19000 From: James Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 3:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthana --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > =============================== > 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 Howard, I found the post by Sarah and she had written, "You asked in one post (not in front of me, so apologies for any misparaphrasing) what causes or brings about these dhammas. The answer is the combination of the 24 conditions as enumerated in detail in the last book of the Abhidhamma, the Pattana (AKA the Great Book). We read that when it came to contemplating the Great Book, multi-coloured rays issued from the Buddha's body." Actually, Sarah had misparaphrased me and I had misparaphrased her in my post. So never mind. But I do find it interesting that anyone might believe the Buddha actually contemplated `The Great Book' since writing wasn't invented in India until several hundred years after his death…and then it was writing on palm leaves. A 6,000 page book would probably equate to 600,000 palm leaves, or more. And it would be quite impossible for the Buddha to verbally teach 6,000 pages of information and for monks to memorize that. And would he even want to? What if it was actually 6,001 pages and someone forgot a page? Dang! There goes the whole thing! Metta, James 19001 From: Egberdina Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 5:32pm Subject: Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) Hi Swee Boon, A rupa is something one can experience. An atom is something one cannot experience. Brain chemistry is to me a valid inference based on what happens to perception and thinking when different type of pharmacologically active substances are ingested. I do not care for your assessments of my intelligence or lack thereof. You would do me a favour by omitting that sort of judgment. There is not one single word in any language which is not conceptual in nature. Raw experience is the only non-conceptual reality. Discussion of experience is always conceptual. Discussion of chemistry is conceptual. Discussion of Dhamma is conceptual. Rupas are part of direct experience. I have previously asserted that Western science tends to view matter as existing outside of experience. Buddhism does not say that. You can keep asking the same questions, you will keep getting the same answers, or none at all. All I want to say beyond this is that the culture within which one is raised tends to be a predictor for the type of beliefs clung to by those given to unquestioning faith. A fervent and zealous person raised in India may be a Hindu, and strongly express Hindu beliefs. A fervent and zealous person born in the Middle East may strongly express Muslim beliefs. A person raised in Ireland may strongly express Roman Catholics views. Of course this is not a hard and fast rule. For example, many people on this list have critically analysed and rejected, either in part or wholly, their "birth religion". And many critically analyse and digest all manner of Buddhist fare that is placed before them. Unquestioning faith is a vital ingredient if the social cohesion of large masses of people is considered important. This is why unquestioning faith is highly praised in many cultures by the ruling elites of those cultures. Expressions of faith, then, say nothing about reality, they speak only of group membership. For me expressions of undigested, unanalysed faith are just a long winded way of saying "I was born here". All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > 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 19002 From: bodhi2500 Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 7:40pm Subject: The All Hi Folks My understanding is that in relation to "The All" Sutta (S.N. 35:23) that according to the commentaries Nibbana is to be included in "The All" under Dhammaa. In the next Sutta, Pahaanasutta.m (S.N.35:24) it says that "The all" is to be abandoned. Is the commentaries take on this that All Dhamma's including Nibbana are abandoned at Parinibbana? (which I think I saw in a post on DSG somewhere??) Also in the next few Suttas of the same section of the Samyutta it seems to say this same "All" (dhammaa) is "burning", "weighed down" and subject to birth,aging and is anicca etc. Can someone please explain the Commentaries take on these Sutta's. Thank you. Steve. 19003 From: Egberdina Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 9:50pm Subject: Re: Patthana Hi Swee Boon, But the Buddhist scheme of things does allow for an end point , or a "final cause" if you will, to a forward recursion, does it not? Or is unbinding a condition for further conditions? All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > 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 19004 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: All in a days work Hi Christine, --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > 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! ... :-) .... Like a stuck record..... so now you KNOW what we're all going to say, maybe you can ask the questions AND give the various replies;-) Glad to see you smiling, Metta, Sarah ====== 19005 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical Basis [was: All in a days work] Hi Victor, --- "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Now that I know that Raja Sutta is what you were referring to, maybe > we can continue the discussion we had before. .... That would be fine - no discussion is ever closed as far as I'm concerned(unless the moderators say it's off-topic;-)) ..... > 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: ..... Why don't you start by summarising the different interpretations we both gave before and the rationale for these and perhaps we can look to see if we can find any middle ground. I agree with your comment above. ..... Metta, Sarah ===== > 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. 