many leaves have fallen in the forest > > --------------- > > > > > KKT: What you wrote > > > > << when there is awareness, there is choice, > > and when there is choice there is control >> > > > > seems very reasonable and of the common sense. > > And this is the basis of Buddhist practice > > that is the practice of Mindfulness. > > > > But if we look deep down > > in the Buddha's teachings, > > things do not seem so simple. > > > > The Buddha talked about: > > > > __Anatta/No-Self in His second sermon. > > __Paticcasamuppada/Conditionality in His third sermon. > > > > These two theories were accepted > > by all different Buddhist schools > > (Theravada as well Mahayana, Vajrayana) > > as the fundamental teachings of Buddhism > > which made Buddhism different from > > other religions and philosophies. > > > > But if we put these two theories > > to the extreme limit of their meanings > > (as done in Abhidhamma, I think) > > then << inevitably >> we arrive at > > the case of DETERMINISM. > > > > As I wrote in my previous post: > > > > > > > If we accept that there is absolutely > > > << no-control >> and that everything > > > happens << strictly >> by << conditions >> > > > i.e. even the smallest act such as > > > turning left or right was already determined > > > << in advance >> by << conditions >> > > > then we fall into the case of > > > << STRICT DETERMINISM >>, do we not? > > > > > > I really don't know the answer :-)) > > > > And I continue to probe, > > a very << fascinating >> probing indeed :-)) > > -------------- > > > When I write "when there is awareness, there is choice, > and when there is choice there is control" it is a statement that I > can repeat again and again and again without doubt. I know this to be > so. > > I know it does not rhyme with the very deep and subtle teachings the > degree of truth which I have not yet experienced. For me it is > incorrect to teach things the truth of which I am taking in faith. It > is the same as saying: the things I want to be true, I want you to > want them to be true as well. > > On occasion only, I can say "when there is awareness, there is > choice, and one of the choices is acceptance, and when there is > acceptance control is a moot point". But I can't say that again and > again so I won't :-) > > > > All the best > > > Herman > PS Thanks for the story . I did enjoy it!> 18849 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:17am Subject: All Beings subsist on Nutriment Dear All, The discussions on control/no control led me to begin reading (again) about what controls/causes/influences my reactions, and thence my thoughts, speech and actions. So I am learning in the three areas of Nutriment, Roots and Conditions. The Buddha stated in AN 10.27 that "All beings subsist on nutriment" (edible food, sense- impression, volition and consciousness). I take this to mean that these are the things that continue to maintain and extend one's wandering in the relentless cycle of rebirths, and are obstructions to gaining deliverance from samsara. No great discoveries so far - except ... The Discourse of the Son's Flesh MN 63 (3) has to be the scariest thing I have read in ages. Not so scary initially, but when one reflects on it with regard to daily life, the unstoppable accumulation of kamma compelling rebirth and the arduous, difficult way to Liberation, it is disturbing and sobering. The harsh similes the Buddha uses to impress the teachings on the monks certainly concentrates the attention! (a) The nutriment of Edible Food - The couple who run out of food in the desert and eat their only child to save their own lives. (b) The nutriment Sense Impressions (phassa) as being like the cow, skinned alive, and left to wander, tortured by the pain and insects and creatures that want to sting and eat parts of her. (c) The nutriment Volitional Thought (manosancetana) as being like two strong men who grab another man by the arms and drag him towards a pit of glowing embers. (d) The nutriment Conciousness (vinnana) as being like a criminal who is struck with a hundred spears three times a day and lives to continually experience the pain. I wonder why we don't hear much about the Discourse of the Son's Flesh? Perhaps because it reveals the extreme danger and suffering of our journey through the 'desert' or 'molten pit' of continual rebirths and emphasises that the suffering is often disguised and taken for happiness. metta, Christine 18851 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 3:02am Subject: I LOVE animals Dear Christine, I'm VERY sorry for not replying any of your e-mails and I was always wanting to ask you, are you a Buddhist or a Christian? Well, I'm very HAPPY to hear that you dog Rusty is recovering rapidly! Im sorry to hear that he wont be able to recover 100% but at lest he might recover up to 99% :-) I was also wondering about how Rusty's leg got injured.I'm so glad that you didn't get Rusty put down because I think that an animal such as a dog has equal rights with us humans and just if a human was sick, we wouldn't kill him/her so think that it was a good choice to not let him be put down, no matter who says what, you should always believe in what your heart says no matter how much it costs. I think that I LOVE animals just as much as you do!!! :-) I'm REALLY glad that we share an interest. Well, please reply as soon as possible! Bye From Jan Tanytip Chearavanont 18852 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 3:07am Subject: Rusty Dear Christine, Hi, my name is Kimmy, I am 14 and I have read through your long letter about your dog, Rusty. I feel sorry about your dog. In your letter, I saw a sentence "Buddha ate meat when given it and had only forbidden the eating of meat if a person know or suspected that the animal had been specially killed for them", I think this is interesting and I used to think Buddha doesn't eat meat anytime. Can you tell me more about Buddhism and your dog? I am really interested in dogs. Hope your dog can recover as soon as possible. From Kimmy 18853 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 3:12am Subject: Happy new year! Hey James, Thats nice, I dont spend much time writing these letters as well. Some people can read and write emails for a long time. Are you going anywhere for Chinese New Year? It's coming up really soon, in our school, we have like 2 weeks holiday! Isn't that quite a lot? Well, I hope you have fun wherever you're going. Dont worry, your letters are not too long for me. Im use to reading long letters. =D *Does Buddism celebrate Chinese New year? If so, how? *I heard from my teacher about recarnation, is that related to life and death? <*Happy New Year*> Love, Joanne -JoJo- P.S. I wrote this letter in about 4-5 mins. Its short though.... 18854 From: James Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:32am Subject: Re: Happy new year! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Hey James, > > Thats nice, I dont spend much time writing these > letters as well. Some people can read and write emails > for a long time. Are you going anywhere for Chinese > New Year? *I heard from my teacher about recarnation, is that > related to life and death? > > <*Happy New Year*> > > Love, > Joanne -JoJo- > > P.S. I wrote this letter in about 4-5 mins. Its short > though.... Hi Star Kid JoJo: I like your nickname. Does it mean you are related to J.Lo? Hehehe… just kidding. For Chinese New Year I am going to my Zen Meditation temple, Calm Village. They have a large celebration there where the abbot leads many Asian people (mainly Vietnamese) in chanting and meditation. He has this great, big brass bell, that looks like an upside down bowl that he will beat many times to bring in the Chinese New Year. It is very loud!! I don't get much meditation done, but it is a lot of fun. And then at the end of the ceremony, he gives everyone an orange to take home. I have no idea what that is for…maybe a reminder to eat healthy in the New Year? Hehehe… I am usually the only white person who goes to this ceremony, which is kinda interesting because then everyone smiles at me like crazy! I brought in the regular New Years on January 1st at my other temple, Wat Promkunaram, meditating and chanting for three hours. They don't have a large bell though, and no oranges. It is a Thai temple and rather no nonsense. I like that a lot more. What is your Chinese Sign? I am the Rooster, which fits me pretty well because I am always crowing about one thing or another! Hehehe. My Astrological Sign is Taurus the Bull, which also fits me because I am very opinionated and stubborn. Hehehe… Put the two together and you have one feisty fellow! :-) And to answer your question, yes, reincarnation is related to life and death; however, it is different than the Buddhist idea of rebirth. In reincarnation the belief is that a soul moves from body to body, but the Buddhist idea of rebirth is that thirst or craving creates body after body but there is no soul inside. Yes, the Buddhist idea is much more complicated to understand but, ultimately I believe, the truer idea. I hope you have a Happy New Year too. Take care, study hard, and eat a lot of oranges! Love, James 18855 From: James Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:49am Subject: Re: My letter --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear James: > Thank You for the teaching me about the > eight fold path. What gifts do you like? Who gave it > to you? Have you enjoyed New Years? What does un-sharp > mind mean? (In your letter) > Please write to me! > With Love, > Janet Hi Star Kid Janet!! How are you? Sorry it took me so long to write but I have been rather busy lately. The gifts I got for Christmas that I really liked were: a new wallet (my dog chewed on my old one ;-), a Buddha book, a winter robe, and house shoes. My parents gave me the wallet, robe, and slippers, and my friend gave me the Buddha book. What did you get for Christmas? Who gave them to you? Do the toys still work now? Hehehe… Yes, I enjoyed New Years. I brought in the New Years meditating and chanting at my Buddhist temple, Wat Promkunaram. It was a good way to bring in the New Years rather than partying in the typical fashion of America. I hope that this New Year is lucky for the both of us. Un-sharp mind means a mind that is out of control. When you have a mind that thinks about this and thinks about that, one after the other, with no point or purpose; sometimes a person's thinking can get so out of control that it can make him/her dizzy! It is important to pay attention to what is going on around you and inside you because not only does it make you more productive and happier, it will bring you wisdom to what is actually going on in your life. Have you ever been watching a movie, and you stopped paying attention for a while, and when you started watching the movie again you couldn't understand what was going on in the movie? How did that make you feel? Rather stressed out and frustrated, right? Well, the same thing can happen in your life. If you stop paying attention to what it going on, even for a small amount of time, when you come back to paying attention you can be lost and struggle to figure things out again. That is why having a sharp mind, keeping your life as simple as possible, and always paying attention is very important. I hope you have a Happy New Years!! Love, James 18856 From: James Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:22am Subject: Re: Wish you all the best for the new year! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > > Dear James, > > Thankyou for the letter that you sent me. It was > great. You really explained alot of things about the > difference between Buddhism and Christianity and > Heaven and Hell. > > Do you believe that the Buddha is actually up above > you always looking at you? > > Hope you had a great time at Christmas and wish you > all the best for the new year. > > Take care Love Sandy > Hi Star Kid Sandy!! I am glad that you appreciated the letter about Heaven and Hell. I see that your next question is related to that. You ask if I believe the Buddha is above me always looking at me; as if the Buddha is in Heaven looking at me. Well, I don't believe exactly that, but I do believe and feel something similar. Not all Buddhist believe this, but I do believe that the Buddha still exists in a way that my puny, little human brain can't possibly define or completely understand. I believe this for two reasons: Personal experience and logic/reasoning. Sandy, my brain doesn't seem to work like most people because I slip into meditative states even while fully conscious. When I think about Buddhism, contemplate a Buddhist statue, or I am in the presence of highly evolved spiritual people, my mind will go into states of awareness that people usually only get through meditation. While in these states, unfocused on myself, I often `feel' and `sense' the presence of Lord Buddha. Once, while meditating at my Buddhist temple, I believe that I had a direct experience of Lord Buddha when I sensed that he was sitting in mediation in front of me, inside of me, and me inside of him…all at the same time. It was at this time that I felt that true wisdom wasn't cold and logical, but optimistic and loving. If I tell this to other people who have had similar experiences, they know exactly what I am talking about and are excited that they are not alone with such experiences. If I tell this to those who haven't had such experiences, they think I am crazy or that my mind is playing tricks on me. But that is life; everyone judges everything from his or her own experience. I have determined that my experiences are quite real. The second reason I believe the Buddha still exists is because he said that he would still exist; in a round about way. The Buddha flat-out rejected the idea that when a person dies there is nothing more; but when he was pressed for the answer of what more there was, he said that it was impossible to describe and comprehend for the human brain. Since I do not believe that the Lord Buddha lied or mislead about this issue, I can only logically conclude certain things: 1. The Buddha knew what other humans didn't, 2. The Buddha's mind was no longer like other humans', 3. The Buddha knew that what we take for `existence' is not the whole picture, 4. The Buddha was not afraid of what he had learned and he wanted to liberate as many people as he could. So Sandy, the only thing we can know, the only thing that the Buddha really taught us about this issue, is to not have fear of the unknown. If this answer confuses you, don't worry, you aren't alone; I tend to confuse a lot of people when I start writing about this issue! Hehehe… Take care and have a Happy New Year! Love, James 18857 From: azita gill Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Strong language "" wrote: > Dear Group, > > Just some weekend thoughts ... > > I have always been uncomfortable with what I see as > the 'strength' of > the language used in Buddhism - e.g. Defilements. > >[snip] I think I've just discovered another reason for > learning Pali - > 'kilesa' sounds better than 'defilements'; 'raga' > sounds better > than 'lust'; 'dosa' sounds better than 'hate', and > 'avijja' sounds > better than 'delusion'. Pali is sort of more > mysterious and > spiritual, not so confronting as boring old english, > ay? :-) > > metta, > Christine > dear Christine, I tend to agree with you re the English substitutes for the Pali words. I remember when I first began to hear the Dhamma [in this life], I seemed to be able to understand better if some of the Pali words were used. For example, when I learnt about cetasikas and citta, it was clearer to me what these words stood for, rather than if we had tried to translate into English - how do you describe cetasikas in the Eng. language? When I talk about Dhamma to others who ask, I find it difficult to find an english word to use instead of cetasika - emotions??? doesn't seem quite right, in fact quite wrong. I guess it's like when we learn a new anything, there are new words to use to describe the 'anything'. So, for me, I prefer the Pali words. However, some of them are challenging my brain at the moment. Nina made a comment in one of her recent posts about when it is too difficult and doesn't really apply to now she just doesn't bother with it. And pardon me Nina, if I have misunderstood what you said, but it is how I interperated the comment. Maybe that's a projection of mine, when it's too hard I forget it. patience, courage and good cheer; I have only just realised that we need courage to be patient, we need to be patient to be courageous and we need to be cheerful to be the other two!!!!!!! Azita 18858 From: nidive Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:53am Subject: Re: Wish you all the best for the new year! Hi James, > Once, while meditating at my Buddhist temple, I believe that I had > a direct experience of Lord Buddha when I sensed that he was sitting > in mediation in front of me, inside of me, and me inside of him… all > at the same time. It was at this time that I felt that true wisdom > wasn't cold and logical, but optimistic and loving. How is this kind of experience different from Christians who claim that they have experienced Jesus Christ or God within them? I see no difference. Just simply substitute nibbana for God; God is loving, so is nibbana (which is actually the loving Buddha as you claimed). Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18859 From: James Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 6:08am Subject: Re: hi...i like your poems!!! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear James (A.K.A the person who likes poems), > > Hi james! im very sorry that i didnt write so often > anymore. I was REALLY busy lately and so i didnt have > time. > > Well i was wondering if do you have any kids, age?, > sex?, name? > > I have 3 brothers and all of them are VERY annoying... > > their names are: > > Kane/14/M > > Mark/5/M > > Sean/2/M > > I hope you got this other letter about a book (Jataka > Tales)....Did you read it? Which one do you like? > > I have to go now..BYE! > > From > > Jan C. > > P.S: i love all your peoms...dont you ever run out? > > Well if you didnt plz write me some more!!! > > THANKS!!!! Hi Star Kid Jan, LOL! So now I am the person who like poems! Great! I think that is the best description of me yet! It's okay about not writing, I haven't been writing for a while myself. To answer your question, no I don't have kids of my own; but I am a high school teacher so, in one way, I have a lot of kids! Now, you may think that high school kids are really different from younger kids, but that is not true. Sometimes I look at those teenagers and think to myself, "Now, what age are you again?" hehehe… You may also think that adults are really different from little kids, but that is not always true either. Sometimes adults can be the most childish of them all. People are people, and they should all be treated equally… in praise and chastisement. Jan, I did get that other letter about the Jataka Tales, and I don't think I have read that particular book, but I have read many of the tales. I like all of the tales actually, but I am going to quote one that I like in particular...and I am reminded of lately. I like this tale because it teaches that to do good deeds for others usually requires a great sacrifice because there are many people who will try to undermine you; but that doesn't mean the good deed shouldn't be done: Mahakapi Jataka (Jataka No. 407) The Great Monkey King One day in Jetavana Monastery bhikkhus began talking about the good that the Buddha did for his relatives. When the Buddha asked them about their subject, and they told him, he said, "Bhikkhus, this is not the first time the Tathagata has done good works to benefit his relatives." Then he told this story of the past. Long, long ago, when Brahmadatta was reigning in Baranasi, the Bodhisatta was born as a monkey in the Himalayas. When he was fully grown, he was extremely strong and vigorous and became the leader of a troop of eighty thousand monkeys. On the bank of the Ganges there was an enormous mango tree, with two massive branches so thick with leaves it looked like a mountain. Its sweet fruit was of exquisite fragrance and flavor. One branch spread over the bank of the river, but the other extended over the water. One day, while the monkey king was eating the succulent fruit, he thought, "If any of this fruit ever fell into the river, great danger could come to us." To prevent this, he ordered the monkeys to pick all the mango flowers or tiny fruit from that branch. One fruit, however, was hidden by an ant's nest and escaped the monkeys' attention. When it ripened, it fell into the river. At that time, the King of Baranasi was bathing and amusing himself in the river. Whenever the king bathed in the river, he had nets stretched both upstream and downstream from where he was. The mango floated down the river and stuck in the net upstream from the king. That evening, as the king was leaving, the fishermen pulled in the net and found the fruit. As they had never seen a fruit like this before, they showed it to the king. "What is this fruit?" the king asked. "We do not know, sire," they answered. "Who will know?" "The foresters, sire." The king summoned the foresters, who told him that the fruit was a mango. The king cut it with a knife and, after having the foresters eat some, tasted it himself. He also gave some of the fruit to the ministers and to his wives. The king could not forget the magnificent flavor of the ripe mango. Obsessed with desire for the new fruit, he called the foresters again and asked where the tree stood. When he learned that it was on the bank of the river, he had many rafts joined together and sailed upstream to find it. In due course, the king and his retinue arrived at the site of the huge tree. The king went ashore and set up a camp. After having eaten some of the delectable mangoes, he retired for the night on a bed prepared at the foot of the tree. Fires were lit and guards set on each side. At midnight, after the men had fallen asleep and all was quiet, the monkey king came with his troop. The eighty thousand monkeys moved from branch to branch eating mangoes. The noise woke the king, who roused his archers. "Surround those monkeys eating mangoes and shoot them," he ordered. "Tomorrow we will dine on mango fruit and monkey's flesh." The archers readied their bows to obey the king. The monkeys saw the archers and realized that all means of escape had been cut off. Shivering in fear of death, they ran to their leader and cried, "Sire, there are men with bows all around the tree preparing to shoot us. What can we do?" "Do not fear," he comforted them. "I will save your lives." Then he climbed onto the branch stretching over the river. Springing from the end of it, he jumped a hundred bow-lengths and landed on the opposite bank of the Ganges. Judging the distance he had jumped, he thought, "That is how far I came." Then he found a long vine and cut it, thinking, "This much will be fastened to a tree, and this much will go across the river." He secured one end of the vine to a sturdy tree and the other around his own waist. Then he again leapt across the river with the speed of a cloud blown by the wind. In his calculation, however, he had forgotten to include the length to be tied around his own waist, so he could not reach the trunk of the mango tree. He reached out and grabbed the end of a branch firmly with both hands. He signaled to the troop of monkeys and cried, "Quick! Step on my back and run along this vine to safety. Good luck to you all!" The eighty thousand monkeys, each in turn, respectfully saluted the monkey king, asked his pardon, and escaped in this way. The last monkey in the troop, however, had long resented the leader and wished to overthrow him. When he saw the monkey king hanging there, he exulted, "This is my chance to see the last of my enemy!" Climbing onto a high branch, he flung himself down on the monkey king's back with a dreadful blow that broke his heart. Having caused his rival excruciating pain, the wicked monkey triumphantly escaped and left the monkey king to suffer alone. Having seen all that had happened as he lay on his bed, the king thought, "This noble monkey king, not caring for his own life, has ensured the safety of his troop. It would be wrong to destroy such an animal. I will have him brought down and taken care of." He ordered his men to lower the monkey gently down to a raft on the Ganges. After the monkey had been brought ashore and washed, the king anointed him with the purest oil. Spreading an oiled skin on his own bed and laying the monkey king on it, the king covered him with a yellow robe. After the noble animal had been given sugared water to drink, the king himself took a low seat and addressed him, "Noble monkey, you made yourself a bridge for all the other monkeys to pass over to safety. What are you to them, and what are they to you?" he asked. The monkey explained, "Great king, I guard the herd. I am their lord and chief. When they were filled with fear of your archers, I leapt a great distance to save them. After I had tied a vine around my waist, I returned to this mango tree. My strength was almost gone, but I managed to hold the branch so that my monkeys could pass over my back and reach safety. Because I could save them, I have no fear of death. Like a righteous king, I could guarantee the happiness of those over whom I used to reign. Sire, understand this truth! If you wish to be a righteous ruler, the happiness of your kingdom, your cities, and your people must be dear to you. It must be dearer than life itself." After teaching the king in this way, the monkey king died. The king gave orders that the monkey king should be given a royal funeral. He ordered his wives to carry torches to the cemetery with their hair disheveled. The ministers sent a hundred wagon loads of wood for the funeral pyre. When the regal ceremony was over, the ministers took the skull to the king. The king built a shrine at the monkey's burial place, and made offerings of incense and flowers. He had the skull inlaid with gold, raised on a spear, and carried in front of the procession returning to Baranasi. There he put it at the royal gate and paid homage to it with incense and flowers. The whole city was decorated, and the skull was honored for seven days. For the rest of his life the king revered the skull as a relic, offering incense and garlands. Established in the wonderful teaching of the monkey king, he gave alms and performed other good deeds. He ruled his kingdom righteously and became destined for heaven. After the lesson, the Buddha declared the Truths and identified the Birth: "At that time the king was Ananda, the monkey retinue was this assembly, the wicked monkey was Devadatta, and I myself was the monkey king." I hope you enjoyed the tale. Take care and have a good New Year! Love, James Ps. Since I quoted such a long story, I will give you some more poems another time. Patience is a virtue ;-). 18860 From: david_wheeler58 Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 9:58am Subject: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Good day James "Obviously I cannot reason........" That's good, because this isn't about reason. If you want reason, take up Socrates. If you want experience, stay with the Buddha. Metta, David 18861 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing Hi Larry, op 17-01-2003 02:48 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > I'm a little confused about the role of concentration in satipatthana. > In Way 37 jhana seems to be the middle part of the satipatthana > practice. Is concentration, (access or absorption), part of the > satipatthana process? > In the quotation below there seems to be a difference between insight > vehicle and satipatthana. What is the difference? N: As far as I understand, some people were able to attain jhana and some did not practice jhana. But insight can be developed by the two kinds of people. When we use the word satipatthana we should keep in mind that satipatthana has three meanings: 1the objects of mindfulness, classified as four satipatthanas. 2. The development of satipatthana, being awareness and understanding of the dhamma appearing now. These are classified under 1. This is synonymous with the development of vipassana when still mundane. 3.The path all Buddhas walked. L: Vism. I, 6: In some instances this path of purification is taught by > insight alone(3)...In some instances by jhana and understanding...In > some instances by deeds (kamma)...In some instances by virtue...And in > some instances by the Foundations of Mindfulness... But in answer to > this question it is taught by virtue and the other two. [L: sila, > samadhi, panna?] N: Yes. Samadhi is part of the eightfold Path. There is also calm with vipassana when jhana is not developed. Moreover,the Path leads to the highest calm, freedom from defilements. L: (3) 'The words "insight alone" are meant to exclude, not virtue,etc., > but serenity (i.e. jhana), which is the opposite number in the pair, > serenity and insight. This is for emphasis. But the word "alone" > actually excludes only that concentration with distinction [of jhana], > for concentration is classed as both access and absorption. Takng this > stanza as the teaching for one whose vehicle is insight does not imply > that there is no concentration; for no insight comes about without > momentary concentration. And again, insight should be understood as the > three contemplations of impermanence, pain, and not-self; not > contemplation of impermanence alone' (Pm. 9-10) N: These three characteristics are more clearly understood when higher stages of insight have been reached, not at the beginning stages. As you know, the first stage is distinguishing the difference between the characteristic of nama and of rupa. Those who develop samatha to the degree of jhana with breathing as subject can develop insight in between stages of jhana. When they emerge from jhana hey can be aware of the jhanafactors as non-self and also of any nama or rupa that appears. They can be aware of breath as rupa, as tangible object. Those who do not develop jhana can be aware of breath as rupa: hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion of pressure. As we read in Way 31: In this case one does not concentrate on a special subject, at one moment there can be awareness of tangible object, the next moment of feeling, etc. Thus, there is no need for access concentration or attainment concentration. Nina. 18862 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Forest and Lone Dwelling Dear Sarah, thank you for the quotes, and also what Jon hears from tapes, excerpts most welcome. Later on I shall go into your remarks on fruition attainment. Just plural here? Maybe we need help from an expert. Attabhaava is, I think here the stem in this compound, and just the pa.tilaabhesu is plural. Maybe attabhaava is singular, depending on the context. For, or as regards the attainments of attabhaava, or are there more attainments? Not so clear. I need the whole sentence. O yes, here it is, in Wheel 188, Ideal Solitude: Idha Thera ya.m atiita.m pahiia.m what is past is abandoned ya.m anaagata.m pa.tinissata.m The future is relinquished Paccupannesa ca attabhaavapa.tilaabhesu chandaraago suppa.tiviniito And the desire and lust for the present modes of personality is well under control Eva.m kho Thera ekavihaaro vitthaarena paripu.n.no hoti It is thus, Elder, that (the ideal of) lone-dwelling becomes fulfilled,in all its details. Nina. op 17-01-2003 07:18 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > : > "The plural attabhaavapa.tilaabhesu’ is hard to account for; perhaps it > means the five aggregates taken individually, though this would be an > unusual use of the expression." 18863 From: Frank Kuan Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:22am Subject: Armadillos, cheetahs, samma dithi, Re: [dsg] Strong language Hi Chris, --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > Just some weekend thoughts ... > > I have always been uncomfortable with what I see as > the 'strength' of > the language used in Buddhism - e.g. Defilements. > My dictionary > doesn't even have an entry for 'defilements' (but > then again, it does > have an entry for 'popping-crease' so maybe it is a > little too > Australian). Why can't we just call them > 'challenges to > wholesomeness' or 'areas needing a bit of > improvement', or 'obstacles > to quick enlightenment'? I can see your point of view. I've thought the same at times. The Tao Te Ching says, "the softness of water overcomes the hardness of stone." In the formula for the escape from the bondage of sensual pleasures, Bhikkhu Bodhi (and Nanamoli?) in the Majjhima nikaya had translated it as, "disenchantment, leading to dispassion, leading to release." In the Samyutta, B.Bodhi started using "revulsion" instead of "disenchantment." Revulsion seems like strong a word does it not? But if we examine why that is, the baggage is really ours. We think of revulsion as having a component of very strong emotional, passionate aversion. The reason B.Bodhi and other translators render it as "revulsion" is not because they want to denote an aversive attitude. In right view, there is no aversion, just an equanimous and proper discernment of the magnitude of the insidious nature of sensual pleasures. "Disenchantment" is just not strong enough to indicate the unsatisfactoriness of sensual pleasures. For example, one may become disenchanted with chocolate and then move on to bad relationships and narcotics. But revulsion with the whole class of sensual pleasures conveys a much deeper sense of inherent dukkha. The trick is to not get caught up in our perception of what a word means, but to look deeper behind it and try to determine what is meant (and what is not meant) by the author. Taoists who criticize buddhism use their erroneous perception of these strong words (like revulsion, dukkha, suffering) to portray buddhism as a pessimistic religion, when in fact it is their inferior roots and lack of discernment that prevent them from seeing the sublime beauty and simplicity of a system centered on dukkha. > Defilements sounds so 'Old > Testament > Religious'. That is unfortunate, but it is the nature of language. It takes on subtle and not so subtle nuances according to how it is popularly used, and who it is used by. Some religions have ruined a large number perfectly good words, not just "defilement". > How can one even discuss > them in polite > company? (Not that any of you have actually got any > to > discuss.:) Many of us actually have friends that would be considered polite company. :-) :-) :-). Just playing with you Chris. Taking advantage of ambiguity. :-) > > Don't you think a little differentiation might be in > order? e.g. My > fondness for chocolate can't be as 'bad' as the man > up the road's > fondness for gambling and alcohol, can it? So his > could be called > a 'defilement' and mine could be called a 'mere > peccadillo' - > right? :-) The Buddha frequently exhorted his followers: "You should see danger in the slightest fault." Bondage to chocolate has lesser side effects than bondage to gambling and alcohol, but it still is in the same class. There isn't a magic delineation that makes one bondage "good/ok" and the other "bad". A little revulsion towards chocolate might be in order :-) And by that I don't mean you should be cross and hold a grudge against chocolate, but see that the whole spectrum of chemical addictions have craving and wrong view as a common root which needs to be severed. > I think I've just discovered another reason for > learning Pali - > 'kilesa' sounds better than 'defilements'; 'raga' > sounds better > than 'lust'; 'dosa' sounds better than 'hate', and > 'avijja' sounds > better than 'delusion'. Pali is sort of more > mysterious and > spiritual, not so confronting as boring old english, > ay? :-) > Just words. Perceptions to those words are subject to change over time. If I were to speak to my friends and try to convey the sense of existential suffering I feel by ruminating on the subtle aspects of dukkha and samvega, they might not understand. But if I scream, "What the fuck is this shit?" they might get a better idea. :-) -fk 18864 From: Frank Kuan Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] All Beings subsist on Nutriment Chris, those are some of my favorite metaphors, and not so exaggerated as one might first think. For example, the food I eat in just one meal, even if it be vegan, required a tremendous amount of energy and hard work for living beings to bring it into that state, and an enormous amount of suffering and death to many living beings (bugs for example) just so I can eat one meal! Seen with that perspective,the metaphor the buddha uses does not seem extreme or harsh at all. Maintaining that kind of mindfuless and clear comprehension of what that "food/meal" actually is really alters how I approach eating. Food is definitely for sustenance/nutriment, and not really proper to be our prime source of entertainment. > ... suffering is often > disguised and > taken for happiness. > Unless you're talking about stream-enterers and near-stream-enterers, that has to be the understatment of the millenium. :-) Dukkha doesn't need to be tricky and try to disguise itself. Dukkha blatantly flaunts its nastiness because it knows we have an extraordinary ability to lie to ourselves and perceive reality in a completely distorted way (see 4 vipallasas :-) -fk 18865 From: James Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 11:06am Subject: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "david_wheeler58 " wrote: > Good day James > > "Obviously I cannot reason........" > > That's good, because this isn't about reason. If you want reason, take up Socrates. If you want experience, stay with the Buddha. > > Metta, David Hi David, You are quite incorrect. The Buddha did advocate the use of reason to prove the validity of his dhamma. Actually, he detailed very specific arguments others could use against the supremacy of his dhamma and counter arguments that his monks were to use when replying to such arguments…very much like Socrates did. He did not rely on simply 'experience' to prove the dhamma, nor did he advocate anyone else to do such a thing. You can read the sutta I refer to at this link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn011.html Metta, James ps. There are probably others, but one is sufficient counter- argument to the reasoning against the use of reason. 