19006 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind Dear Htoo Naing, Welcome to DSG and I hope you find it useful and enjoyable here! It is clear that you have extensively studied the Dhamma (inc. Abhidhamma) and it’s great to have your ‘expertise’ here. I agree that we need to always keep in mind the distinction between book knowledge and practical knowledge and I like the way you are considering so carefully. I also agree with all your comments on another thread about rupas and science, but others may not give you such an easy time;-) Is your name Burmese, I wonder and when you mention your childhood and Dhamma study, was this in Burma? Where do you live now (if you don’t mind sharing a little about yourself)? I look forward to more of your contributions and enthusiasm for the Abhidhamma. Metta, Sarah ===== --- "htootintnaing " wrote: > 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. 19007 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dukkha as Medicine? Hi Dharam, I’m particularly glad that you’ve joined us because Sukin had mentioned you to me and particularly your keen interest in studying life and Dhamma. Like you suggest, some aspects we read about are common to other religions too and the words and labels are not important. I think your current discussions on Dukkha with TG and others are very interesting. I’m a bit behind with my reading, so I won’t make many comments for now. You may have already been checking out the ‘Useful Posts’, a few of the very many helpful posts on specific topics from the archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts In particular, if you look under ‘Dukkha’, I think you’ll find some posts discussing details about the 3 kinds of dukkha. I think you are mostly discussing the first kind - ‘dukkha dukkha’ referring to unpleasant bodily and mental experiences. The second kind refers to the nature of change and the third is the ultimate meaning of dukkha (as taught in the 4 Noble Truths) and referring to the impermanent nature of conditioned realities. That which is conditioned and impermanent is unsatisfactory and not-self. I believe it is this last meaning of dukkha that is only taught by the Buddha and applicable to all phenomena (except nibbana). So may I ask if you live in India and whether you have always been interested in considering these questions? I’m glad you feel so at home on DSG and happy to shout out if you need any clarification or wish to discuss any points. Your posts are very eloquent and you don’t need any assistance in expressing your well-considered points for sure. Sukin is a good friend and if you are able to encourage him to share more of his good understanding of Dhamma with us all, we’ll all (or mostly all;-)) be very grateful. I like to quote the follow reminder to him about how we’re ‘on fire’ most the time. It may be appropriate for you as well.(If anyone looks in the photo album for Sukin, it will be apparent why): ..... "Just as a man whose clothes or turban are on fire would apply his utmost zeal and energy, effort and exertion, as well as mindfulness and clear comprehension, so that he may extinguish the fire; even so, the monk should apply his utmost zeal and energy...for the abandoning of those evil, unwholesome qualities.” (‘Self Examination’, AN, Bk of Tens,51, B.Bodhi transl) ..... Look forward to more of your good topics and posts and discussion with TG, Chris and others. Metta, Sarah ===== 19008 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 11:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control Hi James, Ray & All (Footnote for Jim & Suan). I appreciated all the sutta quotes you both gave on the ‘Control’ theme very much. Some are quite interesting. I have the Udana and detailed commentary out, so let me just follow up on one: --- "James " wrote: ************ > 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 > ******************************************************** This links nicely to the ‘Day’s Work’ thread and is an example of a verse that can fit into any theory;-) I need to give Masefield’s translation not because it is necessarily better but just so that the following Commentary notes make sense: ***** “Petty (khuddaa) thoughts, subtle thoughts, when gone along with are the mind’s elation (uppilaavaa). The one who fathoms not these thoughts of mind, onto this and that his careering consciousness (bhantacitto) darts, whilst the one who fathoms these thoughts of mind to be the mind’s elation (uppilaave), being ardent, being one possessing mindfulness, restrains them. Those not come up (anuggate), these the one enlightened has abandoned without remnant.” Commentary notes for the lines starting with “ Not comprehending...” in the first translation and “The one who fathoms not...” in the second: “........... ‘The one who fathoms not these thoughts of mind ‘(ete