18866 From: david_wheeler58 Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 11:49am Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "david_wheeler58 > " wrote: > > Good day James > > > > "Obviously I cannot reason........" > > > > That's good, because this isn't about reason. If you want reason, > take up Socrates. If you want experience, stay with the Buddha. > > > > Metta, David > > Hi David, > > You are quite incorrect. The Buddha did advocate the use of reason > to prove the validity of his dhamma. Actually, he detailed very > specific arguments others could use against the supremacy of his > dhamma and counter arguments that his monks were to use when > replying to such arguments…very much like Socrates did. He did not > rely on simply 'experience' to prove the dhamma, nor did he advocate > anyone else to do such a thing. > > You can read the sutta I refer to at this link: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn011.html > > Metta, James > > ps. There are probably others, but one is sufficient counter- > argument to the reasoning against the use of reason. Good day again James But you see, unlike those the Buddha's monks were replying to, I'm already = a Buddhist. My relationship with the Buddha is experiential. If an experienc= e I have doesn't seem to match up with the Buddha's teaching, than I go back= and question it. I don't question it from the point of reason first. Metta, David 18867 From: James Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 0:07pm Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "david_wheeler58 , snip> > Good day again James > > But you see, unlike those the Buddha's monks were replying to, I'm already = > a Buddhist. My relationship with the Buddha is experiential. If an experienc= > e I have doesn't seem to match up with the Buddha's teaching, than I go back= > and question it. I don't question it from the point of reason first. > > Metta, David Good Day David, (are you English?) I don't know about you, but I wasn't born Buddhist; what brought me to Buddhism first was the simple, straightforward beauty of its reasoning. After testing it for myself, in meditation, I found it to be true. At this point I have only, first-hand basis, experienced the first Noble Truth. The rest of the Noble Truths I accept on reasoning alone. The reasoning and logic of the Buddha's dhamma is beautiful and complete. I don't find that same beauty in the Abhidhamma. Again, I stand by my original contention and I do not believe that your counter argument is related. Metta, James 18868 From: Nantawat Sitdhiraksa Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:01pm Subject: Re:nibbana, and a cook book Dear Nina, and Neo, >>>> Besides gotrubhu, magga and phala cittas, are there any other cittas that can experience nibbana? ???? __________ N: No other cittas that directly experience nibbana. I received additional info from Num and I like to be corrected as to this difficult subject. --------------- Num classified the cittas, from Abh Sangaha, Ch 3, 4: ---------------------- Nina: I found this difficult, is this a reflecting on or direct experience ? It may not be in the same way as lokuttara citta, not so direct, and therefore, I made a change in my answer above, adding: *directly* experience nibbana. I sensed that it was delicate here. Moreover, I was merely thinking of the sukkhavipassakas, not of lokuttara jhanas, since Neo's other qu related to that. So, no abhinnas.>>> -------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++ NUM: I asked A.Supee, and A.Sujin about this. I have to correct a little bit. Getting up at 3 am from jet lag, my brain did not work well last time I wrote to you. A.Supee gave an analogy of the continuation of the object of a sense door and a mind door process. He said it so fast, and the cittas in paccavekkhana process do have nibbana as their object. A.Sujin said that to think or reflect about nibbana (even for an ariya) is a memory, but the paccavekkhanavithi is a process of a high level of insight that arises right after each maggavithi, and has nibbana as its object. I need to correct my self about the phalasamapatti. All ariya (sodapanna, sakadagami, anagami, and arahant) who also attains jhana can enter phalasamapatti. (I mixed up the nirodhasamapatti, and phalasamapatti). In all phalasamapatti process, every citta, including manodavaravajjana, has nibbana as its object. Only anoloma subprocess of an arahant is mahakiriyananasampayutti. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>Num: ---------------------------------------- Nina: the sixth abhinna is eradication of all defilements, I understand. I find abhinna the most difficult one, I like to avoid this subject. Moreover, I am not taken to the subject of nibbana, far beyond me. When considering paccavekkhana: reflecting on nibbana, nibbana is the reality of nibbana, not a concept of it. It may be a matter of terms: experiencing nibbana or directly experiencing it. Anyway, I will not be able to understand this subject.<< ++++++++++++++++ NUM: Another correction: I better say kusala and kiriya abhinna, not lokiya and lukuttara.Abhinna is always lokiya, not a lokuttara citta. Well, I always try to avoid discussing nibbana. But I think some basic conceptual understanding of nibbana is useful and somewhat critical. I asked A.Sujin more about why in the book says about 3 different characteristics of nibbana, animitta-, appanihita-, and sunnatanibbana. I said I have read it many times but I always forget it. A.Sujin said that nibbana is nibbana, it's the same. But one has different accumulation in appreciating the characteristic of reality. One may prefer (by accumulation) to appreciate anicca, one may prefer dukkha, or anatta. She pointed out to a glass on thee table and asked me to describe the character of the glass. I said it's clear. She said another might say it's hard, or it's fragile. We talk about the same thing, but with different accumulation, we appreciate on different quality. This is what I like the most from the discussion at the foundation yesterday, a cook book analogy. A.Sujin said that one can read and memorize all the detail, the ingredients, and the method of cooking from a book, but never know how does the food taste ( at that moment, I thought of my Saveur cook book series at home, definitely with lobha, no doubt). One may read a lot about vinaya, sutta, or abhidhamma but never sees the true characteristic of dhamma( like reading, memorizing a cook book). That leaded us back to discussion on satipatthana, sati, panna, and satisampajana. Sati, mindfulness, of the characteristic of the reality(nama, rupa) is like tasting a food. No word needed to describe it, but we know how does it taste. Best wishes. Bon appetit :P Num 18870 From: david_wheeler58 Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:31pm Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "david_wheeler58 , > snip> > > Good day again James > > > > But you see, unlike those the Buddha's monks were replying to, I'm > already = > > a Buddhist. My relationship with the Buddha is experiential. If an > experienc= > > e I have doesn't seem to match up with the Buddha's teaching, than > I go back= > > and question it. I don't question it from the point of reason > first. > > > > Metta, David > > Good Day David, (are you English?) > > I don't know about you, but I wasn't born Buddhist; what brought me > to Buddhism first was the simple, straightforward beauty of its > reasoning. After testing it for myself, in meditation, I found it > to be true. At this point I have only, first-hand basis, > experienced the first Noble Truth. The rest of the Noble Truths I > accept on reasoning alone. The reasoning and logic of the Buddha's > dhamma is beautiful and complete. > > I don't find that same beauty in the Abhidhamma. Again, I stand by > my original contention and I do not believe that your counter > argument is related. > > Metta, James Good evening James (No I'm not English :)) This is a better discription of what I meant by the Abhidhamma not being Socratic, but rather experiential. By U Rewata Dhamma and Bhikkhu Bodhi "The Abhidhamma's attempt to comprehend the nature of reality, contrary to that of classical science in the West, does not proceed from the standpoint of a neutral observer looking outwards towards the external world. The primary concern of the Abhidhamma is to understand the nature of experience, and thus the reality on which it focuses is conscious reality, the world as given in experience, comprising both knowledge and the known in the widest sense. For this reason the philosophical enterprise of the Abhidhamma shades off into a phenomenological psychology. To facilitate the understanding of experienced reality, the Abhidhamma embarks upon an elaborate analysis of the mind as it presents itself to introspective meditation. It classifies consciousness into a variety of types, specifies the factors and functions of each type, correlates them with their objects and physiological bases, and shows how the different types of consciousness link up with each other and with material phenomena to constitute the ongoing process of experience." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/abhiman.html 18871 From: david_wheeler58 Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:34pm Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Metta, David Better late than never :>) 18872 From: Egberdina Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:49pm Subject: Re: Control Dear Chrstine, Thanks for your two cents. Now in a country like Australia, where the smallest denomination of currency is the 5 cent coin, your two cents would be rounded down to 0 :-). Happily , on dsg the only currency is metta, karuna etc etc and all contributions are of inestimable value. I appreciate your description of how you view the matter of control. Do you totally reject the ability to selectively learn? To me your description reads like the absolute determinism that KKT describes. I may have got this wrong but when Rusty needed lots of dollars poured into his health fund, was there rumination, weighing up and a final decision? Or are you saying the decision was the only one ever going to be made, and the rumination and weighing up was also always going to happen. On another thread, you mentioned that the Buddha would be able to have full knowledge of whatever he set his mind to. But according to what you are talking about here, the Buddha could only set his mind on whatever conditions determined. Is there a contradiction? Consider this. When I flush the toilet, the reservoir fills up to a certain level, according to where the float is positioned and how the valve is set. Everytime I flush, the water comes back to exactly the same level. It is a self-governing, self-regulating system. The universe is replete with self-governing systems. You are one of them. So am I. Now I can tinker with the conditions that affect the water level in my toilet reservoir, changing the position of the float, and voila next time I flush, the water comes up to a different level. Now you are going to say that me tinkering with the float was always going to happen. And I reject that, categorically, outright and totally even :-) You are a self-governing system, that is able to tinker with *some* of the parameters that affect your self-governing system. You are a self-governing system that tinkers with the conditions that affect Rusty and your daughter and all your staff and clients at the hospital. You and everybody else are works in progress. What is the value of liberation if through it one looses the option to walk straight back into prison. That sounds more like a lobotomy to me :-) I'll make this a three cent contribution :-) All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > I have been following with interest the threads on control/no > control. To my understanding, decisions I make and actions I take > now are the result of everything that has gone before in this life, > and all the previous ones. Leaving aside kamma, accumulations and the > rounds of rebirth at this time, I can see for myself that this is so > within this lifetime. For example, I could not choose a life that > involved killing others even if it was considered lawful e.g. a > mercenary soldier or a butcher of animals. This is not just a > preference - it is much much stronger - I am 'unable' to choose it > because of all that has gone before that led me first to an ethical > position, and then to become a follower of the Buddha. I cannot > choose to have no reactions such as anger or fear to a strong > stimulus. They happen (or arise) instantaneously. I could not > choose to feel 'delight' when with a sobbing mother holding her dead > baby. I cannot even, at this stage in my development, choose to feel > only compassion or equanimity for her and the babe at that time. I > feel overwhelming pity, compassion, anger, helplessness, confusion - > mostly dosa, I know. The feelings arise uncontrollably. I cannot > make them not come, go away, or change into something else. They > remain until they subside in their own good time (speaking > conventionally, not of cittas). > > I 'seem' to make 'free' choices, but that is because of all the > conditions leading up to that moment. Previous conditions have > formed my desires, reactions, opinions, ambitions and plans. > I know, without doubt, that 'this continually self-consuming process > of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena' (currently > conveniently called Christine) has no real choice, no total control. > There is no Independent Controller - there is only the illusion of > that. > > The most I can have through listening to the true Dhamma, reflecting > on it, associating with 'admirable friends' is a very slow increase > in panna, a slow wearing away of my defilements that will condition > different reactions in the future. There will be no instantaneous > change at this point in my journey. > > Just my two cents - what do you all reckon? > metta, > Christine > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " > wrote: > > Dear KKT, > > > > That Zen poem is razorsharp!!! > > > > > > > > > > KKT: In fact, the words Kha Kha Tieu > > > (laughing ha ha) come from a Zen poem. > > > > > > Two Zen masters met after > > > many years, one made this verse: > > > > > > Meeting each other, we laugh ha ha :-)) > > > So many leaves have fallen in the forest > > > --------------- > > > > > > > > KKT: What you wrote > > > > > > << when there is awareness, there is choice, > > > and when there is choice there is control >> > > > > > > seems very reasonable and of the common sense. > > > And this is the basis of Buddhist practice > > > that is the practice of Mindfulness. > > > > > > But if we look deep down > > > in the Buddha's teachings, > > > things do not seem so simple. > > > > > > The Buddha talked about: > > > > > > __Anatta/No-Self in His second sermon. > > > __Paticcasamuppada/Conditionality in His third sermon. > > > > > > These two theories were accepted > > > by all different Buddhist schools > > > (Theravada as well Mahayana, Vajrayana) > > > as the fundamental teachings of Buddhism > > > which made Buddhism different from > > > other religions and philosophies. > > > > > > But if we put these two theories > > > to the extreme limit of their meanings > > > (as done in Abhidhamma, I think) > > > then << inevitably >> we arrive at > > > the case of DETERMINISM. > > > > > > As I wrote in my previous post: > > > > > > > > > > If we accept that there is absolutely > > > > << no-control >> and that everything > > > > happens << strictly >> by << conditions >> > > > > i.e. even the smallest act such as > > > > turning left or right was already determined > > > > << in advance >> by << conditions >> > > > > then we fall into the case of > > > > << STRICT DETERMINISM >>, do we not? > > > > > > > > > I really don't know the answer :-)) > > > > > > And I continue to probe, > > > a very << fascinating >> probing indeed :-)) > > > -------------- > > > > > > When I write "when there is awareness, there is choice, > > and when there is choice there is control" it is a statement that > I > > can repeat again and again and again without doubt. I know this to > be > > so. > > > > I know it does not rhyme with the very deep and subtle teachings > the > > degree of truth which I have not yet experienced. For me it is > > incorrect to teach things the truth of which I am taking in faith. > It > > is the same as saying: the things I want to be true, I want you to > > want them to be true as well. > > > > On occasion only, I can say "when there is awareness, there is > > choice, and one of the choices is acceptance, and when there is > > acceptance control is a moot point". But I can't say that again and > > again so I won't :-) > > > > > > > > All the best > > > > > > Herman > > PS Thanks for the story . I did enjoy it!> 18873 From: James Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:31pm Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "david_wheeler58 " wrote: > Good evening James (No I'm not English :)) > > This is a better discription of what I meant by the Abhidhamma not being Socratic, but rather experiential. > > By U Rewata Dhamma and Bhikkhu Bodhi > > "The Abhidhamma's attempt to comprehend the nature of reality, contrary to that of classical science in the West, does not proceed from the standpoint of a neutral observer looking outwards towards the external world. The primary concern of the Abhidhamma is to understand the nature of experience, and thus the reality on which it focuses is conscious reality, the world as given in experience, comprising both knowledge and the known in the widest sense. For this reason the philosophical enterprise of the Abhidhamma shades off into a phenomenological psychology. To facilitate the understanding of experienced reality, the Abhidhamma embarks upon an elaborate analysis of the mind as it presents itself to introspective meditation. It classifies consciousness into a variety of types, specifies the factors and functions of each type, correlates them with their objects and physiological bases, and shows how the different types of consciousness link up with each other and with material phenomena to constitute the ongoing process of experience." > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/abhiman.html Hi David, Oh, okay, now I see where you are coming from. Yes, the Abhidhamma does depend on experiential `proof' for what it proposes. In that regard, I do agree with you. However, I would not say that the Abhidhamma is successful at this proof. Obviously the psychological proof for its assertions depends on the `introspection' of its designers into mental processes. The work of E.B. Tichener, of the early school of Structural Psychology, into introspection demonstrated its inherent fallibility to accurately detail mental processes. To summarize the limitations of introspection for an accurate appraisal of consciousness processes: I. Direct Introspection. 1. Process and apperception occur together. Description is made on the basis of present immediacy. 2. Process and apperception occur together. Description is made on the basis of remembered apperception. II. Indirect Introspection. Process is recalled as memory-image. Apperception is of memory-image, and description is made on the basis of this apperception. The 'limitations' of introspection now follow of themselves; they are given with its definition; they are of the same sort as the 'limitations' of a microscope or a camera. We can observe only what is observable; and we cannot observe any product of logical abstraction. We cannot, therefore, observe relation, though we can observe content-processes that are given in relation. We cannot either observe change, though we can observe changing content- processes for so long a time as attention, under the observational Aufgabe, may be maintained. We cannot observe causation, though we can observe content-processes that are definitely conditioned. And so it is in other cases. Psychological description can deal only with content-processes under their empirically distinguishable attributes. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Titchener/introspection.htm Metta, James Ps. The moderators of this group wrote me an e-mail suggesting, I believe, that it was inappropriate for me to ask you if you are from England. I asked this because of the nature of your salutation, but meant no offense. I have seen other questions of a personal nature asked in this group, but I will no longer ask anyone personal questions. 18874 From: rahula_80 Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:50pm Subject: City Hi, I remember a sutta where the Buddha or one of his disciple says that it is better to live in the city with a pure mind that to live in a forest with a evil mind or something like this. Anyone has the sutta / reference in handy? Thanks, Rahula 18875 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 6:20pm Subject: Correction of citation (Re: All Beings subsist on Nutriment) Dear All, Apologies and Correction of citation - 'The Sons Flesh' is in the Samyutta Nikaya XII.63(3) in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation (Wisdom 2000) on pages 597/8/9. (NOT the Majjhima Nikaya (MN) as I carelessly stated.) A translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu is at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-063.html metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear All, > The Discourse of the Son's > Flesh MN 63 (3) has to be the scariest thing I have read in ages. 18876 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 7:14pm Subject: Re: I LOVE animals Dear Jan, You gave a very wise explanation on not harming our animals and caring for them just as we would for humans. Thank you. I agree with you. It is very relevant to me at the moment because Rusty and my mother have both been sick or injured at the same time. Fortunately, both are getting well at the same time too. :-) I am a Buddhist now but I started out as a Christian. There are many things that are the same in the Teachings of the Christ and the Teachings of the Buddha - like loving-kindness (which some Buddhists call 'metta' and some Christians call 'agape') and compassion, which is a deep awareness and sympathy for someone else's suffering. I can see you have both of these good qualities Jan. Your question made me think deeper - 'Buddhist' is just a name, a shorter way to say "I think I would probably describe myself as a person who tries to follow the teachings about 'the way things really are', that the Buddha discovered". Rusty tore the ligaments in his back left knee. I think he did it when he was sitting on a bean bag out the front of my home watching the road for me to drive in from work in the evening. For some reason (maybe to chase a hare, a bird or the dogs next door) he leaped up quickly, but one of his long toe-nails got caught in the bean bag and he twisted his knee badly. He is really just like a four year old little boy - thinks he is 'super-dog' and can do anything, but isn't wise enough to see the dangers in it. I'm glad you love animals Jan. metta (loving kindness) Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear Christine, > > I'm VERY sorry for not replying any of your e-mails > and I was always wanting to ask you, are you a > Buddhist or a Christian? > > Well, I'm very HAPPY to hear that you dog Rusty is > recovering rapidly! > > Im sorry to hear that he wont be able to recover 100% > but at lest he might recover up to 99% :-) > > I was also wondering about how Rusty's leg got > injured.I'm so glad that you didn't get Rusty put down > because I think that an animal such as a dog has equal > rights with us humans and just if a human was sick, we > wouldn't kill him/her so think that it was a good > choice to not let him be put down, no matter who says > what, you should always believe in what your heart > says no matter how much it costs. > > I think that I LOVE animals just as much as you do!!! > :-) > I'm REALLY glad that we share an interest. > Well, please reply as soon as possible! > > Bye > From Jan Tanytip Chearavanont 18877 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 7:18pm Subject: Re: Rusty Dear Kimmy, You asked me to tell you a little about Buddhism. As you are fourteen years of age, I think you would understand about Mindfulness. The Buddha said there was no point in reliving the Past in our memory or hoping or fearing about the Future. The Past has gone and the Future has not yet come. Now - this present moment - is all there is. Being Mindful means paying attention to what is happening right now, this instant, with every part of your mind and body. As you know, we have sense organs that allow us to hear, see, feel, taste and smell (notice smells, I mean :-)). As an example, just sit quietly for two minutes and notice what you are hearing. You will find at first it is just the loud sounds, but after a while you will notice softer and usually unnoticed sounds. Do the same with the other senses when you have time, especially if you are out for a hike or eating a meal. It will help you realise how we are usually half asleep, not noticing what is going on in and around us. So one of the things the Buddha taught us was to be awake, Mindful, and live only in the present moment. Thank you for your good wishes for Rusty. He is a Great Dane/German Shepherd cross-breed. So he is big and gentle like a Great Dane but not as heavy. He is intelligent like a German Shepherd. He is getting quite old for this type of dog - eight or nine years. (Someone told me that one dog year equals seven human years. I'm not sure if this is true). His leg is getting stronger each day, and he is back to eating - lots and lots! Rusty likes going for rides in the car - he takes up the whole back seat. He puts his head out the car window as we drive along, and his ears and cheeks flap in the breeze.:-) It's been nice talking to you Kimmy, metta (loving kindness), Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear Christine, > > Hi, my name is Kimmy, I am 14 and I have read through > your long letter about your dog, Rusty. > > I feel sorry about your dog. In your letter, I saw a > sentence "Buddha ate meat when given it and had only > forbidden the eating of meat if a person know or > suspected that the animal had been specially killed > for them", I think this is interesting and I used to > think Buddha doesn't eat meat anytime. > > Can you tell me more about Buddhism and your dog? I am > really interested in dogs. > > Hope your dog can recover as soon as possible. > > From > Kimmy 18878 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 7:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Strong language Hi Azita, I'm okay with the idea of cittas, it's just their 'committee structure' and their titles that make my eyes glaze.:-) Cetasikas I think of as the 'flavour' and 'colour' of the citta. And though I thought I'd never say it, some Pali words are so familiar that I don't realise they are Pali and just use them like english. I really like your tag 'patience, courage and good cheer' - if I stepped into the dsg room halfway down the page and saw those words, I'd know straight away "Azita's here". Similarly with Howard and his signature quote. Yes, patience takes courage and vice versa. I have this theory that all the Perfections are intermingled and interdependant. I remember the "Searching for 'courage' in the Teachings" thread (last September), and the help many members gave me. Sarah's post mentions a number of the different perspectives on courage and patience. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/15591 If some things are too hard to understand, I also set them aside for a while. Usually I find that when I come back to them weeks or months later I have a clearer understanding. It seems to grow while I do nothing much. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, azita gill wrote: > > dear Christine, > I tend to agree with you re the English > substitutes for the Pali words. I remember when I > first began to hear the Dhamma [in this life], I > seemed to be able to understand better if some of the > Pali words were used. For example, when I learnt > about cetasikas and citta, it was clearer to me what > these words stood for, rather than if we had tried to > translate into English - how do you describe cetasikas > in the Eng. language? When I talk about Dhamma to > others who ask, I find it difficult to find an english > word to use instead of cetasika - emotions??? doesn't > seem quite right, in fact quite wrong. > I guess it's like when we learn a new > anything, there are new words to use to describe the > 'anything'. So, for me, I prefer the Pali words. > However, some of them are challenging my brain at the > moment. Nina made a comment in one of her recent > posts about when it is too difficult and doesn't > really apply to now she just doesn't bother with it. > And pardon me Nina, if I have misunderstood what you > said, but it is how I interperated the comment. Maybe > that's a projection of mine, when it's too hard I > forget it. > patience, courage and good cheer; I have only > just realised that we need courage to be patient, we > need to be patient to be courageous and we need to be > cheerful to be the other two!!!!!!! > Azita 18879 From: david_wheeler58 Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 8:05pm Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Evening James " > To summarize the limitations of introspection for an accurate > appraisal of consciousness processes: > > I. Direct Introspection. > 1. Process and apperception occur together. Description is made on > the basis of present immediacy. > 2. Process and apperception occur together. Description is made on > the basis of remembered apperception. > > II. Indirect Introspection. Process is recalled as memory-image. > Apperception is of memory-image, and description is made on the > basis of this apperception. > > The 'limitations' of introspection now follow of themselves; they > are given with its definition; they are of the same sort as > the 'limitations' of a microscope or a camera. We can observe only > what is observable; and we cannot observe any product of logical > abstraction. We cannot, therefore, observe relation, though we can > observe content-processes that are given in relation. We cannot > either observe change, though we can observe changing content- > processes for so long a time as attention, under the observational > Aufgabe, may be maintained. We cannot observe causation, though we > can observe content-processes that are definitely conditioned. And > so it is in other cases. Psychological description can deal only > with content-processes under their empirically distinguishable > attributes. > http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Titchener/introspection.htm > > Metta, James" Whoosh! That's over my head James. Metta, David P.S. You, or anyone else in here, may ask any question you like. I may not always answer though :) 18880 From: Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 9:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing Hi Nina, I see in Way 38 anapanasati culminates in the transcendence of doubt. I take that to be a sotapanna magga citta; so perhaps the scenario of jhana and insight may not happen exactly as described the first time you try it, or even the second or third time. Can we at least say that is the goal? I think it would be a good procedure to really get into cultivating tranquility in this way and then finish up with a somewhat formal contemplation of breath, its source in the body, the body as part of namarupa, the components of nama and rupa, their conditional arising, that they are impersonal, separate and distinct phenomena, not a living being or person and that they have the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha, and not self. I'm still not clear on cultivating a nimita in anapanasati. Perhaps it is just a matter of cultivating a close, delicate relationship with the breath and nudging that toward a simple, conceptual purity, in order to let go of sensory sensations without losing one's stillness and devolving into internal chatter. The nimita seems to be a reference point in the background, while the stillness is the primary consideration. In any case, I'm ready to move on. Larry 18881 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 9:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Which cittas experience nibbana? Dear Kom, I am glad you answered. I have been thinking again about reviewing, and what types of citta. It is not in my copy of Abh Sangaha which types, but maybe in the B.B. translation? I am sure no tadalambana, this only regards sense objects. My doubt was: is the reviewing citta experiencing nibbana directly? It is arammana, so we can classify cittas as Num and you suggest. Nina. op 18-01-2003 10:18 schreef Kom Tukovinit op kom@a...: > Dear NEO Swee Boon, > > After the path process, there are the reviewing processes > following, one of the process reviews nibanna as its > aramana. The entire process has nibbana as aramana. In > this case, mano-dvara-vacana (adverting), the 7 mahakusala > nana-sampayutta (unclear to me if all 4, most likely > probably just 2, or may be one!!!). It is also unclear (to > me) if there is the two tadalamppana in this case. > > The ones I know for sure is: > 1) Magga > 2) Phala (both inside the path process, and in phala > sampatti) > 3) Gotrubhu (which is again one of the 4 (or 2 or 1!!!) > 4) mano-dvara-vacana > 5) 7 repeating javana 18882 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 9:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Questions about Questions [was: Re: No-control & Destiny] Dear Azita, the fourth one interests me. I am more thinking of the Buddha who did not asnwer all questions. Some did not lead to the goal, the end of dukkha. Some people were not ready. Nina op 18-01-2003 09:29 schreef azita gill op gazita2002@y...: >>>> >>> In the Pa~nhabyaakara.na Sutta the Buddha states: >>> >>> "Monks there are these four ways of answering a >> question. >>> What four? >>> There is a question which is to be given a >> categorical answer >>> (eka.msabyaakara.niiya). >>> There is a question which is to be analysed >>> (vibhajjabyaakara.niiya). >>> There is a question which is to be answered with a >> counter-question >>> (pa.tipucchaabyaakara.niiya) >>> There is a question which is to be set aside >> (.thapaniiya)" >>> -- A ii 46 > I was wondering if it could also > apply to mundane questions e.g. questions that are > asked on a daily basis, about work or anything. > What do you think? > 18883 From: nidive Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:18pm Subject: Re: Nibbana Stored in Memory? Hi James, > Therefore, is nibbana an object of the mind or a state of being? > This is an important question because I think there is a big > difference between the two. Ananda: In what way, venerable sir, might a monk attain concentration of such a form that he would have neither the perception of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient? The Buddha: There is the case, Ananda, where he would be percipient of this: 'This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all mental processes; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; stopping; nibbana.' -- A X.6 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/likefire/2- 1.html What do you think: Is the Buddha recollecting about what his mind perceived, ie. nibbana, during that concentration while he attends to Ananda's question? Or is the Buddha absorbed in that concentration even while he speaks to Ananda? Can the Buddha both be in concentration and be attending to Ananda's question at the same time? Is that possible? > Can memory store nibbana? No, nibbana is not stored in memory. The experience/perception of the unconditioned nibbana element is stored in memory. Consciousness which experience insight arise and dissolute. And then the experience of the object itself is stored in memory. But the object of experience is not stored in memory. Just as the experience of the arising and dissolution of the five aggregates is remembered, but the five aggregates themselves are not stored in memory. The experience of the arising and dissolution of the five aggregates is insight. So insight is remembered. In short, the unconditioned nibbana element itself is NOT insight. But rather, knowing nibbana as nibbana is insight. This knowing is stored in memory. In another message, you are correct to say that anyone who sees the Dhamma sees the Buddha, and anyone who sees the Buddha sees the Dhamma. This point which you stated makes it even clearer that the Buddha is NOT nibbana. The Dhamma is NOT nibbana. The Buddha made this very clear in Samyutta Nikaya VI.1. I have heard that on one occasion, when the Blessed One was newly Self-awakened, he was staying at Uruvela on the bank of the Nerañjara River, at the foot of the Goatherd's Banyan Tree. Then, while he was alone and in seclusion, this line of thinking arose in his awareness: "This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn06-001.html Please take note that there are different descriptions given for the Dhamma and for nibbana (Unbinding). And the Buddha said that the Dhamma will no longer be in existence someday in the future. I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Kimila, in the Bamboo Grove. Then Ven. Kimila went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "What is the cause, lord, what is the reason why, when a Tathagata has become totally unbound (has entered total Nibbana), the true Dhamma does not last a long time?" "Kimila, there is the case where, when a Tathagata has become totally unbound, the monks, nuns, male lay followers, & female lay followers live without respect, without deference, for the Teacher; live without respect, without deference, for the Dhamma... the Sangha... the Training... concentration... heedfulness; live without respect, without deference, for hospitality. This is the cause, this is the reason why, when a Tathagata has become totally unbound, the true Dhamma does not last a long time." "And what is the cause, what is the reason why, when a Tathagata has become totally unbound, the true Dhamma does last a long time?" "Kimila, there is the case where, when a Tathagata has become totally unbound, the monks, nuns, male lay followers, & female lay followers live with respect, with deference, for the Teacher; live with respect, with deference, for the Dhamma... the Sangha... the Training... concentration... heedfulness; live with respect, with deference, for hospitality. This is the cause, this is the reason why, when a Tathagata has become totally unbound, the true Dhamma does last a long time." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an07-056.html Yet this does not mean that the unconditioned nibbana element will 'perish' together with the Dhamma. The Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha may 'perish', but the unconditioned nibbana element remains as it is. If that were not the case, there would be no escape for past and future generations (of Teaching Buddhas and Their Disciples and Silent Buddhas) from that which is born, become, made, fabricated. "There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. If there were not that unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated is discerned." -- Ud VIII.3 Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18884 From: James Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:33pm Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "david_wheeler58 " wrote: > Evening James Whoosh! That's over my head James. > > Metta, David Hi David, Oh, sorry, let me put it a different way. In that quote by Bhikkhu Bodhi you provide, which is excellent, he writes, "For this reason the philosophical enterprise of the Abhidhamma shades off into a phenomenological psychology. To facilitate the understanding of experienced reality, the Abhidhamma embarks upon an elaborate analysis of the mind as it presents itself to introspective meditation." What I am saying is that it has already been proven in modern times, through empirical data collection and analysis, that introspection, in the form of meditation or not, is an insufficient means to establish a phenomenological psychology (A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness). In other words, it has been scientifically proven that the mind cannot figure itself out; at least not completely enough to create a phenomenological psychology. Additionally, the Buddha never intended meditation to be used as a means to `figure out the mind', because that is impossible (which I will explain the reasons momentarily), he meant it as a means to liberate the mind; which doesn't require a phenomenological psychology. Wilhelm Wundt was the father of modern psychology who devised certain methods to establish psychology as a legitimate science. These methods ranged from testing, to surveys, to introspection. His student, Tichener, established his own school of psychology where he intended to create a phenomenological psychology using the method of introspection (obviously the only means to do such a thing). He determined through many tests, surveys, and over several years of empirical data that introspection is a faulty means of determining how the mind works. What was the main reason? Surprisingly, he came to basically the same conclusion that the Lord Buddha did, there is no self. However, Tichener didn't phrase it exactly that way; he stated that introspection supposes the duplication of the subject-which is impossible. In other words, for the mind to know itself, there would have to be two minds- one observing and one being observed. Of course, what he was saying is that there is no `self' to observe mental processes directly so introspection is a flawed endeavor. He came to many other conclusions about why it is flawed also, which I will footnote for the sake of understanding. Being a student of psychology myself, I didn't immediately see a lot of problems with how the Abhidhamma describes mental processes, and have never addressed this previously in this group; however, knowing what I know of quantum and particle physics and cosmology, I had many issues with how it describes rupa, matter (very primitive and Aristotelian). However, with this recent discussion of nibbana being known by supramundane cittas arising and passing away, my sensibilities have been shocked. It is impossible for such a thing to occur and for such a thing to be known by brain processes. Let me put it in simple terms, mind states or thoughts cannot be known while they are occurring because there is no self to know them, they can only be known after the fact. Keeping that in mind, how would it be possible for supramundane mind states to arise and know nibbana, for those mind states to pass away, and then for mundane cittas to somehow knew what just happened? That would not be possible. Nibbana must be known permanently and continuously or not at all!!! I hope this is a better explanation for you. I have enjoyed this discussion even though others may not have. Metta, James Footnote: Other reasons introspection fails to establish a phenomenology psychology: "Introspection only produces contradictory results on which no one can reach agreement, so it should not be used because it is non- scientific (general reaction to the controversy on the theme of the relation between thought and mental image); introspection is based on descriptions, therefore on verbal results which can teach us nothing since they are the product of 'social training' (Pieron 1927); introspection is directed towards private, non observable objects with regard to which it is impossible to use a scientific method based upon the agreement of observers, so it has to be abandoned; introspection is, at best, only able to get at that which the subject can be conscious of, but numerous psychological investigations show that the subject is not, and can not be, conscious of basic psychological facts and laws, so it is useless appealing to it; introspection exists but it is completely mistaken regarding what it yields, so the claims it produces are of no scientific interest (Skinner 1974); introspection does not exist, what is taken for introspection being only the expression of naive theories of the subject regarding psychological causality, pointless getting interested in this, it isn't introspection (Nesbitt & Wilson 1977); the information generated by introspection is worthless, it has no fundamental utility, one can only disregard it (Boring 1953); the proof that there is no such thing as introspection - assuming that it is the world of an 'internal sense' - is that, in contrast to the other senses, this internal sense could yield no phenomenology (Lyons 1986)" http://www.es-conseil.fr/GREX/textes%20vermersch/psycho- francaise_english.htm 18885 From: nidive Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:42pm Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hi James, > Let me put it in simple terms, mind states or thoughts cannot be > known while they are occurring because there is no self to know > them, they can only be known after the fact. As if there is a self who then appears after the fact to know about those thoughts. That's very illogical. If there is no self to know the thoughts as they occur, how can there be a self that then arises to know about those thoughts after the fact? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18886 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:52pm Subject: Re: Control Dear Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: Dear Group, I have been following with interest the threads on control/no control. To my understanding, decisions I make and actions I take now are the result of everything that has gone before in this life, and all the previous ones. < snip > I 'seem' to make 'free' choices, but that is because of all the conditions leading up to that moment. Previous conditions have formed my desires, reactions, opinions, ambitions and plans. < snip > The most I can have through listening to the true Dhamma, reflecting on it, associating with 'admirable friends' is a very slow increase in panna, a slow wearing away of my defilements that will condition different reactions in the future. There will be no instantaneous change at this point in my journey. KKT: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. As I understand your position, you opt for the << non-control >> and << absolute conditionality >> do you not ? The problem is that such theories lead inevitably to the case of << ABSOLUTE DETERMINISM >> In such case, liberation becomes << impossible >> since everything is determined in advance by << conditions >> Maybe you can argue that this is Panna (i.e. the cetasika Panna/Wisdom) which is the << essential condition >> for liberation would be possible. But Panna also arises as the result of other conditions. Therefore we return always to the initial case of << ABSOLUTE DETERMINISM >> and the question becomes: __What makes Panna arise in Christine and not in another common ignorant worldling? Why Christine and not the other one? Since everything arises by conditions, if Panna could arise in Christine then it could also arise in the other one? But it arises only in Christine and not in the other one, therefore somewhere sometime in the process of << development >> of both Christine and the other worldling, something should happens << QUITE RANDOMLY >> so that Panna arises only in Christine and not in the other one :-)) Do you see the point? :-)) Remember that both Christine and the other worldling have << no-control >> over the process of their development :-)) What is then this << thing >> that happens << RANDOMLY >> and << not by conditions >> ? :-)) Don't tell me this is God's Grace ! :-)) Cheers :-) KKT 18887 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 11:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Geez, Jon - I dunno! ;-) I think it is an instance of right effort to attempt to be mindful, to not get "lost" in thought, to not permit oneself to be "taken over" by fantasies, etc, etc. I think these are good and useful things to do, and recommended by the Buddha. That's about all I can say. -------------------------------------------------------- In an earlier post you quoted 2 passages from the suttas as showing the 4 right efforts to be quite conventional [and to be something that one really has to *work* at with diligence and considerable expenditure of energy led by rigorous application of concentration and mindfulness]. I take the 3rd of these 4 right efforts, the 'effort to develop'. On the effort to develop, the first passage reads: "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavours, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of ... the arising of skilful qualities that have not yet arisen ..." I think the key question is, is this describing a (conventional) resolve/intention to have kusala in place of presently-arising akusala, or is it referring to moments at which kusala arises/has arisen and is actually present? The second passage gives the following answer to this question [the *emphasis* is mine]: "And what is the *exertion to develop*? "There is the case where a monk *develops* the *mindfulness factor* for Awakening dependent on seclusion... dispassion... cessation, resulting in letting go. He *develops* the *investigation of qualities factor* for Awakening... dependent on seclusion... dispassion... cessation, resulting in letting go. This is *called the exertion to develop*." So it is the *developing* that is called the *exertion to develop*. To my reading, this can only be referring to the moment of actual arising of kusala, rather than any thoughts/intention/resolve about its development. The other 3 right efforts read similarly (I have copied them below). The reason why it cannot be any other way is, I suggest, as obvious enough when you think about it. If the resolve 'to have kusala' in order to be free from the akusala of that moment was itself kusala, then there would be no need 'to have kusala' (since the resolve itself is kusala). The same goes for 'attempting to be mindful' -- this must be a moment when mindfulness is absent, otherwise no attempt would be necessary. It is perhaps tempting to assume that well-intentioned thinking to develop the path must be kusala because its object is to have kusala, to practice the Dhamma, to carry out the Buddha's teaching. But that is actually a sort of reasoning or 'logical deduction', i.e., 'If the action is such-and-such kusala action, the mind-state must be kusala'. However, it is not a conclusion that is borne out by the teachings. We should not underestimate the power and subtlety (trickiness) of akusala. Even the most well-intentioned resolve on our part is going to be informed by the same ignorance and wrong view that conditions the akusala moments that we are resolving to move away from. Jon ****************************** Passages from the Pali Canon § 49. There are these four right exertions. Which four? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen...(and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. These are the four right exertions. Just as the River Ganges flows to the east, slopes to the east, inclines to the east, in the same way when a monk develops & pursues the four right exertions, he flows to Unbinding, slopes to Unbinding, inclines to Unbinding. (SN XLIX.1) § 50. There are these four exertions. Which four? The exertion to guard, the exertion to abandon, the exertion to develop, & the exertion to maintain. And what is the exertion to guard? There is the case where a monk, on seeing a form with the eye, does not grasp at any theme or variations by which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. He practices with restraint. He guards the faculty of the eye. He achieves restraint with regard to the faculty of the eye. (Similarly with the ear, nose, tongue, body, & intellect.) This is called the exertion to guard. And what is the exertion to abandon? There is the case where a monk does not acquiesce to a thought of sensuality that has arisen [in him]. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, wipes it out of existence. He does not acquiesce to a thought of ill will... a thought of harmfulness... any evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen [in him]. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, wipes them out of existence. This is called the exertion to abandon. And what is the exertion to develop? There is the case where a monk develops the mindfulness factor for Awakening dependent on seclusion... dispassion... cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the investigation of qualities factor for Awakening... the persistence factor for Awakening... the rapture factor for Awakening... the serenity factor for Awakening... the concentration factor for Awakening... the equanimity factor for Awakening dependent on seclusion... dispassion... cessation, resulting in letting go. This is called the exertion to develop. And what is the exertion to maintain? There is the case where a monk maintains a favorable theme of concentration -- the skeleton perception, the worm-eaten perception, the livid perception, the festering perception, the falling-apart perception, the bloated perception. This is called the exertion to maintain. (AN IV.14) 18888 From: Egberdina Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 11:57pm Subject: Did the Buddha have any control? Hi all, I am pitching this question at those who argue that control is not possible. (I know who you are, I have filmed your secret gatherings :- ). Did the Buddha exercise any control over his mind? All the best Herman 18889 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 0:08am Subject: Re: Control Hello KKT, Herman and all, I am not skilled in debate or in the terms you are using. May I ask if you believe that anything exists now, or has existed ever, independant of a cause? If so, can you explain (in simple terms for me please) what it is? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > Dear Christine, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > " wrote: > > > Dear Group, > > I have been following with interest the threads on control/no > control. To my understanding, decisions I make and actions I take > now are the result of everything that has gone before in this life, > and all the previous ones. > > < snip > > > I 'seem' to make 'free' choices, but that is because of all the > conditions leading up to that moment. Previous conditions have > formed my desires, reactions, opinions, ambitions and plans. > > < snip > > > The most I can have through listening to the true Dhamma, reflecting > on it, associating with 'admirable friends' is a very slow increase > in panna, a slow wearing away of my defilements that will condition > different reactions in the future. There will be no instantaneous > change at this point in my journey. > > > > > KKT: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. > > As I understand your position, > you opt for the << non-control >> > and << absolute conditionality >> > do you not ? > > The problem is that such theories > lead inevitably to the case of > << ABSOLUTE DETERMINISM >> > > In such case, liberation becomes > << impossible >> since everything is > determined in advance by << conditions >> > > Maybe you can argue that this is Panna > (i.e. the cetasika Panna/Wisdom) > which is the << essential condition >> > for liberation would be possible. > > But Panna also arises as the result > of other conditions. Therefore > we return always to the initial case of > << ABSOLUTE DETERMINISM >> > and the question becomes: > > __What makes Panna arise in Christine > and not in another common ignorant worldling? > > Why Christine and not the other one? > > Since everything arises by conditions, > if Panna could arise in Christine > then it could also arise in the other one? > > But it arises only in Christine and > not in the other one, therefore somewhere > sometime in the process of << development >> > of both Christine and the other worldling, > something should happens << QUITE RANDOMLY >> > so that Panna arises only in Christine > and not in the other one :-)) > > > Do you see the point? :-)) > > > Remember that both Christine and > the other worldling have << no-control >> > over the process of their development :-)) > > What is then this << thing >> that happens > << RANDOMLY >> and << not by conditions >> ? :-)) > > Don't tell me this is God's Grace ! :-)) > > > Cheers :-) > > > KKT 18890 From: James Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 0:28am Subject: Re: Did the Buddha have any control? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " wrote: > Hi all, > > I am pitching this question at those who argue that control is not > possible. (I know who you are, I have filmed your secret gatherings :- > ). > > Did the Buddha exercise any control over his mind? > > All the best > > > Herman Hi Herman, LOL! ;-) This is a very cute post and I really like it, but I am not sure if it can be answered. Who could really answer…DIRECTLY… what the Buddha did with his mind? Gosh, even during his own time many people tried to pin him down to give an answer they could understand and his responses were always as slippery as butter on ice on ball bearings on banana peels in a roller skate factory! LOL! (nods to `Far Side'). Obviously, he wanted us to look to ourselves for these kinds of answers. You know what you can control and what you can't; be that `Beast Master' you were born to be! ;-) No needs to convince others or have them convince you, really. But a smile is always appreciated! Thank you Herman, I was beginning to get sucked into the vortex of over-seriousness and you saved me. I salute you! ;-) Metta, James 18891 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 1:42am Subject: Re: Control Dear Herman, and KKT, and all, I think we may be more in agreement than it first appears. I think we are assuming what the others believe and then arguing against a phantom. I probably do this also in the following - just let me know if I have assumed you hold a position that you don't. I think what you are both pointing to is that you believe you have Absolute Free Will. I don't like labels very much, but I think that Absolute Determinism that KKT mentioned and Absolute Free Will, its opposite, are both bound up in self view - a self who can control and a self who can't. The Dhamma is the middle way and is neither. I asked in another post about whether you believed there was anything that exists now, or has existed ever, independant of a cause ... this is because one of the basic tenets of Buddhism is the Law of Conditionality - Dependent Origination. The Buddha says: When there is this, that is. With the arising of this, that arises. When this is not, neither is that. With the cessation of this, that ceases. My understanding of Dependent Origination is derived from the suttas in the Pali Canon of the Theravada tradition. The scholar and teacher Walpola Rahula in his book "What the Buddha taught" explained that the Paticca-samuppada meant that nothing in the world is absolute - everything is conditioned, relative and interdependent. He said, "The question of Free Will has occupied an important place in Western thought and philosophy. But according to Conditioned Genesis, this question does not and cannot arise in Buddhist philosophy. If the whole of existence is relative, conditioned and interdependent, how can will alone be free? Will, like any other thought, is conditioned. So-called 'freedom' itself is conditioned and relative. Such a conditioned and relative 'Free Will' is not denied. There can be nothing absolutely free, physical or mental, as everything is interdependent and relative. If Free Will implies a will independent of conditions, independent of cause and effect, such a thing does not exist. How can a will, or anything for that matter, arise without conditions, away from cause and effect, when the whole of existence is conditioned and relative, and is within the law of cause and effect? Here again, the idea of Free Will is basically connected with the ideas of God, Soul, justice, reward and punishment. Not only is so-called free will not free, but even the very idea of Free Will is not free from conditions." I think this is what I was trying to say in my original post - that decisions we make are dependent on everything that has gone before, and that there is no absolute free will. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " wrote: > Dear Chrstine, > > Thanks for your two cents. Now in a country like Australia, where the > smallest denomination of currency is the 5 cent coin, your two cents > would be rounded down to 0 :-). Happily , on dsg the only currency is > metta, karuna etc etc and all contributions are of inestimable value. > > I appreciate your description of how you view the matter of control. > > Do you totally reject the ability to selectively learn? To me your > description reads like the absolute determinism that KKT describes. > > I may have got this wrong but when Rusty needed lots of dollars > poured into his health fund, was there rumination, weighing up and a > final decision? Or are you saying the decision was the only one ever > going to be made, and the rumination and weighing up was also always > going to happen. > > On another thread, you mentioned that the Buddha would be able to > have full knowledge of whatever he set his mind to. But according to > what you are talking about here, the Buddha could only set his mind > on whatever conditions determined. Is there a contradiction? > > Consider this. When I flush the toilet, the reservoir fills up to a > certain level, according to where the float is positioned and how the > valve is set. Everytime I flush, the water comes back to exactly the > same level. It is a self-governing, self-regulating system. The > universe is replete with self-governing systems. You are one of them. > So am I. Now I can tinker with the conditions that affect the water > level in my toilet reservoir, changing the position of the float, and > voila next time I flush, the water comes up to a different level. > > Now you are going to say that me tinkering with the float was always > going to happen. And I reject that, categorically, outright and > totally even :-) > > You are a self-governing system, that is able to tinker with *some* > of the parameters that affect your self-governing system. > > You are a self-governing system that tinkers with the conditions that > affect Rusty and your daughter and all your staff and clients at the > hospital. You and everybody else are works in progress. > > What is the value of liberation if through it one looses the option > to walk straight back into prison. That sounds more like a lobotomy > to me :-) > > > I'll make this a three cent contribution :-) > > > All the best > > > Herman 18892 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 2:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Becoming a Monk Dear Phra Pakdi Yanawaro, Thank you for sharing these comments with us: --- pakdi yanawaro wrote: > I usually reply that i want to have a new 'middle' way > of life in a new environment, which will facilitate > the practice of dhamma. moreover, since i got ordained > at an old age (72), i want to spend my last years of > life in a more meaningful way. ..... May I also welcome you to DSG and hope that you find the discussions of value as many of us do. If you would care to add any more comments and let us know at which temple you are based in Thailand, I'm sure many members would be interested to hear. Thank you again. With respect, Sarah ====== 18893 From: nidive Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 2:39am Subject: Re: Did the Buddha have any control? Hi Herman, I think your question should be qualified. Is control without a controller possible? Yes, it is possible. How is that so? To those who doesn't recognize the subtle thinking that arises when pondering over this question, the thought "I am in control" or "I am the one who controls" arises. When one doesn't recognize this thought as the conceit "I am", confusion arises. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18894 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 2:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] No-control & Destiny KKT --- "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > KKT: Thanks for your sharing. > > According to the quote > << the Buddha has a twofold teaching >> > in order to be > << best suited to enable the > hearer to penetrate the meaning >> > But it seems he didn't say that > the two levels << leading to exactly > the same stages of understanding > and final attainment >> as you said? > > The reason of my question is that > I think the two levels of instruction > don't lead to the << same >> final attainment, > but the first level leads to the second level > (i.e. from the lower one arrives at the higher) > > What do you think? I'm always ready to listen ;-)) What's your thinking, and do you have any support from the texts? Jon 18895 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 2:59am Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Victor --- "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Jon, > > There are two points I would like to make: > > 1. You said that: > "The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world > around us is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that > each of these khandhas is not self." > > Whom is the pronoun "we" referring to? Is it referring to you and > me? Or is it referring to you and some others? Or is it referring > to everyone? We are at cross-purposes here, Victor. I am summarising or paraphrasing the words of the Buddha from the suttas (to the best of my understanding), while you are taking my statement as an expression of my own experience or developed view, which it certainly is not. If you find any inaccuracy in the statement *as simply a restatement of what was taught by the Buddha*, then by all means share your thoughts with us. BTW, if it is just the pronoun "we" that is a concern, the statement could be rephrased as follows: "The Buddha taught that whatever is taken for oneself or the world in general is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that each of these khandhas is not self." Do you see any problems with this? > If you take the five aggregate for yourself, I would suggest you > abandon the view "the aggregates are self." Well I can agree with the underlying sentiment here, namely, that a view that 'the aggregates are self' would not be a correct view. As for abandoning, I believe that is easier said than done. To my understanding, wrong view can be eradicated only by the development of satipatthana and insight into the true nature of presently arising dhammas. Any attempt at 'directed' abandoning will be of no useful effect. Are we in agreement on this point? Jon 18896 From: nidive Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 2:59am Subject: The Fortress Simile Hi All, I think this Sutta shows very clearly that nibbana is an object to be experienced by consciousness (cittas). Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.204 Kimsuka Sutta The Riddle Tree "Suppose, monk, that there were a royal frontier fortress with strong walls & ramparts and six gates. In it would be a wise, experienced, intelligent gatekeeper to keep out those he didn't know and to let in those he did. A swift pair of messengers, coming from the east, would say to the gatekeeper, 'Where, my good man, is the commander of this fortress?' He would say, 'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central square.' The swift pair of messengers, delivering their accurate report to the commander of the fortress, would then go back by the route by which they had come. Then a swift pair of messengers, coming from the west... the north... the south, would say to the gatekeeper, 'Where, my good man, is the commander of this fortress?' He would say, 'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central square.' The swift pair of messengers, delivering their accurate report to the commander of the fortress, would then go back by the route by which they had come. "I have given you this simile, monk, to convey a message. The message is this: The fortress stands for this body -- composed of four elements, born of mother & father, nourished with rice & barley gruel, subject to constant rubbing & abrasion, to breaking & falling apart. The six gates stand for the six internal sense media. The gatekeeper stands for mindfulness. The swift pair of messengers stands for tranquillity (samatha) and insight (vipassana). The commander of the fortress stands for consciousness. The central square stands for the four great elements: the earth-property, the liquid-property, the fire-property, & the wind-property. The accurate report stands for Unbinding (nibbana). The route by which they had come stands for the noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-204.html In this simile, the pair of messengers (tranquility and insight) deliver the accurate report (nibbana) to the commander (consciousness). The commander reads the accurate report, just as consciousness "reads" (experiences) nibbana. I think this Sutta directly supports the Abhidhamma position that nibbana is experienced as an object of consciousness. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18897 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] intro Hi Dave (& Azita), Let me just second Azita's welcome: --- azita gill wrote: > --- "dave " > > dear Dave, > welcome from another lurker. yes, you can learn > things by just sitting back and 'listening' but it > also raises a lot of puzzles so feel comfortable about > asking questions. Someone usually kindly answers a > question, especially if you are persistent!!! > where do you live? would be nice if you told us > a little about yourself, but under no obligation if > you don't want to. i'm Azita, I live in australia and > have kind of studied the Buddha's teaching for about > 25 years, and i have known some of the others on the > site for about the same time. ..... I'm one of the ones that first met Azita a long time back;-) As she says, we'd be glad to hear anything further you care to share. We have a 'David' as you'll have seen, but if he stays 'David' and you stay 'Dave' we should be alright;-) peace to you both. Sarah p.s David - good to see you around again;-) Azita - (Jon had had a particularly tough week at work and so, after weeks of 'pressure' from my students, I suggested "Lord of the Rings2" yest. evening. Good intentions as I knew I probably wouldn't like it. The only seats left were right at the front. The opening shots of snowy mountains were fine and then the special effects started (and I didn't have my ear-plugs with me). I only lasted 5 minutes, I'm sorry to say. It now holds the record with "Men in Black" for a fast walk out.I have a long way to go with the 'patience and good cheer' here - some 'zap' posts and others 'zap' movies;-)) On the questions to put aside and so on, I think as Nina suggested, so much depends on the context, the person and the understanding. I don't believe it's just a matter of the wording of the questions, though there are of course some which were always put aside. Of course, only the Buddha knew just what was right and just what was in the mind of the one asking. For the rest of us, we just do our best according to very limited knowledge and understanding and often having to take into account other less noble considerations too such as our patience and good cheer at the time. Sometimes at work or at the gym, I put aside ordinary questions, not because they are of no value, but often (if I'm honest about it) because I just don't feel like answering. As usual, it comes down to the citta and mental states, don't you think? Hope you've settled back 'inspired' by your trip. I'm always glad to read your comments. ================ 18898 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:11am Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Victor You said: <> and in an earlier post (also to me): << If you see yourself as five aggregates, abandon that view.>> Depending on what you have in mind here, I might be in agreement with your thinking ;-)). The Buddha explained that in reality 'the world' (and this includes ourselves) is only the 5 khandhas. However, he didn't say that we should be *trying to 'see' the world/ourselves as the 5 khandhas*. Similarly, although he also explained that in reality the khandhas are not self, he didn't say that we should be *trying so 'see' the khandhas as not self*. What the Buddha taught as the path to be developed is, as Peter put it in a recent post, a matter of *just understanding*. There is no 'trying to see' things in this way or that. The conditions for developing this mere understanding are not easy to appreciate. I understand them to include: - repeated listening to/reading of the actual teachings (the Tipitaka) and their commentaries, - reflecting on what has been heard or studied and - applying what has been understood from the listening and reflecting. To many people this sounds like a purely intellectual exercise, but properly understood it is much more than that. It is or can be a condition for a better understanding of the presently arising reality. I think part of the reason for the scepticism that many have about this is that there's no immediate and direct 'result'. The results come in their own good time. The accumulation of understanding is very gradual and subtle and is absolutely not self (as in the adze-handle simile). So if by your statements above you mean, Don't try to 'see' yourself as five aggregates, then I can happily agree that that is not what the teachings are about ;-)) Jon 18899 From: david_wheeler58 Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 4:43am Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hello James Ok, I've sniped out here what for me are the important points as this relates to Buddhist meditation and understanding. I'm going to get back to you on this because I want to chose my words carefuly. I to had the same feeling you do about it being impossible for one mind to both be and observe itself being. After all, how could the latter not be part of the former? However I'm no longer so sure that in some way it's not possible. James: > What I am saying is that it has already been proven in modern times, > through empirical data collection and analysis, that introspection, > in the form of meditation or not, is an insufficient means to > establish a phenomenological psychology (A philosophy or method of > inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and > events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness > and not of anything independent of human consciousness). In other > words, it has been scientifically proven that the mind cannot figure > itself out; at least not completely enough to create a > phenomenological psychology. Additionally, the Buddha never > intended meditation to be used as a means to `figure out the mind', > because that is impossible (which I will explain the reasons > momentarily), he meant it as a means to liberate the mind; which > doesn't require a phenomenological psychology. In other words, for > the mind to know itself, there would have to be two minds- one > observing and one being observed. Of course, what he was saying is > that there is no `self' to observe mental processes directly so > introspection is a flawed endeavor. Metta, David 18900 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 5:38am Subject: Re: Control Dear Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: Hello KKT, Herman and all, I am not skilled in debate or in the terms you are using. KKT: Discussion, not debate. At least for me :-)) ------------ May I ask if you believe that anything exists now, or has existed ever, independant of a cause? If so, can you explain (in simple terms for me please) what it is? KKT: I adhere wholeheartedly to the doctrines of << no-self >> and << conditionality >> as I have pointed out that these are << fundamental Buddhist teachings >> that make Buddhism different from other religions and philosophies. The questions I raised are also the questions I raised for myself. I've found that << something >> should be missing somewhere ??? -------------- metta, Christine Metta, KKT 18901 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing Hi Larry, op 19-01-2003 06:18 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > I see in Way 38 anapanasati culminates in the transcendence of doubt. I > take that to be a sotapanna magga citta; so perhaps the scenario of > jhana and insight may not happen exactly as described the first time you > try it, or even the second or third time. Can we at least say that is > the goal? N: Yes, then he has attained to the stage of the sotåpanna. The sukkha vipassaka does not necessarily have to be aware of breath first, he must thoroughly penetrate the true nature of nama and rupa that appear: any kind of rupa, feeling, citta and cetasikas. As to the jhana labhi, after he emerges from jhana he also must be aware of all kinds of nama and rupa, not merely of breath. First time, second or third, I believe innumerable times of awareness and understanding. As to the attainment of jhana, we have read about the nimitta of breath, that he must be sure that it is the right nimitta, sure of inbreath, sure of outbreath. Thus, panna of the level of samatha has to be very keen and refined, very precise. And no trying with attachment. One should not strive after the goal with lobha. L: I think it would be a good procedure to really get into cultivating > tranquility in this way and then finish up with a somewhat formal > contemplation of breath, its source in the body, the body as part of > namarupa, the components of nama and rupa, their conditional arising, > that they are impersonal, separate and distinct phenomena, not a living > being or person and that they have the characteristics of impermanence, > dukkha, and not self. N: All this is not thinking of conditions, thinking of characteristics, it is direct understanding, developed stage by stage. One stage of insight after the other. Is it based on the scriptures that one should first develop tranquillity? L: I'm still not clear on cultivating a nimitta in anapanasati. Perhaps it > is just a matter of cultivating a close, delicate relationship with the > breath and nudging that toward a simple, conceptual purity, in order to > let go of sensory sensations without losing one's stillness and > devolving into internal chatter. The nimita seems to be a reference > point in the background, while the stillness is the primary > consideration. N: As we read, when one is sure about the nimitta of breath, and it is the real one, not a product of miccha samadhi, the hindrances are subdued at that moment, no doubt. It just happens because of the right conditions, the right way of development. There is calm at that moment, no attachment to being calm. Since calm has arisen because of the appropriate condiitons, it is not necessary to have calm (stillness) as one's primary consideration. Nina. 18902 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:nibbana, and a cook book Dear Num, thanks for a lovely post. You clarified many things and I was delighted to hear about the discussions, so lively, just what I like. . Yes, I think so too, paccavekkhana is so close to the enlightenment process, just as close as sense-door and mind-door. And then the cookbook, I love cooking. Very daily, no words needed for direct awareness, thanks a lot, Nina. the method of cooking from a book, but never know > how does the food taste ( at that moment, I thought of my Saveur cook book > series at home, definitely with lobha, no doubt). One may read a lot about > vinaya, sutta, or abhidhamma but never sees the true characteristic of dhamma( > like reading, memorizing a cook book). That leaded us back to discussion on > satipatthana, sati, panna, and satisampajana. Sati, mindfulness, of the > characteristic of the reality(nama, rupa) is like tasting a food. No word > needed to describe it, but we know how does it taste. 18903 From: Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 2:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 1/19/03 1:43:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi James, > > >Let me put it in simple terms, mind states or thoughts cannot be > >known while they are occurring because there is no self to know > >them, they can only be known after the fact. > > As if there is a self who then appears after the fact to know about > those thoughts. > > That's very illogical. If there is no self to know the thoughts as > they occur, how can there be a self that then arises to know about > those thoughts after the fact? > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > ============================ If I may jump in here - I think this may be James' point.