avidvaa manaso vitakke): the one not knowing as they really are, these thoughts (that have arisen) in the mind (manovitakke), such as thought connected with sense-desires and so on, through full understanding by way of knowing, by way of judging and by way of abandoning , as to their sweet taste, peril and the exiting (from same). ’Onto this and that* his careering cosciousness darts’(huraahura,m dhaavati bhantacitto): on account of the fact of wrong thought not having been abandoned, his unsettled consciousness darts to and fro, zigzags, by way of their sweet taste and so on, onto this object and that by way of “sometimes onto a sight, sometimes onto a sound”(kadaacit ruupe, kadaaci sadde) and so forth. Or alternatively, ‘from there to there his careering consciousnes darts (huraa hura,m dhaavati bhantacitto): on account of the fact of (such) thought not having been fully understood, his mental activity that is of a zigzaging nature through being under the sway of ignorance and craving that are attributable thereto(tannimittaana.m; to the fact of (such) thoughts not having been fully understood), darts to and fro, meaning runs on, from this world to the next world (idhalokato paraloka.m) by way of taking up and laying down (of bodies). ‘Whilst the one who fathoms these thoughts of mind (ete ca vidvaa manuso vitakke): whereas (pana) the one knowing as they really are these thoughts (that have arisen) in the mind, such as thought connected with sense-desires and so on that admit of the aforementioned divisions, as to their sweet taste and so forth. ‘Being ardent’ (aataapiyo): being one possessing energy. ‘Restrains them (sa.mvarati): holds them in check < croos ref to Ud-a 191 re ‘restraint by way of knowledge’, referring to vipassana and then knowledge of nibbana>. “Being one possessing mindfulness (satimaa): being one possessed of mindfulness (satissampanno)............” ***** I’ll leave the Commentary here on this point of developing mindfulness and understanding. Without being able to give the italics and adding the Pali notes in places makes it quite confusing to read, I know. Anyone who follows these notes can draw their own conclusions. When I read it, I read a description of the importance of the development of satipatthana - no self, no ultimate control in the consciousness or mental states involved. Like the suttas I mentioned yesterday from MN (19 and 20), by developing mindfulness and understanding, the distinction between wholesome and unwholesome consciousness and thinking on account of what is seen, heard and so on becomes more and more apparent and the urgency to get out of the ‘cess-pool’ more and more urgent. What do you both think? Metta, Sarah *Jim, Suan - long detailed footnote on ‘ so plavati (huraahura.m)’, ‘upplavati’ and so on with reference to Norman’s article. Above my head for now;-) (Suan, talking about all on fire as I just was, I'm thinking of you and Ven Yanatharo when seeing the fires in Canberra - hope all's well with you). =========================-== 19009 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 0:07am Subject: Re: Ekagatta Cetasika & Concentration [Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state] Hi Howard, As usual, a little late but not forgotten;-) --- upasaka@a... wrote: H:> 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. .... As you say, there are degrees of concentration (‘right’ and ‘wrong’) and also conditions for concentration to sometimes be repeated on the same object (also ‘rightly’ and ‘wrongly’). In a post to Victor some time ago, Jon summarised different uses of developed wholesome concentration in different contexts in the texts: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/10879 I think it’s a helpful summary. ..... H:>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. ..... The distinction between how it is used in the suttas, referring to concentration in jhana or vipassana (as discussed by Jon) is I think quite different from what we mean conventionally. For a start, what we refer to conventionally, such as the concentration during Tai chi, whilst driving, playing tennis and so forth is seldom accompanied by any understanding at the level of vipassana or samatha and is seldom concerned with generosity or abstention from wrong speech or action. In other words, whether the mind is obviously ‘zig-zagging’ here and there (see the post from the Udana) or clearly focussed on a set of movements or ton he road in front, mostly it is accompanied by ignorance and not related to any kind of bhavana (mental development). ..... H:>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? ..... I think this is a conventional understanding of concentration. Whether the mind is concentrated or not conventionally, whether there are wholesome or unwholesome states arising, there is always ekaggata cetasika arising momentarily with each citta. It’ll just depend on conditions what the object is and whether the same object is repeated. I certainly agree that concentration as we know it is quite different from the meaning of ekaggata, but this is true with all conventional terms. When we say we are concentrating on the road ahead, we know there must be many processes, each consisting of many cittas - realities and concepts. The ekaggata cetasika takes the same object as the citta, focussing on the object, even when it seems we’e distracted and not focussing anymore. If it is