(If not, I apologize, James.) There is no self to be knowing thoughts during their ocurrence (or after, for that matter). There is just knowing, a function that occurs. Whether that knowing is in the form of a thought, i.e. is a knowing through the mind door, or is a knowing through a physical sense door, there is no "self" that stands back and observes the whole thing, engaging in simultaneous apperception. During a mindstate there is knowing and known (the object), together, as a single event, and accompanied by a variety of concomitant operations (the cetasikas). Afterwards, there may be cognition of the earier event, as what I call a "fresh memory". 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) 18904 From: Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 2:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 1/19/03 2:41:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Jon - > ... > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Geez, Jon - I dunno! ;-) I think it is an instance of right > effort to attempt to be mindful, to not get "lost" in thought, to not > permit oneself to be "taken over" by fantasies, etc, etc. I think > these are good and useful things to do, and recommended by the > Buddha. That's about all I can say. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > In an earlier post you quoted 2 passages from the suttas as showing > the 4 right efforts to be quite conventional [and to be something > that one really has to *work* at with diligence and considerable > expenditure of energy led by rigorous application of concentration > and mindfulness]. I take the 3rd of these 4 right efforts, the > 'effort to develop'. > > On the effort to develop, the first passage reads: > "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavours, arouses > persistence, upholds &exerts his intent for the sake of ... the > arising of skilful qualities that have not yet arisen ..." > > I think the key question is, is this describing a (conventional) > resolve/intention to have kusala in place of presently-arising > akusala, or is it referring to moments at which kusala arises/has > arisen and is actually present? > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: To me, to "generate desire, endeavour, arouse persistence, uphold & exert one's intent for the sake of" something is quite conventional effort. The Buddha was very good with language, and, to me my reading is quite straightforward. ------------------------------------------------- > > The second passage gives the following answer to this question [the > *emphasis* is mine]: > > "And what is the *exertion to develop*? > "There is the case where a monk *develops* the *mindfulness factor* > for Awakening dependent on seclusion... dispassion... cessation, > resulting in letting go. He *develops* the *investigation of > qualities factor* for Awakening... dependent on seclusion... > dispassion... cessation, resulting in letting go. This is *called the > exertion to develop*." > > So it is the *developing* that is called the *exertion to develop*. > To my reading, this can only be referring to the moment of actual > arising of kusala, rather than any thoughts/intention/resolve about > its development. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: That may be so. It may well be that, despite the misleading name (or misleading tranlation) "exertion to develop", what is referred to here is the developing, itself, which is a consequence in part of the "effort to develop". ---------------------------------------------- > > The other 3 right efforts read similarly (I have copied them below). > > The reason why it cannot be any other way is, I suggest, as obvious > enough when you think about it. If the resolve 'to have kusala' in > order to be free from the akusala of that moment was itself kusala, > then there would be no need 'to have kusala' (since the resolve > itself is kusala). The same goes for 'attempting to be mindful' -- > this must be a moment when mindfulness is absent, otherwise no > attempt would be necessary. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: We can "resolve" to have kusala thought and to mindful all day long, but that resolve, by itself, is insufficient. But hearing from the Buddha the aggregate of conditions needed for any given result, together with a strong desire for that result, may enable the arising of the volition to bring about certain remaining conditions that lead to path factors. By certain physical and mental actions, in the presence of other conditions, concentration and mindfulness, for example, can be increased. And volition plays a crucial role in this, and in all human action. ------------------------------------------------- > > It is perhaps tempting to assume that well-intentioned thinking to > develop the path must be kusala because its object is to have kusala, > to practice the Dhamma, to carry out the Buddha's teaching. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well intentioned thinking is just that. If, because of lack of other conditions, it leads to nothing more, then it is like a pipe dream. But, in particular, if we *stop* with the well intentioned thinking, then we have little hope for further developments. --------------------------------------------------- But that> > is actually a sort of reasoning or 'logical deduction', i.e., 'If the > action is such-and-such kusala action, the mind-state must be > kusala'. However, it is not a conclusion that is borne out by the > teachings. > > We should not underestimate the power and subtlety (trickiness) of > akusala. Even the most well-intentioned resolve on our part is going > to be informed by the same ignorance and wrong view that conditions > the akusala moments that we are resolving to move away from. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: And we should also not underestimate the power of such thinking to induce in a us a tendency towards inaction, justified by musings such as "We never know for sure what role akusala tendencies are playing, so we'd best do nothing." ------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > ======================== With metta, Howard > > ****************************** > Passages from the Pali Canon > > § 49. There are these four right exertions. Which four? > > There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses > persistence, upholds &exerts his intent for the sake of the > non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... > for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that > have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that > have not yet arisen...(and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, > increase, plenitude, development, &culmination of skillful qualities > that have arisen. These are the four right exertions. > > Just as the River Ganges flows to the east, slopes to the east, > inclines to the east, in the same way when a monk develops &pursues > the four right exertions, he flows to Unbinding, slopes to Unbinding, > inclines to Unbinding. > > (SN XLIX.1) > > § 50. There are these four exertions. Which four? The exertion to > guard, the exertion to abandon, the exertion to develop, &the > exertion to maintain. > > And what is the exertion to guard? > There is the case where a monk, on seeing a form with the eye, does > not grasp at any theme or variations by which -- if he were to dwell > without restraint over the faculty of the eye -- evil, unskillful > qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. He practices > with restraint. He guards the faculty of the eye. He achieves > restraint with regard to the faculty of the eye. (Similarly with the > ear, nose, tongue, body, &intellect.) This is called the exertion to > guard. > > And what is the exertion to abandon? > There is the case where a monk does not acquiesce to a thought of > sensuality that has arisen [in him]. He abandons it, destroys it, > dispels it, wipes it out of existence. He does not acquiesce to a > thought of ill will... a thought of harmfulness... any evil, > unskillful qualities that have arisen [in him]. He abandons them, > destroys them, dispels them, wipes them out of existence. This is > called the exertion to abandon. > > And what is the exertion to develop? > There is the case where a monk develops the mindfulness factor for > Awakening dependent on seclusion... dispassion... cessation, > resulting in letting go. He develops the investigation of qualities > factor for Awakening... the persistence factor for Awakening... the > rapture factor for Awakening... the serenity factor for Awakening... > the concentration factor for Awakening... the equanimity factor for > Awakening dependent on seclusion... dispassion... cessation, > resulting in letting go. This is called the exertion to develop. > > And what is the exertion to maintain? > There is the case where a monk maintains a favorable theme of > concentration -- the skeleton perception, the worm-eaten perception, > the livid perception, the festering perception, the falling-apart > perception, the bloated perception. This is called the exertion to > maintain. > > (AN IV.14) > /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) 18905 From: nidive Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:58am Subject: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hi Howard, My interpretation of James message is that while thoughts are occurring, these thoughts cannot be known. But somehow after those thoughts have subsided, it becomes possible to know them. If thoughts cannot be known at Time A while they are occurring, how can they be known at Time B when they have subsided? What you said in the quoted paragraph below is what I agree with. > During a mindstate there is knowing and known (the object), > together, as a single event, and accompanied by a variety of > concomitant operations (the cetasikas). Afterwards, there may be > cognition of the earier event, as what I call a "fresh memory". I think James is implying that there cannot be knowing of the known (the object) at Time A. This knowing can only take place at Time B. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18906 From: Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 1/19/03 10:59:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > My interpretation of James message is that while thoughts are > occurring, these thoughts cannot be known. But somehow after those > thoughts have subsided, it becomes possible to know them. > > If thoughts cannot be known at Time A while they are occurring, how > can they be known at Time B when they have subsided? > > What you said in the quoted paragraph below is what I agree with. > > >During a mindstate there is knowing and known (the object), > >together, as a single event, and accompanied by a variety of > >concomitant operations (the cetasikas). Afterwards, there may be > >cognition of the earier event, as what I call a "fresh memory". > > I think James is implying that there cannot be knowing of the known > (the object) at Time A. This knowing can only take place at Time B. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > > ============================== Hmm. I'm not sure. When I'm thinking about my car (a complex process consisting of a string of thoughts), the primary object of awareness is 'the car'. (Throughout the train of thought, there may actually be some variation with regard to object. Sometimes "the car as a whole" is grasped, sometimes just elements of it, sometimes associated concepts are grasped.) The mode of cognizing it is conceptual - through the mind door. Immediately following the thought of 'the car' there may be an awareness of that very thought, of the immediately preceding mindstate, or aspects of it, as a fresh memory. It does seem to me, by introspection, that there is a difference between the discernment occurring while "having a thought" and the discernment *of* that thought (as an object of consciousness), the latter, I believe, occurring *after* the thought, per se, has subsided, and only a fresh memory remains. Now that may or may not be what James was going for, and it may or may not be your understanding. And for that matter, it may or may not be the Abhidhammic take on the matter. I'm really not at all sure about this. 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) 18907 From: nidive Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:45am Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hi Howard and All, > Immediately following the thought of 'the car' there may be an > awareness of that very thought, of the immediately preceding > mindstate, or aspects of it, as a fresh memory. It does seem to > me, by introspection, that there is a difference between the > discernment occurring while "having a thought" and the discernment > *of* that thought (as an object of consciousness), the latter, I > believe, occurring *after* the thought, per se, has subsided, and > only a fresh memory remains. I totally agree with you on this! > And for that matter, it may or may not be the Abhidhammic > take on the matter. I'm really not at all sure about this. Would any Abhidhamma gurus please clarify on this matter? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18908 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:05am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Which cittas experience nibbana? Dear Nina (and NEO Swee Boon), I didn't look up the references (yet). The information (that I remember) comes from a tape given by A. Sujin about what cittas experience Nibbana. I vividly remembers the mano-dvara-vacana: she said this citta is great from the standpoint that it experiences all aramanas, including nibbana, but unlike lokuttara cittas (and perhaps the reviewing nana-sampayutta), it doesn't truly know what nibbana is. The simile is then given: it is like a lowly person who serves the king - a lowly person may experience the same object as the king (people he serves the king), but doesn't appreciate all the subtleties of the object as the king is. In this tape she doesn't explain which of the nana-sampayutta experiences nibbana (perhaps all 4, perhaps just 2). She also doesn't exclude the tadalambana explicitly, although I think what you say makes sense. I have a similar question about path and fruition cittas (for somebody who hasn't attained jhana): is it with somanassa or without? The last time I asked this question, I was given the answer "both", but I didn't get to ask why one over another, so this is still all muddy for me. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: nina van gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...] > Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 9:32 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Which cittas experience nibbana? > > 18909 From: James Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:06am Subject: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > ============================ > If I may jump in here - I think this may be James' point. (If not, I > apologize, James.) > There is no self to be knowing thoughts during their ocurrence (or > after, for that matter). There is just knowing, a function that occurs. > Whether that knowing is in the form of a thought, i.e. is a knowing through > the mind door, or is a knowing through a physical sense door, there is no > "self" that stands back and observes the whole thing, engaging in > simultaneous apperception. During a mindstate there is knowing and known (the > object), together, as a single event, and accompanied by a variety of > concomitant operations (the cetasikas). Afterwards, there may be cognition of > the earier event, as what I call a "fresh memory". > > With metta, > Howard Howard, Yes, you caught my meaning. I apologize that I wasn't clearer but my written words don't always fill in the details of what I am thinking (I write a lot of words as it is! ;-). I didn't mean that the previous mind state or thought is really `known' after it occurs. What is really known is the `fresh memory' of it, as you state; I also think of it in terms of a quickly fading footprint. The thought will leave a `footprint' in consciousness, as all mental processes are chemical in nature and it takes some time for the chemicals (neurotransmitters) to leave the synapses of the neurons, and then other firing neurons can know (piece together) what proceeded previously because there are some traces of what just occurred. However, the neurons must work very fast to catch this and it usually takes many tries, feedback loops, to get a clear picture of the proceeding memory from its footprint. In my meditation experience I have found that there is an outside `awareness' of this process, but it doesn't associate cognitive labels to the processes. This `awareness', when cognized afterward (by a method I can't pin down as of yet…but seems to be possible because the awareness is an undercurrent to all mental processes), is only that the processes are empty and transient. Metta, James 18910 From: Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:57am Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Hello Jon, all >"The Buddha taught that whatever is taken for oneself or the world in >general is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that each of >these khandhas is not self." > >Do you see any problems with this? Not really, but I have a question concerning seeing the khandhas as the world. I've never really been clear on this. Rupa is taken to mean not just the physical body but matter, or the world, in general. I have some thoughts on this but I just want to ask the elementary question: why? If the khandhas are one of the analysis of the conventional self then how does rupa get interpreted as all rupa, not just the body? The other four khandha are not so regarded. Vinnana also exists 'out there' so why isn't it also regarded as all sentience: yours, mine, and the fish in the sea. As rupa is yours, mine, and the fish in the sea. metta, stephen (I hope we can avoid quibbling over pronouns ;-) 18911 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:59am Subject: Armadillos, cheetahs, samma dithi, Re: [dsg] Strong language Hi Frank, and All, Language should certainly be used in a manner which is sensitive to the situation and social environment. At the hospital, the more scatologically inclined patients would not 'hear' language more familiar to the Surgeons or Chaplains. They would think it pompous and patronising, and it would not serve the main purpose of spoken language which is to communicate clearly. The reverse could also be true - language they might understand and be comfortable with would be innapropriate for use with the medicos and religious ones. All the Buddha had to communicate with was the spoken word. It is natural that he used it to induce certain mind states in his audience. He had to draw a fine line between 'frightening the horses' and making an impact. I don't think he used language carelessly, though translations may seem awkward at times. I wonder what exactly the Buddha was meaning when he said we should see danger in the slightest fault. This weekend I seem to see frequent mention of 'danger' in the suttas. I don't think it can only mean that by not being careful about 'small' faults, they grow into 'bigger' faults - (or he could have just said that ...). Words like 'danger' and 'revulsion' convey a 'seriousness' that, I think, was intended to arouse alertness. But of what specific danger? Death coming at any time? The possibility of being swept away to lower births for uncountable lives? Slipping backwards and not being born again when the teachings of a Buddha are extant? (Would that be possible ... never to hear the Teachings again? ... a horrifying idea). Frank - I'm really glad for your recent posts - often yours aren't the first I answer, simply because there is nothing much else that needs to be said. Your thoughts are always in tune with the Dhamma and are expressed in a straightforward, commonsense way - usually there is nothing confusing in them or anything that I empatically disagree with. Mostly I find myself saying, 'Yep, that's what I think too' and 'good point' as I read through. They always clarify and are a calming support. Thanks. metta, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Frank Kuan wrote: 18912 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:49pm Subject: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Hello Stephen, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote: Hello Jon, all >"The Buddha taught that whatever is taken for oneself or the world in >general is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that each of >these khandhas is not self." > >Do you see any problems with this? Not really, but I have a question concerning seeing the khandhas as the world. I've never really been clear on this. Rupa is taken to mean not just the physical body but matter, or the world, in general. I have some thoughts on this but I just want to ask the elementary question: why? If the khandhas are one of the analysis of the conventional self then how does rupa get interpreted as all rupa, not just the body? The other four khandha are not so regarded. Vinnana also exists 'out there' so why isn't it also regarded as all sentience: yours, mine, and the fish in the sea. As rupa is yours, mine, and the fish in the sea. metta, stephen (I hope we can avoid quibbling over pronouns ;-) KKT: In general, when people describe the world, they divide into matter/mind. Talking about a human being they divide into body/mind. The Buddha used the same analysis and called rupa/nama. Rupa = Body Nama = Mind He also analysed rupa/nama into more details as 5 aggregates: Body = Rupa Mind = Sensation + Perception + Mental Formations + Consciousness When Abhidhamma analysed the 5 aggregates into more details as 82 paramattha dhamma, Rupa now << embraces >> the whole world of Matter. KKT PS. FYI, the Sarvastivada analysed into 75 Dharmas. The Sautrantika, 84 Dharmas. The Yogacara of Mahayana, 100 Dharmas (The One Hundred Dharmas) 18913 From: nidive Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 4:38pm Subject: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hi James, > The thought will leave a `footprint' in consciousness, as all > mental processes are chemical in nature and it takes some time > for the chemicals (neurotransmitters) to leave the synapses of > the neurons, and then other firing neurons can know (piece > together) what proceeded previously because there are some traces > of what just occurred. However, the neurons must work very fast > to catch this and it usually takes many tries, feedback loops, > to get a clear picture of the proceeding memory from its footprint. If this is how you explain thought processes, then how do you explain the thought processes of devas and brahmas (both material and immaterial realms) and those of hell beings and petas? Do you mean these beings of other realms also have the same kind of chemical reactions taking place? I don't think so. Do beings in the immaterial realms have the same kind of brains as ours? Do they even have brains in the first place? I don't think thought processes should be understood in this manner. It's wacky. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18914 From: Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 4:47pm Subject: Way 39, Comm, Breathing "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Yhera, Commentary, The Section on Breasthing, p. 51 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html Iti ajjhattam va kaye kayanupassi viharati = "Thus he lives contemplating the body in the body internally." This bhikkhu dwells in contemplation of the body in his own respiration body. [Tika] By way of the practice of quietude [samatha bhavana] however there is no arising of the sign of full absorption [appana nimittuppatti] in another's respiration-body. Bahiddha va kaye kayanupassi viharati = "Or he lives contemplating the body in the body externally." Or this bhikkhu dwells in contemplation of the body in another's respiration-body. [T] "Or... in another's respiration-body." This portion deals with reflection for the growth of insight and has no reference to the growth of full absorption of quietude... Ajjhatta-bahiddha va kaye kayanupassi viharati = "Or he lives contemplating the body in the body internally and externally." At one time in his own and at another in another's respiration-body, he dwells in contemplation of the body. By this there is reference to the time when the yogi's mind moves repeatedly back and forth (internally and externally by way of object) without laying aside the familiar subject of meditation [kalena attano kalena parassa assasapassasakaye etenassa pagunakammatthanam atthapetva aparaparam sañcarana kalo kathito]. [T] "Without laying aside" at intervals, nor from time to time nor occasionally [antarantara na thapetva]. [T] "The time when the mind moves repeatedly back and forth." Or the time when the meditation proceeds incessantly, in the internal and external phenomena [ajjhatta-bahidha dhammesu pi nirantaram va bhavanaya pavattana kalo]. Both cannot occur at once [eka kale pana idam ubbayam na labbhati]. [T] This pair of things stated in combination as internal and external cannot be found in the form of an object at one time, simultaneously. It is not possible to objectify (these two) together is the meaning [ajjhattam bahiddhati ca vuttam idam dhammadvayaghatitam ekasmim kale, ekato arammanabhavena na labbhati. Ekajjham alambitum na sakkati attho]. 18915 From: James Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:38pm Subject: Some Basics of Brain Function Hi All, I don't mean to insult those who already know this information, but it has come to my attention that some don't. Skip or read as you please. From encyclopedia.com: Sensory nerve cells feed information to the brain from every part of the body, external and internal. The brain evaluates the data, then sends directives through the motor nerve cells to muscles and glands, causing them to take suitable action. Alternatively, the brain may inhibit action, as when a person tries not to laugh or cry, or it may simply store the information for later use. Both incoming information and outgoing commands traverse the brain and the rest of the nervous system in the form of electrochemical impulses. The human brain consists of some 10 billion interconnected nerve cells with innumerable extensions. This interlacing of nerve fibers and their junctions allows a nerve impulse to follow any of a virtually unlimited number of pathways. The effect is to give humans a seemingly infinite variety of responses to sensory input, which may depend upon experience, mood, or any of numerous other factors. During both sleep and consciousness, the ceaseless electrochemical activity in the brain generates brain waves that can be electronically detected and recorded Neurotransmitter is a chemical that transmits information across the junction ( synapse ) that separates one nerve cell (neuron) from another nerve cell or a muscle. Neurotransmitters are stored in the nerve cell's bulbous end (axon). When an electrical impulse traveling along the nerve reaches the axon, the neurotransmitter is released and travels across the synapse, either prompting or inhibiting continued electrical impulses along the nerve. There are more than 300 known neurotransmitters, including chemicals such as acetylcholine , norepinephrine , adenosine triphosphate , and the endorphins , and gases, such as nitric oxide . Neurotransmitters transmit information within the brain and from the brain to all the parts of the body. Acetylcholine, for example, sends messages to the skeletal muscles, sweat glands, and heart; serotonin release underlies the process of learning and consciousness. The actions of some drugs mimic those of naturally occurring neurotransmitters. The pain-regulating endorphins, for example, are similar in structure to heroin and codeine, which fill endorphin receptors to accomplish their effects. The wakefulness that follows caffeine consumption is the result of its blocking the effects of adenosine, a neurotransmitter that inhibits brain activity. Abnormalities in the production or functioning of certain neurotransmitters have been implicated in a number of diseases including Parkinson's disease , amyotrophic lateral sclerosis , and clinical depression . Synapse is a junction between various signal-transmitter cells, either between two neurons or between a neuron and a muscle or gland. A nerve impulse reaches the synapse through the axon, or transmitting end, of a nerve cell, or neuron. Most axons have terminal knobs that respond to the impulse by releasing a chemical substance known as a neurotransmitter. Crossing a gap of less than a millionth of an inch (the synaptic cleft), the neurotransmitter contacts the adjacent muscle, gland, or nerve cell or its branch receptor sites, called dendrites. Neurotransmitters known to scientists today include acetylcholine , epinephrine, and norepinephrine. These neurotransmitters either excite or inhibit the recipient cell, depending on the particular reaction between the two. In other words, a neurotransmitter may inhibit activity in the post-synapse cell when attached to a certain receptor, but may excite activity when attached to others. If sufficiently excited, the second cell transmits the impulse, typically to a muscle, gland, or another synapse. An electric synapse, unlike a chemical one, uses channels known as gap junctions to permit direct transmission of signals between neurons. Such synapses are found in the human body, within many organs and in the glial cells of the nervous system. Electrical synapses are also found among invertebrates and some lower vertebrates Metta, James 18916 From: Egberdina Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:28pm Subject: Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) Hi Swee Boon, I have not spoken directly with you before. I hope you don't mind if I get down to brass tacks immediately. I like the fourth precept very much. Not that I'm any good at keeping it. I also like the line "Thus have I heard", which prefaces many of the suttas. I like the combination of both of these, because from the context I can tell whether people are talking about something they know, or something they have heard. There is no such caveat prefacing your email. I would like to ask you: What do you *know* about immaterial beings? I think you quoting something that you have read and taken on faith, and know nothing about, and then using it to dispute something concrete and empirical that you can test for yourself is whacky. Wishing you well Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi James, > > If this is how you explain thought processes, then how do you > explain the thought processes of devas and brahmas (both material > and immaterial realms) and those of hell beings and petas? > > Do you mean these beings of other realms also have the same kind of > chemical reactions taking place? > > I don't think so. Do beings in the immaterial realms have the same > kind of brains as ours? Do they even have brains in the first place? > > I don't think thought processes should be understood in this manner. > It's wacky. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 18917 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 9:16pm Subject: Perfections, Ch 7, patience, no . 15 Perfections, Ch 7, patience, no . 15 To the Buddha the thought did not occur that he was of delicate constitution, that he had travelled all the way of fortyfive leagues within one day, and that he would take the ³lion¹s posture² [17] first, just for a moment, so that he could recover from tiredness caused by his journey. Therefore, the Buddha sat down and entered fruition attainment (phala samåpatti) [18] . As regards Pukkusåti, it did not occur to him that he had travelled all the way of hundred and twentynine leagues and that he should first take a rest, just for a moment, to dispel the tiredness caused by his journey. He sat down and entered the fourth jhåna with Mindfulness of Breathing. Question: Did the Buddha not come there with the thought to teach Dhamma to the son of a prominent family? Why did he not teach? Answer: He did not teach because the son of a prominent family was tired from his journey, and thus he had not sufficient calm to receive the teaching of Dhamma. First he should be able to overcome the tiredness of his journey and become calm. Further on we read: When the Buddha had emerged from his fruition attainment he saw that Pukkusåti was thoughtful as to the position of his hands and legs, that his head was stable, and that he sat steadfast like the foundation of a dam firmly constructed. He was immovable like a golden statue. The son of a prominent family had a posture that inspired confidence. If a posture inspires confidence it is in that way. Of the four postures three are not beautiful. When someone walks, his hands swing, his legs move and his head shakes. When someone stands, his body is harsh and rigid, and when he lies down, his body is not beautiful. However, when a monk has brushed and swept the place where he will rest at day time, after his meal, when he has spread out a cloth to sit on, well cleansed his hands and legs and sits crosslegged in the lotus position, then his posture is indeed beautiful. The son of a prominent family sat down crosslegged and entered the fourth jhåna with Mindfulness of Breathing in that way. We read in the Sutta, the ³Analysis of the Elements², that at that time the Buddha asked Pukkusåti: ³On account of whom have you, monk, gone forth? Who is your teacher? Whose Dhamma do you profess?² Pukkusåti answered: ²There is, friend, the recluse Gotama, son of the Sakyans, gone forth from the Sakyan clan; concerning this Lord Gotama a lovely reputation has gone abroad thus: He is indeed Lord, perfected one, fully Self-Awakened One, endowed with right conduct and knowledge, well-farer, knower of the worlds, matchless charioteer of men to be tamed, teacher of devas and mankind, the Awakened One, the Lord. On account of this Lord have I gone forth, and this Lord is my teacher; I profess this Lord¹s Dhamma.² Footnotes: 16. The khattiya clan was the highest clan. (belongs to Ch 7, no. 14) 17. The Buddha¹s sleeping posture on his right side. 18. Ariyans who have attained jhåna can have fruition-consciousness, lokuttara vipåkacitta, which experiences nibbåna, arising again many times after the moment of enlightenment. 