right concentration of vipassana, the object has to be the same reality that is the object of sati and panna. When it is the object in samatha, it has to be one of the 40 objects (mostly concepts) of samatha and again has to be accompanied by right understanding of this level. When reading about the 24 paccaya (conditions), I like to read about jhana paccaya. The cetasikas (including ekaggata) which are jhana factors can also be unwholesome. In other words, there can be conditions for very highly developed wrong concentration too and this can be taken for right concentration. I’d like to quote again from another more recent post of Jon’s: Jon: "One thing is for sure. If we have the idea that awareness can *only* arise when preceded by 'conscious, deliberate or determined practice', and not at other times, this would be an almost insurmountable obstacle to the arising of awareness at moments when no such practice was being undertaken. It is likewise, but perhaps less obviously so, an obstacle to have the idea that awareness is *much more likely* to arise when the circumstance are those we perceive as being more conducive (e.g., our 'practice' time), and not at other ‘ordinary’ times. It is a sobering thought (to me, anyway) that it is not the defilements that are so easily noticeable to us (and which we would very much like to be rid of) that are the real obstacles to the development of insight. It is our wrong view and ignorance -- aspects of our kilesa about which we have relatively very little idea -- that are the major hindrances. The development of the path might be a lot easier if it was a matter of somehow dealing with more obvious kilesa." ***** Howard, I’ve forgotten what started this discussion and so I may be just repeating the obvious and missing your point completely. Pls let me know if so and if there’s anything we still disagree on. I think we settled everything on the ‘accumulations’ thread easily;-) As for being stubborn as in "I can be very stubborn!;-))", James tells us we can blame it on our dates of birth. I prefer to use "consistent’;-) Metta, Sarah p.s James - you’re in very good Taurus company here - Howard, me, John to name a few ‘regulars’. No wonder there is a locking or horns from time to time. As for blaming the Taurean Rooster birth-times, you can swap notes with Jon on that too;-) =============== 19010 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 1:17am Subject: Re: Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind Dear Htoo Naing, Happy to see that you have joined this group. Welcome. I would like to point out to you at the very outset that many of us here do not engage in any kind of formal meditation practice. For me the path is about the relationship between pariyatti-patipatti-pativedha. Pariyatti here does not mean book-knowledge, but understanding the meaning of what is read or heard. And I believe, this is accompanied by a level, though very small, of sati and panna; and this is anatta. So we may read as much as we want, but if there is no understanding, this would not be considered pariyatti. Likewise patipatti, is not about the intention to apply what has been heard or read, anatta as everything else, it (ie. the appropriate level of sati and panna, of satipatthana) will arise when the conditions are just right. These two mutually support each other and when panna has been accumulated enough, then pativedha can occur. Formal meditation practice can be done with wrong view and attachment. If it is not in the nature of someone to find time to sit alone and look inwards, then it is most likely that it is done with both wrong view and attachment. In this case it cannot lead to the goal, I believe that if one does not have sati in daily life, then surely one will mistake what is not sati to be sati during formal sittings. One only has to ask oneself, "why one wants to do it?" And the answer cannot be anything other than ditthi and/or tanha. If there is understanding at this moment, does one feel propelled to *do* anything (with regard to developing sati and panna)? Even if there is confusion and restlessness, it is just that, even this knowledge is good enough for the moment. Certainly we should not be pushed to seek a quiet surrounding with the idea that sati will arise if we could just sit down and watch the breath or something. When one understands, even in theory, about the complexity of conditions and the not-self nature of it, then one does not presume that any particular thing can be done to cause sati to arise. Htoo Naing, I know that you do apply the teachings in daily life and not particularly attach to formal practice. But I believe that even the subtle idea of having to *do* something, or *be* pratical can lead one away from understanding the moment, I think. I realize that lobha is insidious and it is one thing to talk about dhamma and what is and what is not the correct view, but in practice we all do get attached to what we believe in. I know that I easily make conclusions and stick to it as if that was the experience itself. A long way to go before doubt is totally eradicated and views are seen as such. Meantime it is good to be reminded over and over again about the pitfalls. Thanks for your reminder and welcome again. Much metta, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing " wrote: > 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 19011 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 1:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi Tal, --- "Tal " wrote: > 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. .... Many thanks for filling us in on these details. I don’t think anyone else on DSG has mentioned living in Israel. Whereabouts in Israel do you live. I spent two wonderful summer stints working on kibbutzim when I was young(er). Actually, in one, some of the ‘volunteers’ used to sit around in the evenings discussing religions and I believe I was given my first book on Buddhism in your country and first inspired to travel to India at that time. I rather hope we don’t resolve your ‘matter’ too easily if that’s going to send you back to lurker land;-) You’ll also find other Goenka students here (Shakti - I just remembered we never heard about your discussion with G. before you went to Asia....??) ..... > 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?! ..... One consciousness moment has one object only. Seeing only sees visible object, hearing only hears sound etc. All that we consider important in life - life itself, people, happy and unhappy feelings and the long long stories are in reality just a moment of cnsciousness and then gone. The pain of a moment ago has gone, never to return. We long for the past or the future or are lost in concepts and forget life is such avery brief moment, just depending on that momentary breath (see WAY post ). ..... >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? ..... Citta = consciousness - Along with cetasikas (the mental factors that accompany citta), it experiences a reality or concept at each moment. Awareness (sati) can be aware of a reality - such as seeing consciousness and be a condition for panna (wisdom) to develop. ..... > 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. > Tal:> Can an imaginary object such as the concept "suffering being" be > kusala rooted in right view? ..... Yes, but if concept is the object it cannot be the right view (panna) associated with moments of satipatthana which always have realities as object. It can, however, be right view that accompanies moments of samatha (tranquil meditation) such as accompanying metta or karuna (compassion). Even for the arahants, there must be beings and concepts as object in this way. No illusion of “suffering beings” as existing in an ultimate sense however. Please ask anything else or let me know if any of it isn’t as you understand. These are very good points (and not easy to clarify, so hopefully they’ll keep you around for a while;-)). Metta, Sarah ===== 19012 From: Egberdina Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 2:05am Subject: Re: Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind Dear Htoo Niang, Welcome aboard, and thank you already for your contribution!! I think you will find that many people on this forum do engage in some kind of formal meditation practice. And they are very tolerant of those that don't :-) Be well Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula " wrote: > Dear Htoo Naing, > > Happy to see that you have joined this group. Welcome. > > I would like to point out to you at the very outset that many of us here > do not engage in any kind of formal meditation practice. 19013 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 2:07am Subject: Re: The All Hi Steve, "The Connected Discourses of the Buddha" by Bhikkhu Bodhi (From the notes to the Salayatanasamyutta) In SN 35.23 (1) The All note 6 p.1399 Spk: The all (sabba) is fourfold: (i) the all- inclusive all (sabbasabba), i.e. everything knowable, all of which comes into range of the Buddha's knowledge of omniscience; (ii) the all of the sense bases (ayatanasabba), i.e. the phenomena of the four planes; (iii) the all of personal identity (sakkayasabba), i.e. the phenomena of the three planes; and (iv) the partial all (padesabba), i.e. the five physical sense objects. Each of these, from (i) to (iv), has a successively narrower range than its predecessor. In this sutta the all of the sense bases is intended. The four planes are the three mundane planes (see n.4 'the sensuous plane, the form plane, and the formless plane') and the supramundane plane (the four paths, their fruits, and Nibbana). In the next sutta SN 35.24 (2) Abandonment (1) note 9 "It might seem that in adding factors of experience not enumerated among the twelve sense bases - namely, consciousness, contact, and feeling - the Buddha has just now violated his own decree that the "all" comprises everthing. However, the factors mentioned here (and below) can be classified among the twelve bases. The six types of consciousness are included in the mind base (manayatana). Mind (mano) as a separate factor, the supporting condition for mind-consciousness, then becomes narrower in scope than the mind base; according to the commentarial system it denotes the bhavangacitta or subliminal life-continuum. Among the bases, contact and feeling are included in the base of mental phenomena (dhammayatana), along with other mental concomitants and the dhammarammana, the objects of mind-consciousness. Mind-consciousness itself, according to Spk. comprises the mind-door adverting consciousness (manodvaravajjanacitta) and the javanas. On these technical terms from the Abhidhamma, see CMA 3:8-11. In the sutta SN 35.28 (6) Burning note 13 "This sutta, often called 'The Fire Sermon', is the third discourse of the Buddha