18918 From: Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 4:35pm Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Hello KKT, So I understand your answer but I don't understand it. Things often go that way ;-) Okay, mind/ body, nama/rupa; yes. And various ways of making other subdivisions (as you wryly note, depending on whose abhidhamma). Khandha, as an analysis of a person into five components: fine. But rupa is taken to mean all matter, not just the physical body. But the mental components are just one's 'own', as it were; vinnana isn't consciousness at large. I know I'm just re-asking the original question. Perhaps it could be put polemically: rupa just means the body (the corpse), not materiality in general. (But I'm fairly sure it does have a broader range, even in the suttas.) Remaining somewhat perplexed on this one, metta, stephen 18919 From: Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 4:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Basics of Brain Function Hello James, Based on your post would you agree that, given the speed with which neural impulses are transmitted, synapses bridged, etc., that the theory of bhavanga, which says that consciousness consists of untold billions of separate sequences each second, is, in fact, *known* to be impossible? Just to state the obvious. metta, stephen 18920 From: James Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Basics of Brain Function --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote: > Hello James, > Based on your post would you agree that, given the speed with which neural > impulses are transmitted, synapses bridged, etc., that the theory of > bhavanga, which says that consciousness consists of untold billions of > separate sequences each second, is, in fact, *known* to be impossible? > Just to state the obvious. > metta, stephen Hi Stephen, I shall have to investigate that theory and get back to you. Unfortunately, without access to the original texts, I have to depend on the analysis and extrapolations of second party Abhidhamma scholars. And, contrary to what many believe, they are not all in agreement as to what the Abhidhamma states. If do find Nina's writings to be probably the most accurate reflection of its contents because of her minimal personal extrapolation of them. However, since her writings are so close to the actual contents of the Abhidhamma, without a lot of explanation, they are thick with Pali terms without explanation. And, because each Pali Term actually means several different things and is imprecise (later corrected with the invention of Sanskrit) I feel as if I am trying to read hieroglyphics. ;-) However, going by your description of this theory, I would say that it is quite impossible to `know' billions of brain sequences occurring simultaneously. Consciousness can hold only one mind object at a time. It appears as if there are more but that is only because they occur one after the other so quickly. However, since I believe that nibbana transforms a person's mind and its functioning completely, all bets are off when it comes to that. It is hard to say what an enlightened person knows. Along those lines, there have been studies into Buddhist meditation and how it does permanently change the structure and functioning of the brain in scientifically measurable ways. I will post some more on that tomorrow. Metta, James 18921 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state Hi Larry, Sorry for the delay - I get behind over the weekend when it’s busy work-wise for me. I think Nina may have given answers to similar questions you asked her, but I’ll give my reply anyway. > I thought pure insight vehicle was satipatthana without jhana. It is > mundane. Nibbana is not the object. ..... Before we get to yr Qu., as I understand, when we refer to the ‘pure insight vehicle’ or the sukkha vipassaka, this refers to the realization of nibbana without having attained any of the jhanas. Sometimes it is called ‘dry insight’ because sukkha (dry) is unmoistened by jhana. I agree that in ‘Way’ it is mundane satipatthana development being discussed. The realization of nibbana either for the sukkha vipassaka or the samathayanika (one who has also attained jhana) is therefore the culmination of this development. .... >My question is, do we need access > concentration to practice satipatthana? Is access concentration, in the > pure insight vehicle, merely the clear, intimate experience of the > object, or something else? ..... There is concentration (ekaggata cetasika) accompanying each citta. At moments of satipatthana, it must be kusala, but is only of access level at the moment of realizing nibbana in the ‘pure insight vehicle’.At that moment of sotapatti magga citta, I understand that because nibbana is the object the concentration is of this degree. When you ask if it is the ‘clear, intimate experience’ I’m not quite sure of your meaning. Panna still has the role of realization and full-knowing. Concentration still has the role of focusing or being ‘one-pointed’ on the object. So at this moment of lokuttara (supramundance) citta, it focuses on nibbana very strongly and unwaveringly. ..... >Is the counterpart sign different if one is > intending to practice insight rather than jhana? ..... When you put it like this, it sounds like there is some idea of selection or choice (see other threads;-)) As Nina mentioned, I think, it’s very easy for wrong concentration to be taken for right concentration and as I understand, whenever there is any wishing to concentrate or practise insight or jhana, a subtle (or not so subtle) attachment and often wrong view of self is there. Any moments of bhavana (development), whether of samatha or satipatthana, develop by conditions and especially depends on the understanding of the objects to be known and the knowledge of the distinction between moments of kusala and akusala. ..... >I am understanding the > two vehicles, tranquility and pure insight, to be part of the > satipatthana process. In other words, it could go either way. After > jhana or access concentration, satipatthana resumes. Is this correct? ..... Yes, ‘it could go either way’ or even ‘no way’;-) Like now at this moment, it could go the way of lobha, dosa, moha or kusala at the next moment. Who knows? As Christine explained so well imho, who can really make the next citta any particular way? It depends on all those different conditions coming together at this moment. At any moment of satipatthana or other wholesome state, it is calm from unwholesomeness at that moment. It depends on conditions whether samatha or satipatthana will develop to what degree. As Nina has explained, jhana is never the ultimate goal, because it only suppresses, not eradicates defilements. Life continues and satipatthana has to continue being aware of many different objects over and over again, even for those who have reached stages of jhana or even of enlightenment. I hope I haven’t confused further. Let me know if I have or if you disagree with anything. Sometimes I miss your point, I know;-) Thanks for persevering and for all the helpful comments and questions. Sarah ====== 18922 From: Frank Kuan Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:57pm Subject: Re: Armadillos, cheetahs, samma dithi, Re: [dsg] Strong language Hi Chris, The urgency and seriousness behind words like 'revlusion' do not refer only to this life. In the Samyutta especially, with the numerous discourses dealing with dependent arising and cessation of rebirth, we can see that the reason for the urgency is for this ceaseless cycle of suffering through repeated rebirth. -fk --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Frank, and All, > > Language should certainly be used in a manner which > is sensitive to > the situation and social environment. At the > hospital, the more > scatologically inclined patients would not 'hear' > language more > familiar to the Surgeons or Chaplains. They would > think it pompous > and patronising, and it would not serve the main > purpose of spoken > language which is to communicate clearly. The > reverse could also be > true - language they might understand and be > comfortable with would > be innapropriate for use with the medicos and > religious ones. > All the Buddha had to communicate with was the > spoken word. It is > natural that he used it to induce certain mind > states in his > audience. He had to draw a fine line between > 'frightening the > horses' and making an impact. I don't think he used > language > carelessly, though translations may seem awkward at > times. I wonder > what exactly the Buddha was meaning when he said we > should see danger > in the slightest fault. This weekend I seem to see > frequent mention > of 'danger' in the suttas. I don't think it can > only mean that by > not being careful about 'small' faults, they grow > into 'bigger' > faults - (or he could have just said that ...). > Words like 'danger' > and 'revulsion' convey a 'seriousness' that, I > think, was intended to > arouse alertness. But of what specific danger? Death > coming at any > time? The possibility of being swept away to lower > births for > uncountable lives? Slipping backwards and not being > born again when > the teachings of a Buddha are extant? (Would that be > possible ... > never to hear the Teachings again? ... a horrifying > idea). > Frank - I'm really glad for your recent posts - > often yours aren't > the first I answer, simply because there is nothing > much else that > needs to be said. Your thoughts are always in tune > with the Dhamma > and are expressed in a straightforward, commonsense > way - usually > there is nothing confusing in them or anything that > I empatically > disagree with. Mostly I find myself saying, 'Yep, > that's what I > think too' and 'good point' as I read through. They > always clarify > and are a calming support. Thanks. > > metta, > Chris > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Frank Kuan > > wrote: > 18923 From: Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Basics of Brain Function Hello James, >Along those lines, there have >been studies into Buddhist meditation and how it does permanently >change the structure and functioning of the brain in scientifically >measurable ways. I will post some more on that tomorrow. Good. ...and good night, metta, stephen 18924 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:53pm Subject: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Dear Stephen, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote: Hello KKT, So I understand your answer but I don't understand it. Things often go that way ;-) Okay, mind/ body, nama/rupa; yes. And various ways of making other subdivisions (as you wryly note, depending on whose abhidhamma). Khandha, as an analysis of a person into five components: fine. But rupa is taken to mean all matter, not just the physical body. But the mental components are just one's 'own', as it were; vinnana isn't consciousness at large. I know I'm just re-asking the original question. Perhaps it could be put polemically: rupa just means the body (the corpse), not materiality in general. (But I'm fairly sure it does have a broader range, even in the suttas.) Remaining somewhat perplexed on this one, metta, stephen KKT: Since the Buddha was interested exclusively in how to liberate mankind then when he analysed a person into five components, he designated exclusively Rupa as the physical body. But the Abhidhamma was interested in how to explain the whole world, therefore Rupa was designated as the materiality in general. As for your question about << vinnana isn't consciousness at large >> I think your notion of << consciousness at large >> appeared only with the Yogacara of Mahayana when they used the word Alayavijnana (Storehouse Consciousness) to denote a << super >> consciousness which is both individual and collective and contains everything, people as well the world. Thus the name of this school: << Mind-Only or Mere-Consciousness School >> (i.e. everything is illusion, only Consciousness is real) Metta, KKT 18925 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hi NEO (Howard and Peter), (I think I’m going to follow James’ lead on your name as it’s short and easy and you haven’t stated any preference between the two camps....sorry Howard, I think we’re out-numbered;-)) "nidive " wrote: > Hi Howard and All, > > > Immediately following the thought of 'the car' there may be an > > awareness of that very thought, of the immediately preceding > > mindstate, or aspects of it, as a fresh memory. It does seem to > > me, by introspection, that there is a difference between the > > discernment occurring while "having a thought" and the discernment > > *of* that thought (as an object of consciousness), the latter, I > > believe, occurring *after* the thought, per se, has subsided, and > > only a fresh memory remains. ..... > Would any Abhidhamma gurus please clarify on this matter? .... Put like this is I’m sure a condition to get no response;-) ..... Anyway, a few ignorant worldling non-guru comments: Howard and I have discussed this before and it’s pretty much in agreement with the abhidhamma as I understand. I’m assuming that by ‘thought’, Howard is referring to the citta that thinks and not the concept of ‘car’ which of course can not be the object of awareness, not being a paramattha dhamma (ultimate reality). So yes, the thinking (or ‘thought’) thinks of the car. The characteristic of thinking can be the object of awareness, strictly speaking, immediately following its arising, but we still refer to it as present object, not memory. I know this is a difficult point for some people. Like a perfect photocopy, it isn’t the original thinking (or discernment) of the concept, but the characteristic that appears as object which is to all intents and purposes just the same as the original in a practical sense. Yesterday, prompted by a post of Nina’s, I was reading the notes at the back of the Wheel ‘Ideal Solitude’ by B.Nanananda. It contains a wealth of useful info (not sure if it’s on line - I have a very old falling-to-pieces as I read it copy in front of me). He’s discussing the phrase ‘Atiita.m naanaagameyya’ (‘Let one not trace back the past’) from the Bhaddekeratta sutta and similar to the phrase in the Thera Sutta - both recently quoted. He writes: “This phrase helps us to understand the significane of the Buddha’s constant advice to ‘let-go’ the past. The exposition clearly reveals that it is not so much the mere recollection of the past that is the bondage, as the element of delight (nandi) or ‘desire and lust’ (chandaraaga) one finds therein. It is the tendency to retrace, revive, relive and relish the past, that has to be eliminated and hence there comes in the necessity of detachment even with regard to thought processes.” (Peter - do you have this wheel? It continues with a discussion on sati and memory which you might find of interest). In other words, it’s not a matter of not thinking or not using concepts, as some believe (but not by anyone I’ve read on DSG as far as I recall), but of understanding and detachment whilst thinking of whatever concept. he gives 2 footnotes to this para: 1. “mind is not the bondage for ideas; ideas are not the bondage for the mind; but whatever desire and lust that arises therein dependent on them both - that is the bondage therein.” S1V 163 (Kotthika S.). 2. Cf Bahiya S, Ud. p8 ‘Vi~n~naate vi~n~naatamatta.m bhavissati’ - ‘in the thought, there will be just the thought.’ Later he discusses the same with regard to thoughts about the future: “ ‘Nappa.tika.nkhe anaagatam’: As in the case of the past, so with regard to the future too, it is the ‘delight’ or ‘desire and lust’ that gives rise to yearning or anxiety. The aspiration for acquisition is the condition for delight in this case and in being delighted one is yearning for the future.” This is followed by some comments I’m not sure I agree with, so I’ll leave it here;-) Sarah ====== 18926 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 1:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Forest and Lone Dwelling Dear Nina, (Frank. Chris & All), --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, > thank you for the quotes, and also what Jon hears from tapes, excerpts > most > welcome. ..... After discussing the Thera Sutta on tape (perhaps the part about pakati was from the commentary?), K.Sujin continues by discussing the Gulissani Sutta (MN 69). I didn’t hear any of her comments, but I was interested to read the sutta after the Thera sutta. There are plenty of helpful reminders I find. Gulissani is a forest-dwelling bhikkhu ‘of lax behaviour’. The first point Sariputta makes is that when a ‘forest-dwelling’ bhikkhu joins the Sangha ‘he should be respectful and deferential towards his companions’ to prevent adverse comments about the benefits of a forest dwelling bhikkhu. So it continues with ‘good behaviour’,and then to entering the village not too early or late, not making ‘untimely’ visits to families, not being ‘haughty and personally vain’, not being ‘rough-tongued and loose-spoken’, ‘easy to correct and should associate with good friends’, ‘guard the doors of his sense faculties’, ‘moderate in eating’, ‘devoted to wakefulness’, ‘energetic’, ‘established in mindfulness’, ‘concentrated’, ‘wise’, ‘should apply himself to higher Dhamma and the higher discipline’, the 8 attainments, all supramundane states. We might think that these increasingly tough stipulations only apply to forest-dwellers or that the sutta is suggesting that forest-dwelling is necessary for following the stipulations. However, at the very end Maha Mogallana asked Sariputta “should these things be undertaken and practised only by a forest-swelling bhikkhu or by a town-dwelling bhikkhu as well?” Sariputta replies: “Friend Moggallana, these things should be undertaken and practised not only by a forest-dwelling bhikkhu, but by a town-dwelling bhikkhu as well.” ***** > O yes, here it is, in Wheel 188, Ideal Solitude: > > Idha Thera ya.m atiita.m pahiia.m > what is past is abandoned > > ya.m anaagata.m pa.tinissata.m > The future is relinquished > > Paccupannesa ca attabhaavapa.tilaabhesu chandaraago suppa.tiviniito > And the desire and lust for the present modes of personality is well > under > control > Eva.m kho Thera ekavihaaro vitthaarena paripu.n.no hoti > It is thus, Elder, that (the ideal of) lone-dwelling becomes > fulfilled,in > all its details. ..... I found it interesting (with your prompt) to read all the discussion in this Wheel on ‘eka’ (lone) after our discussions on ‘Way’ for ekapada. This meaning of ‘eka’(alone without desire as companion) has taken on more significance for me. From Nanananda’s comments: “We saw above how the Theranamo Sutta expounds the true ideal of solitude (ekaviharo) as against the popular and commonplace concept of solitude. The true ideal is depicted as a ‘solitude’ of mind, gained by giving up everything belonging to the past and the future and by disciplining well the desire and lust for one’s present modes of personality. “The concluding verse makes it clear that the ideal lone-dweller is unsoiled as to all phenomena and is ‘well released, renouncing all’. This reminds us of the term ‘upadhiviveka’ (detachment from all assets or substrata) denoting Nibbana, which is the highest mental solitude (citta viveka, citta vuupakaasa)......”. metta, Sarah ........ p.s. Nina, I can’t really add to anything on attabhaava as I haven’t given it sufficient attention as you have. However, B.Bodhi adds another footnote to Lakkhanasamyutta in SN, Nidanavagga (11, 255): “Evaruupo pi naama satto bhavissati evaruupo pi naama yakkho bhavissati evaruupo pi naama attabhaavapa.tilaabho bhavissati” (“That there could be such a being, that there could be such a spirit, that there could be such a form of individual existence!”) Commentary: “Spk: In saying this Moggallana shows his ense of urgency in Dhamma, arisen out of compassion fo such beings. “The expression attabhaavapa.tilaabho, which literally means “acquisition of selfhood,” is used idiomatically to denote a concrete form of individual identity. Attabhaava sometimes occurs in a more restricted sense with reference to the physical body, for instance at Ud 54, 17-19 ======================================== 18927 From: rahula_80 Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 1:40am Subject: Renunciation Hi, Han Yu, a famous literateur in Tang dynasty, said: " now (the Taoists and Buddhists) seek to govern their hearts by escaping from the world, the state, and the family. They destroy the natural principles of human relations so that the son does not regard his father as a father, the minister does not regard his ruler as a ruler, and people don't attend to their work---"( A Source Book of Chinese Philosophy, 455) What is the Buddhist reply to this criticism by Confucianism? Best wishes, Rahula 18928 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Forest and Lone Dwelling Hi Frank, Always good to see you around.... Some useful comments in your posts to Chris as well. --- Frank Kuan wrote: > Sarah, I can appreciate the alternate understanding of > "alone", but I personally doubt that kind of "alone" > can be realized without the aid of the standard > understanding of alone. .... Thanks for coming in on this thread. I can certainly appreciate the value of the monk’s life too and I can appreciate that living physically alone comes naturally for some (especially for those with highly developed samatha). ..... > > As the crested, > blue-necked peacock, > when flying, > never matches > the wild goose > in speed: > Even so the householder > never keeps up with the monk, > the sage secluded, > doing jhana > in the forest. > Sn.I.12 .... I don’t have any commentary notes. In the Saddhatissa transl for the last lines, it has “Similarly, the householder can never resemble the monk who is endowed with the qualities of a sage who meditates , aloof, in the jungle." What is the meaning of aloof? In the very first line of the sutta we read ‘Fear arises because of intimacy’ or in the Thanissaro transl you refer to, Danger is born from intimacy,[1] In his footnote to this, he says intimacy refers to ‘craving and views’. There are other references to wandering alone and being undisturbed or unaffected by the wordly conditions and attachments. We read that the wise sage is the one who has crossed the flood and completely freed from the asavas and hence a householder still ensnared by the intoxicants cannot compare to the arahant bhikkhu dwelling ‘in bliss’ in the forest. Thanissaro mentions this was a favourite sutta of King Asoka’s. Does it mean we would all be better off by going to the forest? I don’t read it that way. ..... > bodhisattva practice #3 of 37 > Withdrawing completely from things that excite us, > Our mental disturbances slowly decline. > And ridding our mind of directionless wandering, > Attention on virtue will surely increase. > > As wisdom shines clearer, the world comes in focus, > Our confidence grows in the Dhamma we've learned. > Live all alone far away in seclusion - > The Sons of the Buddhas all practice this way. .... When I read accounts of the lives of the Buddha as a Bodhisatta or other Buddhas or read about the birth stories of ‘the ten Bodhisattas’ to come, what they all have in common is the development of the parami(perfections) in the most difficult of circumstances, usually amongst other sentient beings. For example, this morning I was reading the account of the ‘Monkey-king’ Jataka which James kindly included for the Kids. I read of great renunciation, patience, generosity and wisdom, but little in the way of physical seclusion. As I say, it’s certainly not that I don’t and can’t appreciate the secluded forest life for some or the monk’s life for many, but I think as the earlier suttas I quoted from show, one really has to know one’s accumulations and have the right ‘requisites’, otherwise it can lead to very disturbed mental states and take one further away from the path if it's with the idea that 'seclusion' is a necessary condition for developing insight. Just a few ideas. I’ll be glad to hear any more of your well-considered reflections. Sarah ====== p.s the astanga yoga is going well - I definitely appreciate the group support for this too;-)Hope your teaching and yoga are also going well. 18929 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 3:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? Herman Since I'm no doubt perceived as being 'one of them', I had better come in with a contribution ;-)) I am quite comfortable with the concept of control in a conventional context. For example, the fact that we manage to get around most of the time without injuring ourselves or others can quite properly be said to be due to the 'care' that we take (i.e., the control we exercise). Also, a person highly trained in a particular physical/mental discipline can be said to have a higher degree of bodily/vocal/mental control than someone not trained in that discipline. In an ultimate (paramattha) sense, the picture is quire different. According to the teachings, all dhammas are conditioned and arise by virtue of a number of conditions that are unseen/unknown to us. Furthermore, these dhammas are said to arise and fall away at an extremely rapid rate and, in the case of cittas, in specific processes. If that is the case, then it seems to me that dhammas are not subject to control in any meaningful sense of the word. My conclusion. It's OK to say that the Buddha had a highly controlled (i.e., trained) mind, or that the Buddha had a very high degree of control over his mind, or however you wish to put it. This is an appropriate conventional perspective. However, in paramattha terms, the dhammas that made up what we take for the Buddha were no more subject to control than the dhammas that make up what we take for you or me. Jon PS I liked your earlier post on the futility of arguing over the 'correct' label. I've tried to refer here to specific circumstances or instances. --- "Egberdina " wrote: > Hi all, > > I am pitching this question at those who argue that control is not > possible. (I know who you are, I have filmed your secret gatherings > :- > ). > > Did the Buddha exercise any control over his mind? > > All the best > > > Herman 18930 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 4:44am Subject: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Jon, I would be interested to know where in the Pali Canon the Buddha taught that "whatever is taken for oneself or the world in general is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas." I do see some problem with the statement "whatever is taken for oneself or the world in general is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas." The problem I see is not that whether it is true or false. The problem I see is whether the Buddha actually taught it. I am not sure what you mean by "directed" abandoning and would be interested to know what you mean by that. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > --- "yu_zhonghao " > wrote: > > Jon, > > > > There are two points I would like to make: > > > > 1. You said that: > > "The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world > > around us is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that > > each of these khandhas is not self." > > > > Whom is the pronoun "we" referring to? Is it referring to you and > > me? Or is it referring to you and some others? Or is it referring > > to everyone? > > We are at cross-purposes here, Victor. I am summarising or > paraphrasing the words of the Buddha from the suttas (to the best of > my understanding), while you are taking my statement as an expression > of my own experience or developed view, which it certainly is not. > > If you find any inaccuracy in the statement *as simply a restatement > of what was taught by the Buddha*, then by all means share your > thoughts with us. > > BTW, if it is just the pronoun "we" that is a concern, the statement > could be rephrased as follows: > "The Buddha taught that whatever is taken for oneself or the world in > general is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that each of > these khandhas is not self." > > Do you see any problems with this? > > > If you take the five aggregate for yourself, I would suggest you > > abandon the view "the aggregates are self." > > Well I can agree with the underlying sentiment here, namely, that a > view that 'the aggregates are self' would not be a correct view. > > As for abandoning, I believe that is easier said than done. To my > understanding, wrong view can be eradicated only by the development > of satipatthana and insight into the true nature of presently arising > dhammas. > > Any attempt at 'directed' abandoning will be of no useful effect. > > Are we in agreement on this point? > > Jon 18931 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 4:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? Jon, It is not skillful to assume that one is made up of the five aggregates. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Herman > > Since I'm no doubt perceived as being 'one of them', I had better > come in with a contribution ;-)) > > I am quite comfortable with the concept of control in a conventional > context. For example, the fact that we manage to get around most of > the time without injuring ourselves or others can quite properly be > said to be due to the 'care' that we take (i.e., the control we > exercise). > > Also, a person highly trained in a particular physical/mental > discipline can be said to have a higher degree of bodily/vocal/mental > control than someone not trained in that discipline. > > In an ultimate (paramattha) sense, the picture is quire different. > According to the teachings, all dhammas are conditioned and arise by > virtue of a number of conditions that are unseen/unknown to us. > Furthermore, these dhammas are said to arise and fall away at an > extremely rapid rate and, in the case of cittas, in specific > processes. If that is the case, then it seems to me that dhammas are > not subject to control in any meaningful sense of the word. > > My conclusion. It's OK to say that the Buddha had a highly > controlled (i.e., trained) mind, or that the Buddha had a very high > degree of control over his mind, or however you wish to put it. This > is an appropriate conventional perspective. However, in paramattha > terms, the dhammas that made up what we take for the Buddha were no > more subject to control than the dhammas that make up what we take > for you or me. > > Jon > > PS I liked your earlier post on the futility of arguing over the > 'correct' label. I've tried to refer here to specific circumstances > or instances. > > --- "Egberdina " wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I am pitching this question at those who argue that control is not > > possible. (I know who you are, I have filmed your secret gatherings > > :- > > ). > > > > Did the Buddha exercise any control over his mind? > > > > All the best > > > > > > Herman 18932 From: nidive Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 4:56am Subject: Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) Hi Herman, According to the Abhidhamma, all brain chemical reactions are merely rupas. None of them are namas. Herein lies the mystery. If you accept that all brain chemical reactions are merely rupas, can you call them "thought processes"? Knowing that brain chemical reactions are not "thought processes", I also know that immaterial beings cannot have brain chemical reactions. Of course, you can argue that I am using circular logic with the Abhidhamma as a "closed system". But I take the Buddha's words on faith. I don't take science on faith. And how do you know that whatever brain chemical reactions that take place in your brains represent the very thoughts of yours? Don't you take that on faith as well? Do you really know that Brain Chemical Reaction A corresponds to Thought X? It's all just scientific assumptions. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18933 From: nidive Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:06am Subject: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hi Sarah, > > Would any Abhidhamma gurus please clarify on this matter? > Put like this is I'm sure a condition to get no response;-) ..... Thank you Sarah. I correct myself. Would any person with sufficient knowledge in the Abhidhamma please clarify on this matter? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18934 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? Dear Herman, A king will have control over his kingdom. Likewise the Buddha is called "chiththeshwara" - meaning, having control over the mind. So to answer your question "Did the Buddha exercise any control over his mind?" well, you have to refer the pitakas, "but" as he is having control over his mind - he could. ~with meththa ranil >Did the Buddha exercise any control over his mind? 18935 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 6:00am Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Stephen --- oreznoone@a... wrote: > > Hello Jon, all ... <> It's not an easy area to get to grips with. <> The khandhas are, to my understanding, a description of the dhammas (realities) that make up the present moment, and are capable of being directly experienced (by awareness/insight). In the case of the 4 khandhas that are nama, these will in practice be our own nama-khandhas, since the namas of another cannot be the object of our direct expereince (as a general case). In the case of the rupa-khandha, however, this includes rupas other than those we take for our own body, since we experience 'external' rupas also. At this very moment of reading a message, for example, the rupa of visible object is being experienced by seeing. To summarise, the 4 nama khandhas and 1 rupa khandha include all the namas and rupas that are experienced at the present moment. In this sense, there is no difference in the scope of the 2. I hope this is clear. Please don’t hesitate to say if it's not. <<(I hope we can avoid quibbling over pronouns ;-)>> (I think we've manaaged to do so, so far ;-)) Jon 18936 From: James Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 6:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: However, in paramattha > terms, the dhammas that made up what we take for the Buddha were no > more subject to control than the dhammas that make up what we take > for you or me. > > Jon Jonathan, I would disagree. The Buddha must have had complete control over his body and mind. The Lord Buddha was able to multiply himself, pass his body through solid objects, and transport his body to alternate realms…and other enlightened monks and nuns could levitate and fly…according to the written suttas, which I don't think are lying. If you think these are exaggerations or fantasy, well, sutta- yourself. ;-)just kidding. I don't have concrete proof. But I think that far too many members of this group are evaluating what the Buddha could or could not do based on themselves, and forgetting the highest of human potential. We are limited, the Buddha was not. Metta, James 18937 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 6:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? --- "James " wrote: > - If you think these are exaggerations or fantasy, well, > sutta-yourself. No commentary. 18938 From: nidive Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 6:23am Subject: Re: Some Basics of Brain Function Hi James, > I don't mean to insult those who already know this information, > but it has come to my attention that some don't. Skip or read as > you please. From encyclopedia.com: ... I think a crucial question to ask is this: Is the brain considered as part of the body? I think that the brain is considered as part of the body. If this is the case, then a look at Kimsuka Sutta would tell us that the body and consciousness (mind) are different things. "I have given you this simile, monk, to convey a message. The message is this: The fortress stands for this BODY-- COMPOSED OF FOUR ELEMENTS, BORN OF MOTHER & FATHER, NOURISHED WITH RICE & BARLEY GRUEL, SUBJECT TO CONSTANT RUBBING & ABRASION, TO BREAKING & FALLING APART. The six gates stand for the six internal sense media. The gatekeeper stands for mindfulness. The swift pair of messengers stands for tranquillity (samatha) and insight (vipassana). The commander of the fortress stands for CONSCIOUSNESS. The central square stands for the four great elements: the earth-property, the liquid-property, the fire-property, & the wind-property. The accurate report stands for Unbinding (nibbana). The route by which they had come stands for the noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-204.html James, I am very sure that the brain is part of the body. A look at the following picture might convince you. Go to http://geostone.cjb.net/ Website title: Suicide and Attempted Suicide: Methods and Consequences. Click on "Suicide methods: photos and drawings (WARNING: GORY)" Then click on "Gunshot to head." under the Section Guns. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18939 From: James Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 6:27am Subject: Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi Herman, > > According to the Abhidhamma, all brain chemical reactions are merely > rupas. None of them are namas. > > Herein lies the mystery. If you accept that all brain chemical > reactions are merely rupas, can you call them "thought processes"? > > Knowing that brain chemical reactions are not "thought processes", I > also know that immaterial beings cannot have brain chemical > reactions. > > Of course, you can argue that I am using circular logic with the > Abhidhamma as a "closed system". But I take the Buddha's words on > faith. I don't take science on faith. > > And how do you know that whatever brain chemical reactions that take > place in your brains represent the very thoughts of yours? Don't you > take that on faith as well? Do you really know that Brain Chemical > Reaction A corresponds to Thought X? It's all just scientific > assumptions. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, Thank you for blowing the fallacies of the Abhidhamma wide open!! It's concept of rupa and that rupa isn't capable of thought is completely absurd; actually, it smacks of belief in a spirit or soul or self that is separate from matter. In mundane reality, we are all composed of the same materials as stars. Everything in the universe came from one element: hydrogen. In material substance, what composes us is little different from the material that composes rocks. Yes, the brain thinks with chemicals. If you doubt that, take some mind-altering drugs like LSD, cocaine, or heroine, and see how they will change your thinking (however, I would recommend just drinking some coffee with caffeine, because that will change your thinking also…and you won't be breaking the precepts). Setting aside the fact that the Buddha didn't teach nama/rupa, your choice to have faith in the Buddha's teachings, on faith alone, is in direct contradiction to what he wanted. He told everyone not to have faith in what he taught but to practice it, consider it, and observe it for oneself…and then choose to believe it or not. But if you choose to cling to nama/rupa concepts that is your choice, but you should stay away from computers then. The very computer that you are using to send your e-mails is using a rudimentary thought processing called binary code; and it is quite possible that in the future (when information processing is based on compressed air and fiber optics) computers will be capable of thought very similar to that of human beings. But I am not going to argue this; I will unlikely respond to a counter response. Metta, James 18940 From: nidive Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 6:39am Subject: Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) Hi James, > Thank you for blowing the fallacies of the Abhidhamma wide open!! > It's concept of rupa and that rupa isn't capable of thought is > completely absurd; actually, it smacks of belief in a spirit or > soul or self that is separate from matter. Even though I take the Buddha's word on faith, does that mean that I do not know rupa as rupa and nama as nama? No, I do know rupa as rupa and nama as nama. For it is taking the Buddha's word on faith in the first place, then I came to know rupa as rupa and nama as nama. Faith first, then insight later. If there is no faith in the first place, how can insight arise? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18941 From: nidive Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 7:16am Subject: Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) Hi James, > Yes, the brain thinks with chemicals. If you doubt that, take some > mind-altering drugs like LSD, cocaine, or heroine, and see how > they will change your thinking (however, I would recommend just > drinking some coffee with caffeine, because that will change your > thinking also…and you won't be breaking the precepts). I think that such drugs affects the five sense organs (which is really the brain, because of the nerve connections. I see the brain as merely the five sense organs). When the five sense organs are affected, perceptions are distorted. When perceptions are distorted, feelings are distorted, and thus thinking (this is distinct from brain) is distorted. Because of the distortions in perceptions from the five sense organs, thinking becomes distorted. We are often told that if you drink alcohol, you should not drive. Why is this so? Because the five sense organs are distorted. Perceptions then become distorted, resulting in thinking (reaction) being distorted. James, I don't deny that alcohol and drugs affect the brain. But I see the brain as merely the equivalent of the five sense organs because of the nerve connections. The brain is not "consciousness", or nama. It is rupa. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18942 From: Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:28am Subject: Ekagatta Cetasika & Concentration [Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state] Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 1/20/03 1:48:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > There is concentration (ekaggata cetasika) accompanying each citta. =========================== If ekagatta cetasika means concentration as the term is usually understood, then I have difficulty in understanding it as being a characteristic of each citta. I do not see ekaggata cetasika as concentration in the usual sense, but rather as a tendency *towards* concentration. Let me explain. Any citta has a single object, and, in that sense, there is always maximal concentration. So, surely, that is not meant, because there are, after all, degrees of concentration. It seems to me that concentration in the sense that the Buddha uses it in the suttas, and as most people use the word, is a feature of trains of thought, of sequences of cittas, and what it refers to is the degree of maintenance of "the same" object from mindstate to mindstate during the course of a sequence of cittas. If one's mental processes are lengthy - whether the commentarial maximum length of 17 is the true maximum or not is unimportant - and if long mental processes with "the same object" repeatedly occur with only brief interrupting processes involving other objects interspersed, then one's mind is strongly concentrated. But if the mind sticks with an object from citta to citta only sporadically and briefly, then the mind is very unconcentrated. That's how I see it. Now, it may be that there is an "ekagatta cetasika" which is the tendency/inclination/predisposition to stick with the current object, and the stronger that tendency is, the more concentrated the mindstream will tend to be. So, from this perspective, 'ekagatta cetasika' and 'concentration' do not carry the same meaning, but they are related terms, and ekagatta cetasika is the primary condition for concentration, with concentration being a trans-citta event. Any thoughts on this? 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) 18943 From: Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:39am Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Hi, KKT (and Stephen) - As I see it, rupa is the content of consciousness through the five physical sense doors. It consists of sights, sounds, tastes, textures and other body-touch sensings, and odors, and it is basically the same for all human beings (and is comparable for other embodied beings). The world is to be found in this fathom long body the Buddha said, if I remember correctly. The Buddhist take on rupa is a phenomenological one, pertaining to so-called physical experience. (I don't raise this issue here of what might or might not *underlie* such experience.) With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/20/03 2:53:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > Dear Stephen, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote: > > > Hello KKT, > So I understand your answer but I don't understand it. Things often > go that way ;-) > Okay, mind/ body, nama/rupa; yes. And various ways of making other > subdivisions (as you wryly note, depending on whose abhidhamma). > Khandha, as an analysis of a person into five components: fine. > But rupa is taken to mean all matter, not just the physical body. > But the mental components are just one's 'own', as it were; vinnana > isn't consciousness at large. > I know I'm just re-asking the original question. > Perhaps it could be put polemically: rupa just means the body (the > corpse), not materiality in general. (But I'm fairly sure it does > have a broader range, even in the suttas.) > Remaining somewhat perplexed on this one, > metta, stephen > > > > > > KKT: Since the Buddha was interested > exclusively in how to liberate mankind > then when he analysed a person into > five components, he designated > exclusively Rupa as the physical body. > > But the Abhidhamma was interested > in how to explain the whole world, > therefore Rupa was designated as > the materiality in general. > > > As for your question about > <> > I think your notion of <> > appeared only with the Yogacara of > Mahayana when they used the word > Alayavijnana (Storehouse Consciousness) > to denote a <>consciousness > which is both individual and collective > and contains everything, people as well > the world. Thus the name of this school: > <> > (i.e. everything is illusion, only Consciousness is real) > > > Metta, > > > KKT > > /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) 18944 From: Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hi, Sarah - I'm replying to just the early part of your post. In a message dated 1/20/03 2:54:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Hi NEO (Howard and Peter), > > (I think I’m going to follow James’ lead on your name as it’s short and > easy and you haven’t stated any preference between the two camps....sorry > Howard, I think we’re out-numbered;-)) > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I can be very stubborn! ;-)) --------------------------------------------------- > > "nidive " wrote: >Hi Howard and > All, > > > >>Immediately following the thought of 'the car' there may be an > >>awareness of that very thought, of the immediately preceding > >>mindstate, or aspects of it, as a fresh memory. It does seem to > >>me, by introspection, that there is a difference between the > >>discernment occurring while "having a thought" and the discernment > >>*of* that thought (as an object of consciousness), the latter, I > >>believe, occurring *after* the thought, per se, has subsided, and > >>only a fresh memory remains. > ..... > >Would any Abhidhamma gurus please clarify on this matter? > .... > Put like this is I’m sure a condition to get no response;-) ..... > > Anyway, a few ignorant worldling non-guru comments: > > Howard and I have discussed this before and it’s pretty much in agreement > with the abhidhamma as I understand. I’m assuming that by ‘thought’, > Howard is referring to the citta that thinks and not the concept of ‘car’ > which of course can not be the object of awareness, not being a paramattha > dhamma (ultimate reality). > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes. ------------------------------------------------------------ So yes, the thinking (or ‘thought’) thinks of> > the car. The characteristic of thinking can be the object of awareness, > strictly speaking, immediately following its arising, but we still refer > to it as present object, not memory. I know this is a difficult point for > some people. Like a perfect photocopy, it isn’t the original thinking (or > discernment) of the concept, but the characteristic that appears as object > which is to all intents and purposes just the same as the original in a > practical sense. > > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. Such a perfect (or near-perfect or relatively faithful) "photocopy" is pretty much what I mean by "fresh memory". ========================== 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) 18945 From: James Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 7:50am Subject: Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " > >I don't deny that alcohol and drugs affect the brain. But I > see the brain as merely the equivalent of the five sense organs > because of the nerve connections. The brain is not "consciousness", > or nama. It is rupa. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, Well, this may be what you think but it is not correct. The brain is not the five sense organs and the chemicals I mentioned do not affect the five sense organs, only the brain. The sense organs and the brain are entirely different. The sense organs only react to stimulus through nerve cells and send signals to the brain, where these signals are then processed using electrochemical processes; sometimes voluntary, as in thinking, decision making, etc., and sometimes involuntary, as in heart beat, breathing, etc. Simply examining the consequences of head trauma or stroke can disprove your theory. These incidents affect the brain only and in turn affect how the brain processes sensory information from the sense organs. The idea that consciousness/thinking or nama, is somehow separate from the functions of rupa (matter) seems to be a belief in a soul or a self that is doing the thinking. Right? What is doing the thinking if it isn't the interaction of rupa elements? But, is brain processes all that there is? No, because that wouldn't explain karma and transmigration; which are also scientifically proven (at the sub-atomic level through quantum physics). But that is an area that the rupa thinking of the brain cannot comprehend fully. One must become nibbana to understand that (Yes, I still stick to that theory). Metta, James 18946 From: Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 3:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) Hi, Swe Boon - In a message dated 1/20/03 10:17:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > Hi James, > > >Yes, the brain thinks with chemicals. If you doubt that, take some > >mind-altering drugs like LSD, cocaine, or heroine, and see how > >they will change your thinking (however, I would recommend just > >drinking some coffee with caffeine, because that will change your > >thinking also…and you won't be breaking the precepts). > > I think that such drugs affects the five sense organs (which is > really the brain, because of the nerve connections. I see the brain > as merely the five sense organs). > > When the five sense organs are affected, perceptions are distorted. > When perceptions are distorted, feelings are distorted, and thus > thinking (this is distinct from brain) is distorted. Because of the > distortions in perceptions from the five sense organs, thinking > becomes distorted. > > We are often told that if you drink alcohol, you should not drive. > Why is this so? Because the five sense organs are distorted. > Perceptions then become distorted, resulting in thinking (reaction) > being distorted. > > James, I don't deny that alcohol and drugs affect the brain. But I > see the brain as merely the equivalent of the five sense organs > because of the nerve connections. The brain is not "consciousness", > or nama. It is rupa. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > =============================== I think you make a very interesting and original point here. 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) 18947 From: nidive Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 8:24am Subject: Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) Hi James, > The brain is not the five sense organs and the chemicals I mentioned > do not affect the five sense organs, only the brain. The sense organs > and the brain are entirely different. But the sense organs and the brain are connected. If they are connected, how can they be entirely different from each other? I see the brain as merely an extension of the sense organs in this respect because of the connection. > sometimes voluntary, as in thinking, decision making, etc., and Cittas can also produce rupas. I think that whatever chemical reactions in the brain that takes place "voluntarily" is rupa produced by cittas. >sometimes involuntary, as in heart beat, breathing, etc. These "involuntary" things do not affect the mind (nama). They occur on the rupa level. The heart still beats in an unconscious person. Yet, does he *know* that the heart beating after he has woken up? > The idea that consciousness/thinking or nama, is somehow separate > from the functions of rupa (matter) seems to be a belief in a soul > or a self that is doing the thinking. Right? No, I don't agree. From what I experienced for myself, even namas are not-self. > What is doing the thinking if it isn't the interaction of rupa elements? Namas. > But, is brain processes all that there is? No, because that wouldn't > explain karma and transmigration; which are also scientifically > proven (at the sub-atomic level through quantum physics). But that > is an area that the rupa thinking of the brain cannot comprehend fully. What a funny idea! But I don't agree with what you say. Thinking is nama. It is not rupa. > One must become nibbana to understand that (Yes, I still stick to that theory). Understandable. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18948 From: Frank Kuan Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Forest and Lone Dwelling Hi Sarah, --- Sarah wrote: , one really > has to know one’s > accumulations and have the right ‘requisites’, > otherwise it can lead to > very disturbed mental states and take one further > away from the path if > it's with the idea that 'seclusion' is a necessary > condition for > developing insight. Agreed. However :-) I would suspect that there are far more people who would rationalize lack of solitude using the reasoning above, and few if any people are in danger of trying out (more, not necessarily radical) seclusion only to find lack of accumlations completely preventing any kind of benefit. You could also try out seclusion and if it doesn't work, then back off some. I don't think it's that dangerous to give it a try :-) What can be dangerous is if people with insufficient physical health do fasts and extreme changes to their diet, but EVERYONE can benefit from (more) seclusion. Really it's not dangerous. Numerous passages in the suttas with arhats and ariya praising and encouraging solitude. I personally do not make distinctions between lay person and monks as far as advice on solitude, and practicing the 8fold path to its fullest extent. Why do great injury to yourself by always saying, "well, I'm a lay person" ? As a lay person, you can still eat a meal mindfully, and even in the midst of worldly society, seclude yourself from the temptation of reading newspapers, watching t.v., becoming immersed in the jungle of distracting wrong views and thoughts. As a lay person, you can still set aside 30 min, 60 min, 120 min, and use the same meditation techniques that monks, arahants, lay people non-returners used to eradicate or at least greatly attenuate suffering. > p.s the astanga yoga is going well - I definitely > appreciate the group > support for this too;-)Hope your teaching and yoga > are also going well. I've backed off on astanga bit, limiting myself to 3-4 times per week instead of 6. I'm doing lots more taiji now. Chinese yoga/qigong/taiji (a properly taught method of course) is superior to astanga in terms of overall health (longetivity, flexibility in the really important areas). Astanga still confers certain benefits to strength, stamina, and some aspects of internal kung fu that still make it worthwhile doing, but I have to say Chinese Kung Fu is superior (finding a qualified teacher of course - plenty of charlattans and inferior instructors abound). The astanga notion of proper diet is also kind of whacked - too much emphasis on dairy. Not that the average Chinese kung fu diet is necessarily any better. The key characteristic where it's clear to me that Chinese Kung Fu is superior (at least the lineage I'm studying) is that genuine masters will acknowledge strength and weaknesses of their system, and openly admit that there is room for evolution and improvement. Whereas Pattabhi Jois will claim that the astanga system is exactly the way it's been practiced for thousands of years, is perfect. Yeah, right. Just like Jois is a "pure" brahmin, and astanga is "perfect". Reminds of the sutta where the Buddha tells the brahman, "HOw can you be a pure brahmin by birth if yo mamma's mamma's mamma was a non-brahmin slave girl?" This is not to say Astanga is bad. Astanga is an excellent system. But if you have access to some qualified qigong masters, it's better. IMHO. -fk p.s. When I say Chinese Kung fu is superior, I'm just stating what I perceive to be true, based on my experiences with Chinese and Indic yoga, and not trying to assert superiority of any particular country or race. In fact, Taoist yoga very well may have been completely derived originally from Indic yoga. And if I were to make a completely pointless argumnent of what country is superior, India (or Nepal) would automatically get my vote since that's the place that produced the most recent Buddha. I should point out, as as proud American, that we lead the world in manufacturing samsaric distractions that hinder the attempts of buddhists who are in dire need of more seclusion. 18949 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 0:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) James says: Setting aside the fact that the Buddha didn't teach nama/rupa, your choice to have faith in the Buddha's teachings, on faith alone, is in direct contradiction to what he wanted. Hi James: I think perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying here. The Buddha talks about nama/rupa all througout the Nikayas. For example... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-002.html., it is part of the chain to dependent orgiataion..... "And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form. " I think one of the values of the Abhidhamma is to help us see this distinction. I believe there are also other suttas where the Buddha says that nama/rupa arise together dependent of each other like two sticks leaning against each other as support? I think it is certainly true that thinking would be disrupted if there is damage to the brain just as seeing would be disrupted if there was damage to the eye.............Ray 18950 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 0:25pm Subject: All in a days work Dear All, Interesting - all the stuff about brain chemicals, what a thought is, does the brain produce thoughts, is consciousness thought, and even whether the Buddha could fly - so can birds and so can I (the birds flap, I buy an airline ticket - appropriate means). The reason I came to Buddhism was because I was struggling along trying to stay afloat while living daily life. I wanted to know how to deal with the unavoidable fact of suffering, how and why suffering came to be and the way to end it completely. I actually couldn't care less whether the Buddha could fly, read thoughts, or met publicly with beings from other Planes. All religions are littered with such claims. But the uniquely precious core of the Teachings - the way to the ending of suffering - exists no where else. These Teachings of the Buddha as recorded in the Pali canon hopefully will lead me to that unshakable deliverance of mind that I am seeking. I lack understanding about kamma, vipaka, 'why bad things happen to good people', and 'how am I to live in the world'. As this is occupying my mind at the moment, any help would be appreciated. In daily life, should we just see everything that happens as 'fruits of kamma'? Should one resist detrimental, though legal, actions of others, or just accept permanent changes (say in the work environment) that may decrease one's own job satisfaction and conditions? How does one "control" the surge of inner emotion? What does one do about 'unhappiness' and 'anxiety' produced in this way? How does one conduct oneself towards those more powerful within an hierarchical workplace who may be being consciously unfair/unethical 'just because they can'? There has been some discussion on patience and courage lately. Good to read - difficult, sometimes impossible, to do. The words seem a little sentimentally 'airy-fairy'. In 'real life' it is hard to just survive until days end, let alone try to develop the Perfections. metta, Christine 18951 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 0:20pm Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] the world op 19-01-2003 20:57 schreef oreznoone@a... op oreznoone@a...: Dear Stephen: Kindred Sayings IV, Second Fifty, §82, Loko sutta, the World: Then a certain brother came to see the Exalted One... Seated at one side that brother said to the Exalted One "'The world!The world!' " is the saying, lord. How far, lord, does this saying go?" "It crumbles awaw, brethren. Therefore it is called 'the world' . What crumbles away? The eye... objects...eye-consciousness..that weal or woe or neutral state that arises through eye-contact.. (and the same for the other doorways). ..." We read in the "Way of Mindfulness", that the body and also the five khandhas are the world. All conditioned realities are the world. As Num explained in the Patisambidha M. series, also the word nimitta is used in this sense: conditioned reality. Nibbana is animitta, unconditioned. Sarah just referred to this. Nina. > > Not really, but I have a question concerning seeing the khandhas as the > world. I've never really been clear on this. 18952 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 0:20pm Subject: Re: revulsion Dear Frank I join Christine in her appreciation of your posts. So concise and wellwritten. I like what you say below, very true. I could add: but let us not forget that our heads are on fire now. So that we also realize the urgency in this moment: not being forgetful of what appears, even if it is very sad, very distressing or very pleasant. I mean it, but, at the same time, I find it so difficult to apply this. As to the word defilements Christine discussed, long, long ago, at the beginning, I asked A. Sujin: is this not too strong a word? She said, no. I believe when panna is more and more refined you also see more the danger in even the slightest faults, see the Vinaya. the monks were playing with water, it seems so innocent. It is lobha and it can become stronger, before you realize it. I remember that defilements are also compared to a cesspool: when you fall in you have to get out as soon as possible. Nina op 20-01-2003 07:57 schreef Frank Kuan op fcckuan@y...: > Hi Chris, > The urgency and seriousness behind words like > 'revlusion' do not refer only to this life. In the > Samyutta especially, with the numerous discourses > dealing with dependent arising and cessation of > rebirth, we can see that the reason for the urgency is > for this ceaseless cycle of suffering through repeated > rebirth. 18953 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 0:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Which cittas experience nibbana? Dear Kom: When lokuttara jhanacitta of the fourth (or fifth of the fivefold system) arises, the feeling is upekkha. I like to be corrected, but, as far as I understand, the other types are with somanassa. I looked up this matter in Visuddhimagga and Atthasalini. Shall we ask Num, he can ask A. Supee. I like the simile you gave. Nina. op 19-01-2003 20:05 schreef Kom Tukovinit op kom@a...: I vividly remembers the > mano-dvara-vacana: > I have a similar question about path and fruition cittas > (for somebody who hasn't attained jhana): is it with > somanassa or without? The last time I asked this question, > I was given the answer "both", but I didn't get to ask why > one over another, so this is still all muddy for me. 18954 From: James Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 4:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Basics of Brain Function --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote: > > Hello James, > > >Along those lines, there have > >been studies into Buddhist meditation and how it does permanently > >change the structure and functioning of the brain in scientifically > >measurable ways. I will post some more on that tomorrow. > > Good. > ...and good night, > metta, stephen Hi Stephen, Sorry, but the resource materials I need to compose a post on how Buddhist mediation affects brain functioning and structure are at the library which, I discovered upon arriving there today, is closed today because of MLK Day. I will have to post the information tomorrow. Probably just as well, I think if I post one more thing on brain functioning today I may just send Christine off the deep end!;-) Metta, James 18955 From: James Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 4:45pm Subject: [dsg] Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) Hi Ray, This part of the suttas you quote (which your link doesn't work, what is the name of the sutta?) isn't similar to nama/rupa as detailed in the Abhidhamma: "And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form. " The Abhidhamma rejects naming and instead breaks down mental processes into cittas and the Abhidhamma rejects forms and instead breaks down form into dhamas. I really don't see how these two approaches are similar. The Buddha is using categorization while the Abhidhamma uses reductionism. Metta, James 18956 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? Ranil Hi, and thanks for this relevant piece of information. I would just like to clarify the term "ciththeshwara". I presume the Pali equivalent would be 'citta-something'; what is the 'something' here? Thanks. Jon --- ranil gunawardena wrote: > Dear Herman, > > A king will have control over his kingdom. Likewise the Buddha is > called > "chiththeshwara" - meaning, having control over the mind. So to > answer your > question "Did the Buddha exercise any control over his mind?" well, > you have > to refer the pitakas, "but" as he is having control over his mind - > he > could. > > ~with meththa > ranil > > >Did the Buddha exercise any control over his mind? 18957 From: James Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 9:40pm Subject: Re: All in a days work Hi Christine DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM: "The present generation are living in this world under great pressure, under a very complicated system, amidst confusion. Everybody talks about peace, justice, equality but in practice it is very difficult. This is not because the individual person is bad but because the overall environment, the pressures, the circumstances are so strong, so influential" --Dali Lama DESCRIPTION OF SOLUTION: "He who has understanding and great wisdom does not think of harming himself or another, nor of harming both alike. He rather thinks of his own welfare, of that of others, of that of both, and of the welfare of the whole world. In that way one shows understanding and great wisdom." Anguttara Nikaya (Gradual Sayings) Fours, No. 186 As I have been writing, it is so important for the Buddhists of today to not have overly idealist ideas of what it means to be a Buddhist. We all need to start right where we are. We not only must work on the suffering we feel as individuals, we must work on the suffering the world feels. There is of course the inherent suffering to life, dukkha; but there is also a suffering that is compounded by many individuals coming together, especially in the workplace, dukkha-dukkha. Just as people struggle to maintain an identity in the very face of their transience, organizations and workplaces struggle to maintain an identity in the face of their transience. This struggle is fueled by ignorance, greed, craving, and desire for existence. The people in the workplace are not bad people with no morals, and they usually don't want to harm others, they just want to survive, to exist. In the frantic struggle to do that, they will often step on others to get to the top. They should be comprehended with pity and compassion so that, little by little, they can feel safe to give up the struggle. As an enlightened being in an unenlightened world, your duty is two- fold: liberate yourself and liberate others. After all, self and other, there is no difference. Rather than fight the system, work inside it and transform it from within. Rather than confront people with over-inflated egos, stroke their egos until they feel safe to abandon them. If you work on just yourself, and ignore your world, you will be like Nero who fiddled while Rome burned…in short, a raving lunatic. This is just my opinion; if you don't agree, okay. Metta, James 18958 From: Egberdina Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 0:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Herman > > Since I'm no doubt perceived as being 'one of them', I had better > come in with a contribution ;-)) You show great insight :-) > > I am quite comfortable with the concept of control in a conventional > context. For example, the fact that we manage to get around most of > the time without injuring ourselves or others can quite properly be > said to be due to the 'care' that we take (i.e., the control we > exercise). > > Also, a person highly trained in a particular physical/mental > discipline can be said to have a higher degree of bodily/vocal/mental > control than someone not trained in that discipline. > So far we are two peas in a pod :-) > In an ultimate (paramattha) sense, the picture is quire different. > According to the teachings, all dhammas are conditioned and arise by > virtue of a number of conditions that are unseen/unknown to us. Here we diverge, and probably because we have different paradigms. "Dhamma" is used to refer to many different realities throughout the relevant literature. I use dhamma to refer to mental events only. And for me a more or less functioning body with a nervous system is a sine qua non for dhammas to arise. A body (known about only through the mind) is always a precondition for that mind. Human bodies, to the extent that they function properly within some very broad parameters, always exercise control, albeit limited. > Furthermore, these dhammas are said to arise and fall away at an > extremely rapid rate and, in the case of cittas, in specific > processes. If that is the case, then it seems to me that dhammas are > not subject to control in any meaningful sense of the word. Does control have to be conscious in order for it to qualify as control? There are literally millions of stimulus/response reactions taking place in my body. I am aware of about two of those per second. Still, I can develop awareness of many more of the control mechanisms of the body, after which I can, to a limited extent, consciously interact with those control mechanisms. > > My conclusion. It's OK to say that the Buddha had a highly > controlled (i.e., trained) mind, or that the Buddha had a very high > degree of control over his mind, or however you wish to put it. This > is an appropriate conventional perspective. However, in paramattha > terms, the dhammas that made up what we take for the Buddha were no > more subject to control than the dhammas that make up what we take > for you or me. > The Buddha for me was never separate from his body. > Jon > > PS I liked your earlier post on the futility of arguing over the > 'correct' label. I've tried to refer here to specific circumstances > or instances. Thank you Jon, I appreciate it Wishing you well Herman > > --- "Egberdina " wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I am pitching this question at those who argue that control is not > > possible. (I know who you are, I have filmed your secret gatherings > > :- > > ). > > > > Did the Buddha exercise any control over his mind? > > > > All the best > > > > > > Herman 18959 From: Egberdina Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 1:25am Subject: Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) Hi Swee Boon, Thank you for clarifying your position. My comments are interspersed below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi Herman, > > According to the Abhidhamma, all brain chemical reactions are merely > rupas. I am sorry, but there is no mention of brain chemical reactions in the Abhidhamma. I cannot accept your statement at all. The Abhidhamma is a very thorough analysis of "mind". What Westerners would call "matter" is not the subject of the Abhidhamma at all. >None of them are namas. Namas and rupas are intertwined to the nth degree In the case of seeing, nama is the seeing, rupa is the object of seeing, no? According to the Visudh (whatever) the difference is known by insight. I think it is easier than that. The difference between seeing and the object of seeing is established by numerous games of peekaboo, that's right, peekaboo. Kids love it. Seeing is identified by not seeing, the object of seeing is identified by it's disappearanace. The learning process is not conscious, it does not require the formulation of an I who learns. The body learns until it starts to accept authority and then there is the slippery slope of faith in authority which leads to eternal perdition :-) > > Herein lies the mystery. If you accept that all brain chemical > reactions are merely rupas, can you call them "thought processes"? > > Knowing that brain chemical reactions are not "thought processes", I > also know that immaterial beings cannot have brain chemical > reactions. > > Of course, you can argue that I am using circular logic with the > Abhidhamma as a "closed system". But I take the Buddha's words on > faith. I don't take science on faith. > > And how do you know that whatever brain chemical reactions that take > place in your brains represent the very thoughts of yours? Don't you > take that on faith as well? Do you really know that Brain Chemical > Reaction A corresponds to Thought X? It's all just scientific > assumptions. It is easily empirically established that every moving electrical field has a magnetic field associated with it. And every moving magnetic field has an electrical field associated with it. This is how we can communicate over the Net. Like wise mind and body are inseparably intertwined. One comes with the other, always. There is no mind without the body. There is no body without the mind. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon All the best Herman 18960 From: abhidhammika Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 5:07am Subject: Re: Renunciation: An Ultimate Social Freedom Dear Rahula How are you? And Happy New Year! I am replying to you on this subject using only memory - that is without doing research and checking texts. If you read Suttam literature, you could find similar complaints from house-holders, particularly from Brahmin caste in episodes in some Suttams. I think that the situation in India is far more serious and worse than the Confucian Chinese society. This is because the Confucian Chinese are merely complaining in the non-religious context. But, in India, the caste duty is a religious obligation of Vedas, and the Brahmins thrive on that upper-hand arrangement to this day from the ancient times. Then, Gotama the Buddha came along and upset the whole caste social arrangement. No class or caste on the top of social ladder can forgive anyone who removes the ceilings and chains of social ordering. The emergence of Sama.na (Thera) phenomenon mainly from the Warrior Caste in India was the most wonderful social revolution, which the Buddha adopted and upheld. Anyone who appreciates social freedom will always adore the Buddha and his followers in the full capacity of Theraa (advanced Sama.naa). Whenever you see a Theravada monk, you can regard him as the direct delegate of the Buddha and as a symbol of ultimate social freedom. I hope that you got something to think about. With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rahula_80 " wrote: > Hi, > > Han Yu, a famous literateur in Tang dynasty, said: " now (the Taoists > and Buddhists) seek to govern their hearts by escaping from the > world, the state, and the family. They destroy the natural principles > of human relations so that the son does not regard his father as a > father, the minister does not regard his ruler as a ruler, and > people don't attend to their work---"( A Source Book of Chinese > Philosophy, 455) > > What is the Buddhist reply to this criticism by Confucianism? > > > Best wishes, > Rahula 18961 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 5:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: All in a days work Dear Christine, I appreciated your comments and concerns as well. I think many of us would none the less like to get our lives on a more even keel and whether we are prone to bursts of temper, emotional dismay or tears when distressed, so often when we hear about suffering, what we’d really like would be to control the unhappy feelings and zap the supposed causes. Even if we’ve heard quite a lot of the Dhamma, don’t we cling to seeing these as being the boss, the harsh words, the teachers or parents (if you ask the Star Kids) or some other external cause? It seems so much easier and more comfortable to do so much of the time. Hearing about what courage or patience really are in terms of wholesome qualities and facing up to kilesa (defilements) can sound very airy-fairy, I agree and also very remote from our daily experience. Sometimes we’re so caught up in our thoughts that we cannot appreciate the reminders at all. When we were first married and I moved to Australia I was very unhappy. We visited K.Sujin and though I was visibly distressed (and probably shedding a few tears), she just smiled and talked as usual about seeing and visible object and metta. I had such long trains of thought about ‘my difficult circumstances’, ‘my uncaring colleagues’, ‘my insensitive in-laws’ and so on and so on. She just shook her head, brushed it all aside and discussed more about realities. It may not be what we wish to hear at such times, but the ‘good friend’ tells us about realities rather than illusions which need no encouragement. Sometimes, it’s not easy to listen as it wasn’t for me at that time. Still, even in distress, I did listen and even in your distress you’re considering the teachings too. I think we can see just how much attachment there is to ourselves as King Pasenadi and Queen Mallika discussed and how much we would like to control the environment to have everyone behaving in ways we consider appropriate and to experience no unpleasantness at all. We can see the strong clinging to the thoughts about the past and future, the stress, fear and anxiety about what will come as a result of the ‘bad’ news we hear, when we really have no idea what kamma is in store at all or what the future vipaka (result of kamma) will be. I quoted yesterday from B.Nanananda’s comments on the Bhadekaratta Sutta:"‘Nappa.tika.nkhe anaagatam’: As in the case of the past, so with regard to the future too, it is the ‘delight’ or ‘desire and lust’ that gives rise to yearning or anxiety." ***** Conventionally we can say that receiving a circular with bad news or some unpleasant words we read on the computer screen or other action of a boss are bad kamma result. We all understand what this means. The difficult part, as you discussed with Jon on the moving walkway at Hong Kong airport, is to accept what vipaka really is and to understand that the real problem lies not with the moments of seeing or hearing pleasant/unpleasant objects very briefly (i.e. moments of vipaka), but with the proliferations, the papanca, accompanied by so much delusion and other kilesa on account of these brief moments. So the real problem is not the results of kamma, but the inherent tendencies to respond in ways that prolong samsara, accumulating more ignorance along the way. When we read the circular or email or hear the news from the boss, there may indeed not be any akusala (unwholesome) vipaka at all. The sound of the voice may be quite pleasant, but as a result of the accumulated kilesa (defilements), there is no equanimity and as we read in the Mulapariyaya Sutta Commentary: "The worldling is so-called because he generates a multitude of diverse defilements etc..." on account of the various namas and rupas (mental and physical phenomena) experienced. This is why if we can appreciate that vipaka is just this moment of seeing and then gone, it can be a condition for guarding the sense-doors for a moment and understanding how we live like mad people. In the Mulapariyaya sutta we read about how the worldling clings to earth and all other phenomena as a whole and as 'self': "......Or, without releasing such a segment of earth , he perceives it as a being (satta) or as belonging to a being. Why does he perceive it in this way? This should not be asked, for the worldling is like a madman." A little later we read more about the perversions (vipallasas as Frank just mentioned): " 'he perceives through a perversion of perception.' This is the meaning: He perceives it as beautiful, etc, through conceiving through craving, conceit, and views is shown." ***** Like a 'madman' we thus continue on in ignorance. Don’t we also perceive the unpleasantness or other states as lasting when in fact, like seeing or hearing, they arise momentarily and disappear. Where is the unethical behaviour or the harsh words or annoying circular at this moment? We may well be right when we say the boss or the letter-sender or the teacher was wrong. Conventionally we may be able to prove the point as well. It may seem therefore, that there is no perversion of citta (consciousness) or sanna (perception), let alone of ditthi (view) at these times. However, whenever the citta is unwholesome (all those times when there isn’t sila, dana or bhavana so briefly), there is at least the perversion of citta and sanna and so often of ditthi when there is the taking realities for a ‘whole’ or ‘self’ as well. Do all these strong words mean inaction and that we should therefore put up with any ‘injustices’ at work or elsewhere? Does it mean we should just grin and bear any situation? I don’t think we can set any rules. Developing kusala -- and appreciating its value more and more --doesn’t mean action or inaction. Does it mean there shouldn’t be any emotional reactions, tantrums or tears? As you explained so well, Chris, the responses are conditioned to be just as they are at any given moment: "……..I cannot choose to have no reactions such as anger or fear to a strong stimulus. They happen (or arise) instantaneously. I could not choose to feel 'delight' when with a sobbing mother holding her dead baby. I cannot even, at this stage in my development, choose to feel only compassion or equanimity for her and the babe at that time. I feel overwhelming pity, compassion, anger, helplessness, confusion - mostly dosa, I know. The feelings arise uncontrollably. I cannot make them not come, go away, or change into something else. They remain until they subside in their own good time (speaking conventionally, not of cittas). I 'seem' to make 'free' choices, but that is because of all the conditions leading up to that moment. Previous conditions have formed my desires, reactions, opinions, ambitions and plans." ***** We can discuss what are skilful (in terms of kusala) responses. We can discuss the value of metta and other brahma viharas and how there is no limit to how much it’s helpful to develop. However, as James and others have pointed out here recently, ‘we begin where we begin’ and the responses are conditioned too. We may appreciate that showing some restraint or not responding in the heat of the moment is more helpful and worthy for everyone concerned, but our kilesa have a way of manifesting in spite of better intentions;-) When we have expectations of ourselves and others, again it shows the clinging to self, the finding oneself important and the lack of detachment from all realities. And so, as always, it comes back to the present moment, to not tracing ‘back the past’ or yearning ‘for the future yet to come’, but discerning with insight the present reality. This is why K.Sujin just continued talking to me about seeing and visible object when I was lost in all those stories and distress. If there were no moments of seeing and visible object, hearing and sound and so on, there would be no papanca on account of them. So, just at a conceptual level, we can also perhaps appreciate the value of seeing the ‘danger’ or ‘foul’ in what is seen and heard as well and perhaps the reason why strong language is used. It is the clinging to the 5 khandhas that leads to all dukkha. As Nina said "let us not forget that our heads are on fire now. So that we also realize the urgency in this moment: not being forgetful of what appears, even if it is very sad, very distressing or very pleasant." Life is so short, there is death and rebirth at each moment. This is reality. As Nina also quoted and wrote recently: "Life passes just in a flash. I quote from Visuddhimagga, XX, 72, which contains actually quotes from the Maha-Niddesa, Sutta on Old Age: Life, person, pleasure, pain-just these alone Join in one conscious moment that flicks by. Gods, though they life for four-and eighty thousand Aeons, are not the same for two such moments. Ceased khandhas of those dead or alive Are all alike, gone never to return; And those that break up meanwhile, and in future, Have traits no different from those ceased before. No (world is) born if (consciousness) is not Produced; when that is present, then it lives; When consciousness dissolves, the world is dead: The highest sense this concept will allow. No store of broken states, no future stock; Those born balance like seeds on needle points. Break-up of states is foredoomed at their birth; Those present decay, unmingled with those past. The visible object impinges on the eyesense and then seeing-consciousness arises, and the meeting or association of them is unthinkably short, like the seed balancing on a needle point. Life is so short, this is Mindfulness of death. Abhidhamma and satipatthana, which is actually Abhidhamma applied, lead to mindfulness of death. ..... your expectations, your fear and sadness of yesterday have gone, today you are different, you may laugh." Thank you for these opportunities for reflection, Chris. This has become rather long, but I hope there is something of use to you and others in it. Metta, Sarah ====== 18962 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 6:41am Subject: RE: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Hi Stephen (and all), Whatever (real) appears to us is the world, and there is nothing that is fitting to be taken as me or mine. Reversely, there cannot be anything that can be taken (ultimately) as yours or others either: they are just conditioned phenomena that rise and fall away. Speaking from personal experience. I don't only take the rupa as mine or others, I also take the mentality. I am angry, you are angry. I am kind, you are kind. It's all just conditioned phenomena, but we have been taken them forever as belonging to / being somebody. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: oreznoone@a... [mailto:oreznoone@a...] > Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 11:58 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello > > > 18963 From: bodhi342 Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 6:51am Subject: Dukkha as Medicine? Hello, I am a new member, and have been enjoying reading all the recent messages. May I ask a question? We know a little about the cause of Dukkha. We know a little about the manifestations of Dukkha. We know a little about the consequences of Dukkha. Do we know whether Dukkha itself points to its resolution? One could speculate that if it were not for Dukkha, Buddha would not have been driven to find out more... Seems Dukkha awakens us from the deep sleep of illusion. Most of us seeking the truth, are moved to do this as a consequence of experiencing unpleasant dukkha. Therefore dukkha is our benefactor in disguise :-). Without dukkha, we would not be moved to reach out for understanding/help. Without Dukkha would we be able to revive our inner consciousness? Dukkha itself is the first line therapy! Look forward to your response. Thanks. Dharam 18964 From: nidive Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 7:10am Subject: Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) Hi Herman > I am sorry, but there is no mention of brain chemical reactions in > the Abhidhamma. I cannot accept your statement at all. What are brain chemical reactions? They are physical 'particles' called atoms and molecules that interact with one another. If they are physical atoms and molecules, they are rupas. Explained in this way, how am I wrong? Or do you mean that brain chemical reactions do not involve atoms and molecules at all? Please enlighten. > The Abhidhamma is a very thorough analysis of "mind". What Westerners > would call "matter" is not the subject of the Abhidhamma at all. That's where you are wrong. The Abhidhamma is a very thorough analysis of both "mind" and "matter". > According to the Visudh (whatever) the difference is known by > insight. I think it is easier than that. The difference between > seeing and the object of seeing is established by numerous games of > peekaboo, that's right, peekaboo. Kids love it. Seeing is identified > by not seeing, the object of seeing is identified by it's > disappearanace. > The learning process is not conscious, it does not require the > formulation of an I who learns. The body learns until it starts to > accept authority and then there is the slippery slope of faith in > authority which leads to eternal perdition :-) Jesus Christ (or Oh! Buddha), I don't know what you are talking about! > > Do you really know that Brain Chemical Reaction A corresponds to Thought X? > It is easily empirically established that every moving electrical > field has a magnetic field associated with it. And every moving > magnetic field has an electrical field associated with it. This is > how we can communicate over the Net. > Like wise mind and body are inseparably intertwined. One comes with > the other, always. > There is no mind without the body. There is no body without the mind. How does this analogy answer my question on whether you really *know* that Brain Chemical Reaction A corresponds to Thought X? My criteria of an answer from you is either a POSITIVE YES (Yes, I really know) or a NEGATIVE NO (No, I really don't know). An analogy would certainly not suffice. You must also explain the process by which you *"really know"*. This will allow me to determine whether your claim that "Brain Chemical Reaction A corresponds to Thought X" is a case of "Thus Have I Heard" or is a case of genuine *KNOWING*. You can't sit on the middle of the fence. By the way, your statement "There is no mind without the body. There is no body without the mind." is in direct contradiction with what the Buddha taught. Go to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/loka.html See Comments on Realms 22, 28, 29, 30, 31. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18965 From: Frank Kuan Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 7:45am Subject: danger in the slightest fault, seclusion, good friends Re: revulsion Hi Nina, Thanks for expressing appreciation. I'm obliged to point out I've not produced any new insights, merely repeated great insights I've grasped intellectually. The Majjhima Nikaya and Samyutta Nikaya (Bhikkhu Bodhi translations from Wisdom Pub) are awesome resources, as well as access to insight website. I frequent those resources. It's like having Buddha, Sariputta, Mogallana, Mahakassapa, Ananda, as your friends and companions, as I read and re-read those pali suttas. Who can ask for better friends? No yahoo group can compare with their discussions. I will not stop re-reading those suttas until I own the insights, until intellectual understanding becomes realization. Along the theme of "seeing danger in the slightest fault", here's a gem from the tao te ching. [ttc 64] deal with problems before they begin ... Huge trees grow from tiny seeds. Tall buildings start at the ground. Great heights are reached by single steps. 18966 From: nidive Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 9:34am Subject: [dsg] Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) Hi James > the Abhidhamma rejects forms and instead breaks down form into dhamas. "And what is form? The four great existents [the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property] and the form derived from them: this is called form. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-057.html Is the Buddha being reductionist when he breaks down form into the four great existents? I think in the ultimate sense, there is really no 'form', but just simply the four great existents. How do you interpret the four great existents? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18967 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 10:02am Subject: Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no. 16 Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no. 16 ³But where, monk, is this Lord, perfected one, fully Self-Awakened One, staying now?² ³There is a town called Såvatthí, friend, in the northern districts; this Lord, perfected one, fully Self-Awakened One, is now staying there.² ³Have you, monk, ever seen this Lord? If you saw him would you know him?² ³No, friend, I have never seen this Lord, so I would not know him if I saw him.² Then it occurred to the Lord: ³This young man of respectable family has gone forth on account of me. Suppose I were to teach him Dhamma?² And the Lord addressed the venerable Pukkusåti, saying: ³I will teach you Dhamma, monk; listen carefully, pay attention and I will speak.² ³Yes, friend,² the venerable Pukusåti answered the Lord in assent...² The Buddha then taught him the Sutta on the ³Analysis of the Elements² [19]. We read further on in the Sutta: Then the venerable Pukkusåti thought: ³Indeed it is the Teacher who has come to me; indeed it is the Well-farer who has come to me; indeed it is the Fully Self-Awakened One who has come to me,² and rising from his seat, arranging his robe over one shoulder and bowing his head to the Lord¹s feet, he spoke thus to the Lord: ³A transgression, revered sir, has overcome me in that foolish, errant and unskilled as I was, I supposed the Lord could be addressed with the epithet Œfriend¹. Revered sir, may the Lord acknowledge my transgression as a transgression for the sake of restraint in the future.² ³Indeed, monk, a transgression overcame you in that... you supposed I could be addressed with the epithet Œfriend¹. But if you, monk, seeing this transgression as a transgression, confess it according to the rule, we acknowledge it for you. For this is growth, monk, in the discipline for an ariyan, that whoever, seeing a transgression as a transgression confess it according to the rule, he comes to restraint in the future.² ³Revered sir, may I receive ordination in the Lord¹s presence?² ³But are you, monk, complete as to bowl and robe?² ³Revered sir, I am not complete as to bowl and robe.² ³Monk, Tathågatas do not ordain anyone not complete as to bowl and robe.² Then the venerable Pukkusåti, having rejoiced in what the Lord had said, having given thanks for it, rising from his seat greeted the Lord and, keeping his right side towards him, departed in order to search for bowl and robe. But while he was touring about in search of a bowl and robe a cow swerved and deprived him of life. Then a number of monks approached the Lord; having approached, having greeted the Lord, they sat down at a respectful distance. As they were sitting down at a respectful distance, these monks spoke thus to the Lord: ³That young man of family, Pukusåti, revered sir, whom the Lord exhorted with an exhortation in brief, has died. What is his bourn, what his future state?² ³Clever, monks, was Pukkusåti, the young man of family; he followed after Dhamma according to the various parts of Dhamma, and he did not annoy me with questionings on Dhamma. Monks, Pukkusåti, the young man of family, by the complete destruction of the five fetters binding to this lower (shore), is of spontaneous uprising, one who attains nibbåna there, not liable to return from that world [20].² When the Buddha had spoken this Discourse, the monks delighted in the words of the Exalted One. Footnotes: 19. In this Sutta the Buddha taught Pukkusåti about the six elements of earth, water, fire, wind, space and consciousness. He taught that these should not be seen as mine, I or myself. He taught about feelings and their conditions, about arúpa jhånas, and about the fact that these are conditioned dhammas. He spoke about the cessation of birth and the unconditioned dhamma. 20. He had attained the third stage of enlightenment, the stage of the non-returner, anågåmí. The Sutta text of the P.T.S. translation ends here. 18968 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 10:17am Subject: [dsg] Re: All in a days work Hi Sarah, Regarding the discussion between King Pasenadi and Queen Mallika, are you talking about the discussion in the discourse in Raja Sutta The King http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/udana/ud5-01.html ? Regards, Victor > Sometimes, it's not easy to listen as it wasn't for me at that time. > Still, even in distress, I did listen and even in your distress you're > considering the teachings too. I think we can see just how much > attachment there is to ourselves as King Pasenadi and Queen Mallika > discussed and how much we would like to control the environment to have > everyone behaving in ways we consider appropriate and to experience no > unpleasantness at all. 18969 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 10:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) Hi James, The link works for me, I know sometimes links will not work, depending of email program used, you can also cut and paste the URL into your browser and that often works...but it is SN 12.2 the Paticca-Samuppada-vibhanga Sutta (Analysis of Dependent Co-Arising). There are other ways that the Buddha divides dharmas into form/mind. For example he talks about abandoning passion for eye, ear, etc, rupa (form, sound, etc) and eye consciousness, ear consciousness, etc. Se SN XXVII.1-.3. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn27.html#sn27-001. In .9 he even brakes from down into 6 elements (properties). It is interesting that in that Sutta he talks about 6 elements instead of usual 4 and consciousness is one of the elements discussed. This division is also talked about in the Maha-satipatthana Sutta: ""Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense media. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense media? There is the case where he discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an unarisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no further appearance in the future of a fetter that has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the remaining sense media: ear, nose, tongue, body, & intellect.) " And we also see this division when the Buddha talks about contact... "The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world. " Granted the Abhidhamma takes this division to greater detail than found in the Suttas. But I do not think it is inaccurate to say the Buddha did not teach a division between nama and rupa within the Suttas....Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 4:45 PM Subject: [dsg] Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) > Hi Ray, > > This part of the suttas you quote (which your link doesn't work, what > is the name of the sutta?) isn't similar to nama/rupa as detailed in > the Abhidhamma: > > "And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & > attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form > dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name > & this form are called name-&-form. " > > The Abhidhamma rejects naming and instead breaks down mental > processes into cittas and the Abhidhamma rejects forms and instead > breaks down form into dhamas. I really don't see how these two > approaches are similar. The Buddha is using categorization while the > Abhidhamma uses reductionism. > > Metta, James > 18970 From: Tal Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 0:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi all, Sarah wrote: >if you'd care to share any >details about your interest in dhamma, where you live and so on, >we'd all be delighted to hear these as well. First, I`m sorry for the long gap between my posts. I was away for few days. My name is Tal. I live in Israel and practice vipassana in the S. N. Goenka tradition for the last few years. I've been a lurker on this list in the past and now came back to resolve this matter. Larry gave excerpts from the Visudhimagga: >>VIII 39: Life, person, pleasure pain--just these alone join in one >> consciousness moment that flicks by. Does this mean that one citta experiences few objects?! If so, it seems like a special case of an inherent inability of ours to distinct phenomena from each other. Is such consciousness mentioned in the Abhidhamma? Sarah wrote: >When beings or any other concepts are the object through the mind >door (as Howard pointed out), it can be with wholesome or >unwholesome cittas. These can be followed by right or wrong view. Can an imaginary object such as the concept "suffering being" be kusala rooted in right view? metta, Tal > In a message dated 1/13/03 11:32:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, > tal2460@h... writes: > > > Hi all, > > > > Can someone please clarify this point: > > > > We say that clinging to beings is a result of ignorance as dividing > > and dissecting them into body parts and mind aggregates will end up > > with nothing worth clinging to. > > > > But can't we say the same regarding to positive mental factors like > > compassion or gratitude? Is the leg of a sentient being worth being > > compassionate towards? His/her liver, intestines, Brain,....sanna, > > vinnana…? Is the leg of the Buddha worth having gratitude > > towards? His other aggregates?…etc. > > > > Doesn't it lead us to nihilism? What are the ultimate objects of > > these mental factors? > > > > Thanks, > > Tal > > > > 18971 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 0:43pm Subject: Photo - group at Kang Krajan Dear Group, A photo that Lodewijk took of us all at Kang Krajan, Thailand has been uploaded to the photo album, with all names listed. (thanks for the help Kom). Those wishing to see it can click on: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst then click on 'show all' and click on the picture no. 71 to enlarge. Those not familiar with Lodewijk 'the Invisible', can see him in photo number 4 at:: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst and click on 'Nina and Lodewijk' to enlarge. :-) metta, Christine 18972 From: James Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 1:11pm Subject: The Four Elements Hi Ray and NEO, I do not dispute that the Buddha spoke about the four elements and that the meditator should be aware of how they manifest themselves in the body. This is not in dispute by me whatsoever. What I dispute emphatically is that he taught that the four elements are ultimate realities. He did not teach that and they are not that. The four elements are simply mundane realities. The Buddha taught many mundane realities as a means to an end…then end being ultimate reality. He did not mean for the body, the four elements, or even consciousness to be taken for ultimate reality…because they are not. The Buddha taught for the meditator to recognize the properties of the four elements in the body and how they correspond with thinking. Through meditation, one will discover that they are emphatically linked. A thought will correspond with a sensation in the body; and a sensation in the body will correspond with a thought. Thinking and consciousness itself has the qualities of water, earth, air, and fire. The Buddha wanted us to see that we are composed of the very things that surround us and that our consciousness is the very thing that composes us. The four elements and consciousness are not ultimate realities. I keep meaning to answer the post by Sarah where she asks me point blank what is ultimate reality if rupa (matter) is simply a mundane reality, but I keep getting side-tracked with different posts. Put simply, the only ultimate reality is perception. When everything is broken down into its smallest parts, the only thing that remains is perception. This was first proven through logic by Vasubandhu and later through science with quantum physics. I will post more on this later; I don't believe it to be terribly pressing at the moment. Metta, James 18973 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 1:34pm Subject: Re: The Four Elements Hi James, I don't think that is what the Buddha wanted us to see, namely that we are composed of the very thing that surround us and that our consciousness is the very thing that composes us. This is how I see it: It is unskillful to assume that we are composed of the very thing that surround us and that our consciousness is the very thing that composes us. This composition of the very thing that surround us, this consciousness is impermanent. It is dukkha. It is not oneself. It is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Regards, Victor [snip] Thinking and > consciousness itself has the qualities of water, earth, air, and > fire. The Buddha wanted us to see that we are composed of the very > things that surround us and that our consciousness is the very thing > that composes us. The four elements and consciousness are not > ultimate realities. [snip] > Metta, James 18974 From: Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 3:14pm Subject: Way 40, Comm, Breathing "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on Breathing, p.52 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html Samudaya-dhammanupassi va kayasamim viharati = "He lives contemplating origination-things in the body." Just as the air moves back and forth depending on the smith's bellows' skin, the bellows' spout, and appropriate effort, so, depending on the coarse body, nasal aperture, and the mind of the bhikkhu, the respiration-body moves back and forth. The things beginning with the (coarse) body are origination (kayadayo dhamma samudayo]. The person who sees thus, is he who lives contemplating origination-things in the body. Vayadhammanupassi va kayasmim viharati = "Or he lives contemplating dissolution-things in the body." In whatever way, the air does not proceed when the bellows' skin is taken off, the bellows' spout is broken, and the appropriate exertion is absent, even in that same way, when the body breaks up, the nasal aperture is destroyed, and the mind has ceased to function, the respiration-body does not go on. Thus through the ending of the coarse body, the nasal aperture and the mind there comes to be the ending of the respirations [kayadi-nirodha assasapassasa-nirodho]. The person who sees in this way, is he who lives contemplating dissolution-things in the body. Samudaya-vaya-dhammanupassi va kayasmim viharati = "Or he lives contemplating origination-and-dissolution-things in the body." He lives contemplating origination at one time and dissolution at another [kalena samudayam kalena vayam anupassanto]. [Tika] "Origination [samudaya]" is that from which suffering arises. [T] "Contemplating origination-things." Possessing the character of contemplation connected with the coarse body, the nasal aperture and the mind, the cause of the respirations [assasapassasanam uppatti hetu karaja kayadi tassa anupassanasilo]. [T] As the contemplation on origination-and-dissolution-things, too, is split up as regards the scope of the object, it is not possible to objectify both origination and dissolution at the same time. 18975 From: nidive Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 4:29pm Subject: Re: The Four Elements Hi James, > What I dispute emphatically is that he taught that the four elements > are ultimate realities. He did not teach that and they are not that. > The four elements are simply mundane realities. > He did not mean for the body, the four elements, or even consciousness > to be taken for ultimate reality…because they are not. > Put simply, the only ultimate reality is perception. When everything is > broken down into its smallest parts, the only thing that remains is perception. The Blessed One said, "Now what, monks, are the five aggregates? "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of form. "Whatever feeling is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of feeling. "Whatever perception is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of perception. "Whatever (mental) fabrications are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: those are called the aggregate of fabrications. "Whatever consciousness is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of consciousness. "These are called the five aggregates. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-048.html So James, perception is the ultimate reality, but form, feeling, mental fabrications and consciousness are mundame realities? How do you infer this from the Sutta quoted above? Is that what the Buddha taught about the five aggregates? I don't think so. The five aggregates are all ultimate realities. Please support your position with Sutta quotes (that speaks directly on the five aggregates) since you are in direct contradiction with what is accepted by people knowledgeable in the Suttas and Abhidhamma. As a side issue, if the five aggregates are all mundane realities, I will also imply that the Buddha did not really know ultimate realities as they are. It also implies that the five aggregates are NOT REALLY DUKKHA in the ultimate sense. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18976 From: Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 1:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Four Elements In a message dated 1/21/2003 1:13:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: James says: > Thinking and > consciousness itself has the qualities of water, earth, air, and > fire. The Buddha wanted us to see that we are composed of the very > things that surround us and that our consciousness is the very thing > Hi James, I gennerally agree with the first line but the Sutta evidence to back it up is thin, though it does exist. Regarding the 4 Great Elements the Buddha says : -- "...and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up with it.â€? (The Buddha. . .Majjhima Nikaya, Mahasakuludayi Sutta, The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin.) In the Samyutta Nikaya the Buddha states to the effect that -- consciousness composes the 5 aggregates. So that seems defendable. And Ven. Sariputta attributes the Buddha as saying: -- One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma, one who sees the dhamma sees dependent origination. (Sariputta. . . Majjhima Nikaya Sutta # 28) Since the principle of dependent origination applies to all conditioned phenomena (as well as the 12 Fold Chain), I think the more clearly it is seen, the better impermanence, suffering, and no-self is also seen in all conditioned phenomena. The Buddha makes the case for impermanence, suffering, and no-self all throughout the suttas both in regards to the 5 aggregates and external phenomena of all kinds. I think seeing the interrelationship between the "internal" and "external" states is what the 18 elements are all about. (6 sense objects, 6 sense bases, 6 types of consciosuness). I think you may be thinking of the term "ultimate reality" differently than most in this group. But regardless, there is no evidence I'm aware of that the Buddha taught perception as being an ultimate reality. If anything, he taught the opposite, since the ceasing of perception and feeling = Nibbana. TG 18977 From: James Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 6:15pm Subject: Re: The Four Elements --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Please support your position with Sutta quotes (that speaks directly > on the five aggregates) since you are in direct contradiction with > what is accepted by people knowledgeable in the Suttas and > Abhidhamma. > LOL! Does this include you? As I said, I will write more about this later; and I don't take kindly to commands. I will post or not post whenever I want. If you chose not to believe it, that is your choice; but I don't have to meet your demands. Are you now the official dhamma police? Hehehe…;-) (rhetorical questions). Metta, James 18978 From: Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 1:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dukkha as Medicine? In a message dated 1/21/2003 6:53:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, bodhi342@y... writes: > Seems Dukkha awakens us from the deep sleep of illusion. Most of us > seeking the truth, are moved to do this as a consequence of > experiencing unpleasant dukkha. Therefore dukkha is our benefactor > in disguise :-). Without dukkha, we would not be moved to reach out > for understanding/help. Without Dukkha would we be able to revive > our inner consciousness? Dukkha itself is the first line therapy! > > Look forward to your response. Thanks. > > Dharam > Generally you have a good point in that dukkha is the source of our becoming aware that there is a problem and the impetus for finding a remedy. But dukkha is not the therapy or medicine. The therapy or medicince are the states that oppose dukkha. Just as cancer is not the therapy or medicine for cancer. The therapy or medicine are the things that fight cancer. One would not want to say that getting cancer is beneficial because it allows one awareness to fight cancer...anymore than one would want to say that dukkha is beneficial because it allows one awareness to fight dukkha. TG 18979 From: James Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 6:55pm Subject: The Science of Meditation From "Maybe This Year, You Can Try Whipping Your Brain Into Shape" By Sharon Begley, The Wall Street Journal, 2003 …Back in his lab at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Prof. Davidson and his team recruited employees of a local biotech firm. A randomly selected 23 received meditation training once a week, for two-to-three hours, for eight weeks. Jon Kabat-Zinn, professor emeritus of the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester, taught them the technique called mindfulness, in which the meditator views passing thoughts as an impartial and nonjudgmental observer. Sixteen employees received no such training. The resulting brain differences were clear, as the UW researchers will report in an upcoming issue of the journal of Psychosomatic Medicine. After the eight weeks, and again 16 weeks later, EEG measurements showed that activity in the frontal cortices of the meditators had shifted: There were now more neuronal firings in left than right regions nestled just behind the forehead. That pattern is associated with positive feelings such as joy, happiness, and low levels of anxiety, Prof. Davidson and others had found in earlier studies. The control group showed no right-to-left shift. …The UW research avoids the worst of the methodological pitfalls, such as lack of a control group, and also fits with a long line of neuroplasticity studies on animals and people. These show that paying attention is a sine qua non for neuroplastic changes, and that just thinking about repeated movements can in some cases change the brain as extensively as the movements themselves. Focused attention is a hallmark of mindfulness meditation. EEGs don't have fine enough spatial resolution to reveal what synaptic changes caused the shift in frontal cortex activity from right to left. For that, the UW researchers are using other neuro- gadgets. Through MRI, they're examining whether meditation strengthens connections between a region of the prefrontal cortex and a brain structure called the amygdala. A little almond-shaped center deep in the brain, the amygdala is involved in such negative emotions as fear, anger, anxiety, and depression. Inhibitory signals from the prefrontal cortex appear to rein in the amygdala like a good yank on a kite string. The stronger or more numerous those `stop firing!' signals, the stronger the inhibition. "It appears that the inhibitory signal reaching the amygdala can be modulated voluntarily," says Prof. Davidson. A newer technique, called diffusion tensor imaging, will show whether meditation induces actual structural changes in the connections between the frontal lobes and amygdala. The plasticity of connections between the thinking and feeling regions of the brain casts doubt on the belief that each of us has a `set point' for happiness, and that neither a Powerball win nor a Sept. 11 tragedy budges it for long. If inhibitory connections between the frontal lobes and the amygdala can be strengthened in an enduring way, then perhaps you can voluntarily shift that not-so-set- point. "I suspect that the set point is more moveable than we think, and that meditation can move it," says Prof. Davidson. "The idea that our brains are the result of the unfolding of a fixed genetic program is just shattered by the data on neuroplasticity." Not a bad thought for the new year. 18980 From: bodhi342 Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 7:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dukkha as Medicine? > Generally you have a good point in that dukkha is the source of our becoming aware that there is a problem and the impetus for finding a remedy. But dukkha is not the therapy or medicine. The therapy or medicince are the states that oppose dukkha. Just as cancer is not the therapy or medicine for cancer. The therapy or medicine are the things that fight cancer. One would not want to say that getting cancer is beneficial because it allows one awareness to fight cancer...anymore than one would want to say that dukkha is > beneficial because it allows one awareness to fight dukkha. Thanks for your analysis TG. What you say does indeed apply to cancer, and I see that I should a word other than 'medicine'. However, Dukkha is omnipresent, cancer is not. Dukkha cannot be 'fought' like cancer - only made irrelevant through understanding. Imagine a state where only the opposite of Dukkha was present (Sukkha in Pali?). There would be no impetus to seek realization, hence continuing in the sleep of illusion. Desires being pursued and satisfied, but no liberation. Only the perception of Dukkha awakens us to search for the third state - realization. The hunger that drive the child to cry and seek milk, is not to be fought - either satisfied or sublimated. Therefore the question arises, is our 'cancer' to use your (analogy) dukkha or illusion? I would suggest that it is actually the illusional/delusional state. Dukkha is the first step towards 'cure', whether we choose to go down that path or not. Devotion often seems proportional to dukkha. We do not see people who are in a state of pleasure, seeking salvation as much as people in pain. My point here is that dukkha is not necessarily the worst state of the three possible ones, even though it may appear so at first glance. "I saw grief drinking a cup of sorrow and called out "it tastes sweet, does it not?" "You have caught me", grief answered, "and you have ruined my business, how can I sell sorrow when you know it's blessing?" (Rumi). "The falls of our life provide us with the energy to propel ourselves to a higher level" (Kabbalah). "I wish that all those calamities would happen again and again so that we could see You again and again, for seeing You means that we will no longer see repeated births and deaths" (Bhaagvat). "One who knows that pain and pleasure are both the same, and honor and dishonor as well, who remains detached from joy and sorrow, realizes the true essence in the world" (Granth). In other words, only when we recognize and accept our present state as Dukkha, unsatisfactoriness, unhappiness, painful experiences, and frustration, only then will we wish to look into the causes and conditions that give rise to it. We would not even recognize our 'illness', where it not for Dukkha. Dukkha may be the most underated gift to sentient beings. Dharam 18981 From: Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 3:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dukkha as Medicine? In a message dated 1/21/2003 7:25:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, bodhi342@y... writes: > Imagine a state where only the opposite of Dukkha was present (Sukkha > in Pali?). There would be no impetus to seek realization, hence > continuing in the sleep of illusion. Desires being pursued and > satisfied, but no liberation. Only the perception of Dukkha awakens > us to search for the third state - realization. The hunger that > drive the child to cry and seek milk, is not to be fought - either > satisfied or sublimated. > If there was only a state of sukha (pleasantness) there would be no reason to escape anything. Why would one want to escape pleasantness? Lots of quotes in your post, but none from the Buddha. I know what you're saying, but I wouldn't over romanticize pain. ;) TG 18982 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 8:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? Dear Jon, "eeshwara" means King, Have control of, Ruler...etc. The Buddha also acquires the "eeshwara"ness to the following, Jhana - (Jhana samapaththi - Samadhi ) - so called, "samadhi-samapaththeeshwara" Irrdhi - so called, "Irrdeeshiwara" Dhamma - so called, "Dhammeshwara" Sanga- so called, "Sangeshwara" Gana - so called, "Ganeshawara" Loka - so called, "Lokeshawara" ~meththa ranil >I would just >like to clarify the term "ciththeshwara". I presume the Pali >equivalent would be 'citta-something'; what is the 'something' here? > > A king will have control over his kingdom. Likewise the Buddha is > > called > > "chiththeshwara" - meaning, having control over the mind. So to > > answer your > > question "Did the Buddha exercise any control over his mind?" well, > > you have > > to refer the pitakas, "but" as he is having control over his mind - > > he > > could. 18983 From: Egberdina Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 10:31pm Subject: Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) Hi Swee Boon, My comments are interspersed throughout. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi Herman > > > I am sorry, but there is no mention of brain chemical reactions in > > the Abhidhamma. I cannot accept your statement at all. > > What are brain chemical reactions? They are physical 'particles' > called atoms and molecules that interact with one another. If they > are physical atoms and molecules, they are rupas. Explained in this > way, how am I wrong? Or do you mean that brain chemical reactions do > not involve atoms and molecules at all? Please enlighten. I cannot enlighten. It normaly requires he shedding of views dearly clung to. Only you can do that. But the Abhidhamma is not a handbook of physical science. The Abhidhamma is the study of experience. Much Western science goes out of its way to avoid the role consciousness plays in all knowing. Western science posits that it's knowledge and principles exist consciousness notwithstanding. This is contrary to Buddhism alltogether. That you consider rupas equivalent to atoms and molecules is up to you. For me, an atom or a molecule is at best an ideal representation, a concept, a thought. What does that make it? > > > > The Abhidhamma is a very thorough analysis of "mind". What > Westerners > > would call "matter" is not the subject of the Abhidhamma at all. > > That's where you are wrong. The Abhidhamma is a very thorough > analysis of both "mind" and "matter". > Yes, I did, no you didn't. Yes you are, no you are not. This is futile. Yes it is. > > > According to the Visudh (whatever) the difference is known by > > insight. I think it is easier than that. The difference between > > seeing and the object of seeing is established by numerous games > of > > peekaboo, that's right, peekaboo. Kids love it. Seeing is > identified > > by not seeing, the object of seeing is identified by it's > > disappearanace. > > The learning process is not conscious, it does not require the > > formulation of an I who learns. The body learns until it starts to > > accept authority and then there is the slippery slope of faith in > > authority which leads to eternal perdition :-) > > Jesus Christ (or Oh! Buddha), I don't know what you are talking > about! > I'm sure you are telling me the truth here. > > > > Do you really know that Brain Chemical Reaction A corresponds to > Thought X? > > > It is easily empirically established that every moving electrical > > field has a magnetic field associated with it. And every moving > > magnetic field has an electrical field associated with it. This is > > how we can communicate over the Net. > > Like wise mind and body are inseparably intertwined. One comes > with > > the other, always. > > There is no mind without the body. There is no body without the > mind. > > How does this analogy answer my question on whether you really > *know* that Brain Chemical Reaction A corresponds to Thought X? > > My criteria of an answer from you is either a POSITIVE YES (Yes, I > really know) or a NEGATIVE NO (No, I really don't know). An analogy > would certainly not suffice. You must also explain the process by > which you *"really know"*. If you have criteria as to what answers you will accept before you have heard them, then that could indicate a closed mind. > > This will allow me to determine whether your claim that "Brain > Chemical Reaction A corresponds to Thought X" is a case of "Thus > Have I Heard" or is a case of genuine *KNOWING*. Knowing requires experience, as opposed to faith which appeals when the void is too close to home. Knowing requires no faith, untested faith is clinging. I concur with James, though I cannot publicly advocate you taking drugs. This would contravene laws in any number of countries, and could upset some people. Why don't you tell me about the thoughts of immaterial beings? > > You can't sit on the middle of the fence. You just watch me :-) > > By the way, your statement "There is no mind without the body. There > is no body without the mind." is in direct contradiction with what > the Buddha taught. > > Go to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/loka.html > See Comments on Realms 22, 28, 29, 30, 31. Neither you or I know, in any sense of the word, what the Buddha taught. Still, I'm sure he wouldn't mind me discussing from a position that doesn't require the blind acceptance of things not understood. All the best Herman > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 18984 From: James Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 0:42am Subject: Patthana Hi Sarah, I have been meaning to reply to a post that I have now lost in a mass of other posts (ironically most of them about control). However, I believe, if memory serves, that you and I have two main sticking points from that post. One was about the round of becoming: I say the Buddha said he didn't know how it originated, and you said that he did and everything was explained in the Patthana (which when he thought about multi-colored rays emanated from his body). The other point was how could I deny rupa if there is a body which I experience. Since the second one is more complicated, let's tackle the first issue. I was surprised to learn that, yes, there is supposedly a book that explains everything. To quote accesstoinsight.org: ·Patthana ("The Book of Relations"). This book, by far the longest single volume in the Tipitaka (over 6,000 pages long in the Siamese edition), describes the 24 paccayas, or laws of conditionality, through which the dhammas interact. These laws, when applied in every possible permutation with the dhammas described in the Dhammasangani, give rise to all knowable experience. Now, how does the existence of this book agree with this sutta: At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. A being who has not been your mother at one time in the past is not easy to find... A being who has not been your father... your brother... your sister... your son... your daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find. "Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries -- enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released." Samyutta Nikaya XV.14-19; Mata Sutta Now, if the Buddha didn't know how it all began, how was a book written that explains everything? And I think it is ironic that 6,000 pages is mentioned in the above quote about the Patthana because consider this quote about another important book, "The complete Internal Revenue Code is more than 21 megabytes in length, and contains more than 2.8 million words; printed 60 lines to the page, it would fill almost 6000 letter-size pages." http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/ustax.html Hmmm…the similarity is too much to ignore. Does this mean that the United States Tax Code explains all knowable experience as well? ;-) Metta, James 18985 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 2:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: All in a days work Hi Victor, --- "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Regarding the discussion between King Pasenadi and Queen Mallika, are > you talking about the discussion in the discourse in > Raja Sutta > The King > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/udana/ud5-01.html .... Yes, this is the one. Remember, we had quite a nice long chat about it before? I’m always quoting it which is why I just made a passing reference this time. The Buddha confirms to them that “Having explored all quarters with the mind, one would simply not attain that derer than the self in any place....”. In the Masefield PTS tanslation it is called “Dear” (Piya) and not “The King”, but B.Bodhi explained out the titles can be changed. Thanks for reading my long post, Victor and for clarifying this point. How ‘we’ conceptualize and what states arise after the experience of vipaka (result of kamma) through one of the sense doors, depends on accumulations and habits. I liked Kom’s explanation in a post on music (post 18093), so let me use this space as an excuse to requote from it: Kom: “The tika explains that after paramatha objects appear to the sense door and the mind door, we are bound to conjoin what appeared together and conceptualize on them. After we hear a sound, we conceptualize its pattern (like phrases of music, or speech), its origination (like being music, or a person's voice), and its meaning, each involving more elaborate conceptualization / mind-constructs about the sound that we just heard. A person yet untrained in the conceptualization, or differently trained in the conceptualization may conceptualize on the sound very differently. A baby hears a sound, but might not have associated the sound with music, may not be able to associate the sound with a person or its meaning. A person of a different culture may interpret the sound differently. A person hit by a hard object may say "ouch" in English, but certainly wouldn't say that in Thai. I think how we conceptualize the sound is mostly based on our accumulations / training that has been going on in the past and in the present. When you hear about Tchikvosky's Chinese dance the first time, it may take you a while to think of it as being a comedy. But after repeated association, this thinking becomes automatic. The on-going mental states that are going on right now influence the mental states (reaction to similar situations) that would arise in the future.” I’m reminded of the Dvedhavitakka Sutta (MN 19) on the accumulation of unskilful or skilful states: “If he frequently thinks and ponders upon thoughts of sensual desire.....then his mind inclines to thoughts of sensual desire....ill-will...cruelty” and the opposite for thoughts of renunciation, non-ill will and non-cruelty. Also the Vitakkasanthana Sutta (MN 20) on the importance of understanding what are wise and unwise thoughts. I appreciate the accounts of Qu Mallika and K.Pasenadi a lot - very human. Many difficuties.....She met the Buddha at a young age, devoted herself to following the Teachings and helping K.Pasenadi in an exemplary way. She did not become a sotapanna in that lifetime however and even was reborn in hell for just a few days. Ok, another post sometime. ***** While I’m talking to you, I checked a couple of early posts on DSG on the 4 kinds of responses to questions (by Jim and others) which some of us discussed once before. You or Rob Ed might like to look at these numbers: 2948 and 2954 and any others in the thread. They don’t answers Rob Ed’s qu however. Sarah ===== 18986 From: bodhi342 Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 6:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dukkha as Medicine? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: TG: If there was only a state of sukha (pleasantness) there would be no reason to escape anything. Why would one want to escape pleasantness? D: Because just experiencing Sukha would leave us in the sleep of illusion. Our understanding is that that is imperfect, however 'desirable' or, indeed addictive, it may be. TG: Lots of quotes in your post, but none from the Buddha. D: There are many, many quotes from Buddha already here. It is not interesting that 'others' have come to similar conclusions? TG: I know what you're saying, but I wouldn't over romanticize pain. ;) D: TG, I think you misunderstand what I am trying to point out. I apologize. I am not interested in romanticizing pain, as much as showing that we treat dukkha with aversion that it does not deserve. Your analogy of fighting cancer shows this, so let me develop that issue a bit. Cancer is regarded by most 'experts' as something to be fought, overcome, defeated, and most patients buy into that approach. Most treatments involve removing or killing those (and other) cells. However, cancer cells are as much a part of the constituents of that body as any other. Slightly different - yes, foreign - no. The fight against cancer is a fight against part of the same body. Aversion, aversion, aversion. Cancers can and do spontaneously regress, possibly with a strong spiritual awakening. Here, there is sublimation of the cells by the body itself. The cancer cells have played their part as pointers to imbalance. The 'cure' is addressing the underlying problem - much better than killing... So much aversion to dukkha, yet we are warned against aversion??? Is this consistent with right understanding? metta, Dharam 18987 From: nidive Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 8:00am Subject: Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) Hi Herman, > That you consider rupas equivalent to atoms and molecules is up > to you. For me, an atom or a molecule is at best an ideal > representation, a concept, a thought. What does that make it? I am amazed by your reasoning. Not because it is intelligent. If atoms and molecules are merely concepts, why bother to talk about brain chemical reactions? Why bother to believe that there are chemical reactions taking place in the brain? What bother to talk about Chemistry? Amazing is your reasoning. > I cannot enlighten. It normaly requires the shedding of views dearly > clung to. Only you can do that. > But the Abhidhamma is not a handbook of physical science. > The Abhidhamma is the study of experience. > Much Western science goes out of its way to avoid the role consciousness > plays in all knowing. Western science posits that it's knowledge and > principles exist consciousness notwithstanding. This is contrary to > Buddhism alltogether. If rupas are not "matter", what are they? Please enlighten (which really means explain; we all know it is impossible for anyone to nlighten anyone). > > That's where you are wrong. The Abhidhamma is a very thorough > > analysis of both "mind" and "matter". > Yes, I did, no you didn't. Yes you are, no you are not. This is > futile. Yes it is. If you think you are right, please address directly the issue as to why rupas are not "matter". Such a clever but evasive counter response is not conducive to Dhamma talk. > If you have criteria as to what answers you will accept before you > have heard them, then that could indicate a closed mind. If you really *know* that "Brain Chemical Reaction A corresponds to Thought X", you would be able to explain the process by which you know without using analogies. Once again, you have chosen to give a clever though evasive counter response. > Knowing requires experience, as opposed to faith which appeals when > the void is too close to home. Knowing requires no faith, untested > faith is clinging. Knowing requires experience, you are correct. If that is the case, why can't you describe the experience by which you *know* that "Brain Chemical Reaction A corresponds to Thought X"? > I concur with James, though I cannot publicly advocate you taking > drugs. This would contravene laws in any number of countries, and > could upset some people. Nobody is stopping you from doing so. > Why don't you tell me about the thoughts of immaterial beings? I don't have abhinna powers, so I can't read the contents of the minds of immaterial beings. But through insight that discriminates the distinction between rupas and namas, I am able to infer that immaterial beings do not possess rupas like us humans. Immaterial beings are merely namas. > > By the way, your statement "There is no mind without the body. There is no body > > without the mind." is in direct contradiction with what the Buddha taught. > Neither you or I know, in any sense of the word, what the Buddha taught. Neither you nor I know, in any sense of the word, whether the Buddha existed or not. Does that invalidate the Dhamma? > Still, I'm sure he wouldn't mind me discussing from a position that > doesn't require the blind acceptance of things not understood. "And what is the right view that has fermentations, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has fermentations, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn117.html Since it is impossible for us to know if there are indeed spontaneously reborn beings, does that mean that it is impossible to possess right view that has fermentations? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18988 From: Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 3:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthana Hi, James - In a message dated 1/22/03 3:44:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > Hi Sarah, > > I have been meaning to reply to a post that I have now lost in a mass > of other posts (ironically most of them about control). However, I > believe, if memory serves, that you and I have two main sticking > points from that post. One was about the round of becoming: I say > the Buddha said he didn't know how it originated, and you said that > he did and everything was explained in the Patthana (which when he > thought about multi-colored rays emanated from his body). The other > point was how could I deny rupa if there is a body which I > experience. Since the second one is more complicated, let's tackle > the first issue. > > I was surprised to learn that, yes, there is supposedly a book that > explains everything. To quote accesstoinsight.org: > ·Patthana ("The Book of Relations"). This book, by far the longest > single volume in the Tipitaka (over 6,000 pages long in the Siamese > edition), describes the 24 paccayas, or laws of conditionality, > through which the dhammas interact. These laws, when applied in every > possible permutation with the dhammas described in the Dhammasangani, > give rise to all knowable experience. > > Now, how does the existence of this book agree with this sutta: > > At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable > beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, > though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are > transmigrating &wandering on. A being who has not been your mother > at one time in the past is not easy to find... A being who has not > been your father... your brother... your sister... your son... your > daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find. > > "Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A > beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance > and fettered by craving are transmigrating &wandering on. Long have > you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, > swelling the cemeteries -- enough to become disenchanted with all > fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be > released." > Samyutta Nikaya XV.14-19; Mata Sutta > > Now, if the Buddha didn't know how it all began, how was a book > written that explains everything? And I think it is ironic that > 6,000 pages is mentioned in the above quote about the Patthana > because consider this quote about another important book, "The > complete Internal Revenue Code is more than 21 megabytes in length, > and contains more than 2.8 million words; printed 60 lines to the > page, it would fill almost 6000 letter-size pages." > http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/ustax.html Hmmm…the similarity is too > much to ignore. Does this mean that the United States Tax Code > explains all knowable experience as well? ;-) > > Metta, James > > =============================== It's not that the Buddha didn't know "how it all began," but rather that he made no assumption of a beginning and, in fact, stated that no beginning is known or evident. In fact, it seems to me that the assertion that all (worldly) dhammas arise due to conditions already logically implies no "first cause". Now, the Patthana is an attempt at describing the varieties of relationships holding among conditioned dhammas. It serves as a parallel system, I believe, to the scheme of dependent origination. Now, whether it is due to the Buddha or not, and whether *any* of the Abhidhamma is due to the Buddha or not, I don't think that there is any contradiction between an attempt to lay bare all possible interconnections among conditioned dhammas and the fact/assumption of no first cause. 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) 18989 From: nidive Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 8:32am Subject: Re: The Four Elements Hi James, > and I don't take kindly to commands. How is my message interpreted as a command? I said "please". Am I threatening you? Or are you somehow feeling threatened by my request? > If you chose not to believe it, that is your choice; > but I don't have to meet your demands. Doesn't that mean you are somehow insincere when discussing about the Dhamma? It's like running away and avoiding something. > Are you now the official dhamma police? Is this question uttered in good will or bad will? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18990 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 8:33am Subject: Re: Dukkha as Medicine? Dear Dharam, Welcome to dsg from me. I didn't recognize you from your new email address and I am usually 24 hrs. late in my reading of the posts here, hence the late welcome. I will follow your discussion with great interest but will not contribute as yet, since I don't want to scare you away ;-); just kidding. I am glad that you finally decided to join this group, as I said before, you will hear voices more informed and insightful than my own. Hope you gain as much as I have from reading the discussions here and look forward to your own contributions. metta, Sukin. ps: You might be interested in reading the conversation between Peter and Sarah in the " Yasodhara (rather large)" thread in connection to your query! If you do not wish to read through the whole post, look for 'Ajahn Dukkha' and read only that part. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi342 " wrote: > Hello, > > I am a new member, and have been enjoying reading all the recent > messages. May I ask a question? > > We know a little about the cause of Dukkha. We know a little about > the manifestations of Dukkha. We know a little about the > consequences of Dukkha. > > Do we know whether Dukkha itself points to its resolution? > > One could speculate that if it were not for Dukkha, Buddha would not > have been driven to find out more... > > Seems Dukkha awakens us from the deep sleep of illusion. Most of us > seeking the truth, are moved to do this as a consequence of > experiencing unpleasant dukkha. Therefore dukkha is our benefactor > in disguise :-). Without dukkha, we would not be moved to reach out > for understanding/help. Without Dukkha would we be able to revive > our inner consciousness? Dukkha itself is the first line therapy! > > Look forward to your response. Thanks. > > Dharam 18991 From: nidive Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 9:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthana Hi Howard, > In fact, it seems to me that the assertion that all (worldly) > dhammas arise due to conditions already logically implies > no "first cause". I had once pondered on this issue. My conclusion is the same as yours. If the present moment depends on a previous moment to arise, then all previous moments that had arisen must also require another previous moment to arise as well. If we apply the above recursive definition indefinitely, a "start point" simply cannot be discerned. It recurses forever. There is no base case where we can stop the recursion. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18992 From: bodhi342 Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 9:04am Subject: Re: Dukkha as Medicine? Thank you for your warm welcome, Sukin. From what I can see so far, there is little here to scare one away ;-)! metta, Dharam 18993 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 9:18am Subject: Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind Dear Dhamma Friends, As a newcomer I would like to say to you all ''Hello''.I am fond of Dhamma.Talking anything related to Dhamma never makes me tired.I talk sincerely and I show all my feelings and belief in exchange for other's.More sensible thing is to talk on practical matters.But any topics or issues are welcome to discuss. I still remember my childhood.Since my childhood,I have been thinking senses and my surroundings.I examine myself internally and I check the out-side world with my own thought.As time passes on,maturity is built up and thoughts become more and more complicated.As there are many countless matters around me,I consider what is worthy to note in terms of rightness. I learned a lot literature related to Dhamma.But I feel it like this what I have read is just for knowledge and it doesn't mean anything without any achievement.So I orientate to practical matters.I always try to put my mind on a checked tract so that I can avoid unnecessary reactions and responses within my mind,which I believe is the causes of everything happening at the moment. Trying to be on the right path deserves to do so because it has numerous effects on myself and others.I do like to talk Dhamma matters whenever possible.So,Dhamma friends,let's have a talk on Dhamma.Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind.What we need to do is actively search for it even though there is a lot of hinderance.I do look forward to hearing from Dhamma friends talking Dhamma-related matters. May you all be on the right path. Htoo Naing 18994 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 39, Comm, Breathing and a question, to Num Dear Larry, Num, and all, A few difficult points. See below. op 20-01-2003 01:47 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Yhera, Commentary, The Section on > Breasthing, p. 51 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html > > Iti ajjhattam va kaye kayanupassi viharati = "Thus he lives > contemplating the body in the body internally." This bhikkhu dwells in > contemplation of the body in his own respiration body. > > [Tika] By way of the practice of quietude > [samatha bhavana] however there is no arising of the sign of full > absorption [appana nimittuppatti] in another's respiration-body. > > Bahiddha va kaye kayanupassi viharati = "Or he lives contemplating the > body in the body externally." Or this bhikkhu dwells in contemplation of > the body in another's respiration-body. > > [T] "Or... in another's respiration-body." This portion deals with > reflection for the growth of insight and has no reference to the growth > of full absorption of quietude... Nina: I have some thoughts, but since Num is near the source, I like to know whether there are other points we should remember. For the growth of insight: I was at the deathbed of a member of the family and noticed that the breathing became very difficult and seemed to have stopped. This is a reminder that can bring us back to the present reality within us: maybe rupa that is breath or any other nama or rupa appearing now. Actually, I see it as similar to: dead body: as that corpse, so our body now is like a corpse; only rupa, no owner. When we touch a corpse we can feel how cold it is, it is no longer the person we used to know. But even now, where is the person? That is thinking, but when there are conditions mindfulness can arise right then and there. Or another example: Parts of the body. When I cut my nails, the nail is not Nina. Cut off my hand: that hand is not Nina. This reminds us: from head to toe: no person to be found. This should not be merely thinking, insight is not thinking. It can be developed stage by stage. I feel whenever we read about insight, it refers to the present moment and it must be very daily. If not, what is the use? Nina. 18995 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: All in a days work Dear Sarah, This is wonderful. I add some of my own reflections. op 21-01-2003 14:34 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > > Hearing about what courage or patience really are in terms of wholesome > qualities and facing up to kilesa (defilements) can sound very airy-fairy, > I agree and also very remote from our daily experience. Sometimes we’re so > caught up in our thoughts that we cannot appreciate the reminders at all. > When we were first married and I moved to Australia I was very unhappy. We > visited K.Sujin and though I was visibly distressed (and probably shedding > a few tears), she just smiled and talked as usual about seeing and visible > object and metta. Nina: Seeing and visible object, and when in Bgk we still talk about seeing and visible object, hearing and sound. Why? To learn more about what is real. What is the use of the Abhidhamma if it is not applied right now? After seeing we remember people, this or that person, we are caught up in the world of thinking. That is very natural, but it is valuable to develop understanding of all kinds of realities, thinking included. We should not delay it, not wait until the unpleasant worldly conditions of loss (of possessions or of people, of friendship), of blame, dishonour and pain appear. When dukkha strikes, when we are very upset, it is difficult to be openminded to the teachings, as you say. We cling so much to our sad feeling. We may analyse it as nama and rupa: hardness, unpleasant feeling, thinking with dosa, but this is still thinking of my sadness, not the development of insight. During that time we are not openminded to all the moments of seeing, visible object, hearing or sound which also appeared in between the moments of sadness. When we are holding on to a specific reality, there is no development of insight. Sarah: as we read in the Mulapariyaya > Sutta Commentary: "The worldling is so-called because he generates a > multitude of diverse defilements etc..." on account of the various namas > and rupas (mental and physical phenomena) experienced. > > This is why if we can appreciate that vipaka is just this moment of seeing > and then gone, it can be a condition for guarding the sense-doors for a > moment and understanding how we live like mad people. N: Very good. That is why it is important to understand seeing as a conditioned nama. Otherwise, how can we understand what vipaka is. If we do not develop understanding we come more and more foolish. Christine:The feelings arise uncontrollably. I cannot make them not > come, go away, or change into something else. They remain until they > subside in their own good time (speaking conventionally, not of cittas). > > I 'seem' to make 'free' choices, but that is because of all the > conditions leading up to that moment. Previous conditions have formed my > desires, reactions, opinions, ambitions and plans." Nina: You described this very well. Sarah: And so, as always, it comes back to the present moment, to not tracing > back the past’ or yearning for the future yet to come’, but discerning > with insight the present reality. This is why K.Sujin just continued > talking to me about seeing and visible object when I was lost in all those > stories and distress. If there were no moments of seeing and visible > object, hearing and sound and so on, there would be no papanca on account > of them. Nina: I listened to A. Sujin for about thirtyseven years and I have not listened enough, I did not understand much yet, but I am grateful for being able to listen and just accumulate a little bit of understanding. There is an expression in Thai (I wrote about it before): cai ron, a heart that is hot, being hotheaded or impatient. We have to be patient to listen. I am not always patient. Once a good friend, Kh Duangduen, talked to me about not being impatient, not wishing for a result. She said, not in a lifetime she expected a result of the development of insight. Her talk helped me a lot. We need openmindedness to listen, and also a humble attitude of mind. When we read about similes, such as the chariot, or the man and the boat, we think they are not logical. We are used to a certain way of logical reasoning, but this way is different from the way of reasoning of the teachers of old. We can get the full benefit from the Tipitaka and commentaries if we try to understand what point was exactly brought forward and explained. If we are openminded, humble, not hotheaded and not merely following our own trend of thinking we shall have more understanding of the explanations in the Tipitaka and commentaries. As A. Sujin said, patience is beneficial at all times and seeing its benefit it is a condition for its development. Nina. 18996 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:14am Subject: Fwd: [dsg] Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) Dear NEO Swee Boon,James and Dhamma Friends, Here discussion is on The Matter,I think. Abhidhamma is totally different from other things.It is a means of total liberation.So its view on The Matter will be a bit different from view of Scientists and the allied. The Buddha is not a reductionist but The Great One who founded The Real Dhamma and left a lot to learn for later and later generations for their liberation. The Earth properties(I think they are refering to Pathavi).That property is single and the only property owned by that matter.Its characteristics are softness,tenderness,firmness,hardness and so on.We can realise its existance only by sensing through bodily touch.Eyes,ears,nose,tongue all these sense stations cannot know the sense of touch of that matter. Earth or Pathavi is the basis for all matters,without Pathavi all other matters(Rupa) will not exist.It has been in the universe for untimed time whatever scientists express it started with Big Bang. That matter is real matter and can be sensed by bodily touch.All matter are only one matter of this kind(I mean all things in the universe but not Abhidhamma Rupa which needed to be extended and only one Rupa is on the present discussion so far).This matter again has many forms in terms of science.Elements are basic building blocks for all matters in the universe.Elements again have neutron,proton and electron.Anyway all these things are only Pathavi.This is not a reduction. Just seeing from Abhidhamma point of view. In an object,elements move around.This cause heat(the fire property or Tejo).If move fast,it causes heat and if move very slowly it causes coldness.This rupa is the second component of four Mahabhutarupa.It can be felt by bodily touch.So it is a real existance. Within an object,elements attract each other or push against each other depending on their electrical property.This rupa is called the wind property or Vayo.It can be sensed by bodily touch-press a football-so it is a real existance.This is the third component of 4 Mahabhutarupa. The fourth component is so subtle that it cannot be sensed by bodily touch.It is called Apo or the water property.You will argue that you can sense water.But it is not.Apo is the property that binds together elements.If tightly bound,there is hardly any water in that object.If loosely bound,it will exist as a liquid or a gas.So Apo is not Pancarupa-Aramana but dhamma-aramana. All these four things co-exist and cannot be separated.These 4 Mahabhutarupa is just the basis for all other rupa in Abhidhamma and science as well.Science has a different view and it will not examine these things.It only deals with laws that control among elements,molecules,matters and objects.They are trying to live eternal life which is quite different from Abhidhamma.Your cells can be cloned and it can be created to be born another copies of you.When you are old enough to die scientists will transfer your memories to your clone and then you will live forever.Quite different from Abhidhamma.Science neglects Anicca,Dukkha and Anatta. I hope Dhamma friends will have a clear view on the present discussion regarding Rupa.Now just only 4 rupa has been talked about.there are 24 other left,which are more subtle to realise but should be a matter of understanding. I think this is my view and I already interpreted the 4 great existances.Any comment from Dhamma friends are warmly welcome and if there are queries please do not hesitate to post.I am very willing to get involved. May you all have a clear view on Rupa which is one of four Paramattha- dhamma. With Great Metta, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: Hi James > the Abhidhamma rejects forms and instead breaks down form into dhamas. "And what is form? The four great existents [the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property] and the form derived from them: this is called form. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-057.html Is the Buddha being reductionist when he breaks down form into the four great existents? I think in the ultimate sense, there is really no 'form', but just simply the four great existents. How do you interpret the four great existents? Regards, NEO Swee Boon --- End forwarded message --- 18997 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 11:16am Subject: [dsg] Re: All in a days work Hi James, Sarah and Nina, I appreciate all your posts - still considering them closely while trying to find Azita's favourite 'patience, courage and good cheer'. (What's the Pali for good cheer?). I may have some more comments or questions in a few days. Still treading water. The problem (and the great benefit) with having Good Friends in the Dhamma is your rather merciless reminders of the Teachings. It's comforting in an exasperating sort of way though, along the lines of 'Well isn't that typical, I just KNEW they'd say that! ... :-) Many thanks. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, > This is wonderful. I add some of my own reflections. 18998 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 0:00pm Subject: Re: Dukkha as Medicine? Hello Dharam, I wonder if it would be worth going back a little further and looking at Anicca (impermanence) - the first of the three characteristics of existence. Certainly dukkha is mental or physical pain - but I think it includes much more than that as well. Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary includes the following meaning in a longer entry. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm "dukkha: (1) 'pain', painful feeling, which may be bodily and mental (s. vedaná). (2) 'Suffering', 'ill'. As the first of the Four Noble Truths (s. sacca) and the second of the three characteristics of existence (s. ti-lakkhana), the term dukkha is not limited to painful experience as under (1), but refers to the unsatisfactory nature and the general insecurity of all conditioned phenomena which, on account of their impermanence, are all liable to suffering, and this includes also pleasurable experience. Hence 'unsatisfactoriness' or 'liability to suffering' would be more adequate renderings, if not for stylistic reasons. Hence the first truth does not deny the existence of pleasurable experience, as is sometimes wrongly assumed." We can experience a thing only by contrast with its opposite. Would we know what happiness was if we couldn't also experience misery? Happiness and misery, heat and cold, light and dark are things that exist only by way of contrast. I think it could be said that contrast and change equal life as we know it ... I'm not sure I would call Dukkha a gift - by 'Whom' is the gift given, and 'who' receives it? I don't think there is a 'lesson plan' with little well meant 'wake-up' calls of suffering and misery. This is just Samsara 'the perpetual wandering'. Different lives same old stories. Pleasure and pain - nothing lasts, there is just unceasing change. In S. XXII, 15, dukkha (stress, unsatisfactoriness) and anatta (not- self) are taught as being derived from anicca: "Bhikkhus, form is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom this: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' (Similarly for Feeling, Perception, Volitional formations, Consciousness)' "Seeing thus ... He understands: "... There is no more for this state of being.'" In Ud. IV, I "the perception of impermanence should be cultivated for the removal of the conceit 'I am.' For when one perceives impermanence, Meghiya, the perception of not-self is established. When one perceives not- self one reaches the removal of the conceit 'I am,' which is called Nibbana here and now." metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi342 " wrote: > Hello, > > I am a new member, and have been enjoying reading all the recent > messages. May I ask a question? > > We know a little about the cause of Dukkha. We know a little about > the manifestations of Dukkha. We know a little about the > consequences of Dukkha. > > Do we know whether Dukkha itself points to its resolution? > > One could speculate that if it were not for Dukkha, Buddha would not > have been driven to find out more... > > Seems Dukkha awakens us from the deep sleep of illusion. Most of us > seeking the truth, are moved to do this as a consequence of > experiencing unpleasant dukkha. Therefore dukkha is our benefactor > in disguise :-). Without dukkha, we would not be moved to reach out > for understanding/help. Without Dukkha would we be able to revive > our inner consciousness? Dukkha itself is the first line therapy! > > Look forward to your response. Thanks. > > Dharam 18999 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 1:39pm Subject: Ethical Basis [was: All in a days work] Hi Sarah, I thought that the dialogue between King Pasenadi and Queen Mallika n Raja Sutta is what you were referring to. The reason I asked is that I want to make sure if that is what you were talking about. Now that I know that Raja Sutta is what you were referring to, maybe we can continue the discussion we had before. We did understand/interpret this discourse differently: I think the significance of Raja Sutta is that the Buddha's utterance points out the rationale/basis of ethics in his teaching: Searching all directions with one's awareness, one finds no one dearer than oneself. In the same way, others are fiercely dear to themselves. So one should not hurt others if one loves oneself. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > > > Regarding the discussion between King Pasenadi and Queen Mallika, are > > you talking about the discussion in the discourse in > > Raja Sutta > > The King > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/udana/ud5-01.html > .... > Yes, this is the one. Remember, we had quite a nice long chat about it > before? I'm always quoting it which is why I just made a passing reference > this time.