as recorded in the narrative of his ministry at Vin I 34-35. According to this source, the thousand bhikkhus were former jatila (matted-hair) ascetics under the leadership of the three Kassapa brothers. The Buddha had coverted them by a series of miracles after which he preached the present sermon. The sermon gains special meaning from the fact that before their conversion these ascetics had been devoted to the fire sacrifice. The full account is at Vin I 24-34; see Nanamoli, 'Life of the Buddha', pp. 54- 60, 64-69. Spk: Having led the thousand bhikkhus to Gaya's Head, the Blessed One reflected, "What kind of Dhamma talk would be suitable for them?" He then realized, "In the past they worshipped the fire morning and evening. I will teach them that the twelve sense bases are burning and blazing. In this way they will be able to attain arahantship." In this sutta the characteristic of suffering, is discussed. Spk = Saratthappakasini, Samyutta Nikaya-atthakatha metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi2500 " wrote: > Hi Folks > My understanding is that in relation to "The All" Sutta (S.N. > 35:23) that according to the commentaries Nibbana is to be included > in "The All" under Dhammaa. In the next Sutta, Pahaanasutta.m > (S.N.35:24) it says that "The all" is to be abandoned. Is the > commentaries take on this that All Dhamma's including Nibbana are > abandoned at Parinibbana? (which I think I saw in a post on DSG > somewhere??) > > Also in the next few Suttas of the same section of the Samyutta it > seems to say this same "All" (dhammaa) is "burning", "weighed down" > and subject to birth,aging and is anicca etc. > > Can someone please explain the Commentaries take on these Sutta's. > > Thank you. > Steve. 19014 From: Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The All Hi, Steve - In a message dated 1/22/03 10:42:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, Bodhi2500@a... writes: > Hi Folks > My understanding is that in relation to "The All" Sutta (S.N. > 35:23) that according to the commentaries Nibbana is to be included > in "The All" under Dhammaa. In the next Sutta, Pahaanasutta.m > (S.N.35:24) it says that "The all" is to be abandoned. Is the > commentaries take on this that All Dhamma's including Nibbana are > abandoned at Parinibbana? (which I think I saw in a post on DSG > somewhere??) > > Also in the next few Suttas of the same section of the Samyutta it > seems to say this same "All" (dhammaa) is "burning", "weighed down" > and subject to birth,aging and is anicca etc. > > Can someone please explain the Commentaries take on these Sutta's. > > Thank you. > Steve. > ============================== If, indeed, the commentaries say that nibbana is included wihin the all, then there are the following possibilities as I see it: 1) Abhidhamma is correct in seeing nibbana as a separate reality outside the five khandhas, and the commentaries are wrong in this respect, or 2) "The all", rightly seen, with undefiled vision, is not different from nibbana, in which case these commentaries (and Nagarjuna) are right, and Abhidhamma wrong. Now position 2), I believe, whether correct or not, does not contradict the suttas you quote near the end, because they are speaking of "the all" under the sway of defilement, from the perspective of samsara. 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) 19015 From: Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 10:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Patthana Hi, Herman (and Swee Boon) - In a message dated 1/23/03 12:51:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Hi Swee Boon, > > But the Buddhist scheme of things does allow for an end point , or > a "final cause" if you will, to a forward recursion, does it not? Or > is unbinding a condition for further conditions? > > All the best > > > Herman > ============================ Interesting point. It is said that every (worldly) dhamma arises due to conditions, but it isn't said that every worldly dhamma is a condition for the arising of other dhammas. The dependency, as I understand it, is backward-directed (passive [or caused], as opposed to active [or causing]). 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) 19016 From: nidive Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 6:17am Subject: Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) Hi Herman, I am very happy you have now given me a message that is very understandable from the beginning to the end. That wasn't the case in your previous messages. > Brain chemistry is to me a valid inference based on what happens to > perception and thinking when different type of pharmacologically > active substances are ingested. I think that basically our differences lies in the interpretation of what constitutes or "make up" perceptions, feelings, thinking and consciousness. > A rupa is something one can experience. An atom is something one > cannot experience. Actually, this is something which I totally agree with you. Nevertheless, I don't reject the concept that atoms and molecules are made up of multiple rupas. I think you should have defined what is meant by "chemistry" as contained in your mental dictionary. Chemistry in the common sense of the word must always deal with atoms and molecules because this is science. Brain chemistry is science. But since you regard atoms and molecules as mere concepts, then your use of the word "chemistry" is entirely different from the common sense of the word. > I do not care for your assessments of my intelligence or lack > thereof. You would do me a favour by omitting that sort of judgment. One who doesn't make himself or herself clear to others is bound to be misinterpreted. You should have qualified the use of the word "chemistry" in your message. I am still learning this lesson through the recent use of the word "faith". Do I have faith or conviction? Yes. Do I have insight? Yes. Do I have blind faith? No. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 19017 From: nidive Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:58am Subject: Re: Patthana Hi Herman, > But the Buddhist scheme of things does allow for an end point , or > a "final cause" if you will, to a forward recursion, does it not? > Or is unbinding a condition for further conditions? Howard said: > It is said that every (worldly) dhamma arises due to conditions, > but it isn't said that every worldly dhamma is a condition for > the arising of other dhammas. The dependency, as I understand it, > is backward-directed. I think this is the correct answer. But I am unable to explain with clear logic why it cannot be forward-directed. I think there are several conditions necessary for the arising of any single moment. Kamma and defilements would play a part in that. I think the difference lies in whether the future moment will definitely arise. The present and previous moments had definitely arisen. This is why the recursion is backward-directed infinitely. If there are several conditions necessary for the arising of the future moment, can we say that the future moment will definitely arise because of the presence of just the single condition that the present moment had arisen? This is why it cannot be forward-directed. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 19018 From: Htoo Naing Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind Dear Sukin, Lobha has different forms.It has different names.Lobha,Tanha,ragha,Upaddana and so on.The most prominent form can be seen by anyone.But subtle one cannot be easily seen.Lobha in Puthujana-Arupa Bramas and -Rupa Bramas are hard to be seen. Before the Time of The Buddha Gotama,what prevailed was religion related to trying to obtain Bramahood.Bramas live long and some think they are immortal.See Bhaka-Brama example.They hardly know their lobha. If someone thinks like this''All I know is right and all other things against my knowledge are wrong.My religiom is true and others' are false.My practice is right and other people are doing wrong.Even someone who firmly grasps without Panna like 'The religion I belief that is Buddhism is right other's are wrong;Theravada only is right and all non-Theravada Buddhisms are wrong''is said to has lobha. To be exact, that wrong view is called ''Ditthi'' which is a form of Lobha-led Cetasika.''Ditthi'' is so prevalent that I think in the present world population,there is hardly anyone who does not have ''Ditthi''.I mean the percentage.There are still Arahats in this world alive.But no one know where they are. Another potential or vivid enemy is Mana.It is so easy to arise.What I think is right and it is me who thinks like that.That's me,that's me.There are many sources for arising of Mana.JATI for example makes one to be proud.I CANNOT sit aside that bagger.I am the Prince,I am the King,I am the Queen,I am the Professor,I am the Boss,I am the Employer and so on. Rupa that is the good looking of bodily appearance and face.I am beautiful,he should love me why did he love that ugly girl?I am beautiful.I should be the Queen.Why am I an ordinary girlfriend of the King?I am beautiful I should have a better house,food,living and all in all.I am good-looking man.That lady should marry to me,why did she choose that ugly tooth-free wealthy man? Dhana or wealth is another source for Mana.I am the rich man.I don't want to sit together with that road-side cleaner.I am a rich man.They should treat me with prosperous materials.Why did they treat me with that awful food and things? Education is another source.I am a wise man.They all should take my advice.Why are they taking advice from that less wise man?I am an expert.They all should know that.I am well learned in Tipitaka.They all should worship me and ask me.And there are many other sources for arising of Mana.Mana again is one of Lobha-led Cetasika. Tanha(Lobha),Mana ans Ditthi are dhammas that expand Sansara of individual's life. They easily arise.They are visitors who come and go without invitation into our home mind.And they destroy the host home mind.Even worse,they sometimes come together with Dosa.If Mana is quite prominent it will come along with Dosa. I am the King.Kill those who hinder my journey around the country.He saw obstruction.Then disappointed for that and thought he is the most powerful of all people in the country(Mana arises).Those poor people should not obstruct my way.Why did they do that?(Dosa arises) and he decided to order to his ministers ''Kill those who obstruct my way.'' Dosa has many forms.Or has peers similar to him.Macchariya,Issa and Kukkicca.These things are my own.They should not use them(Macchariya).Oh!he became rich and richer than me.He was a poor man.It should not be happen to him(Issa).I didn't do good things,I have done a lot of bad things.These thought pass back into the past and will not give any good(Kukkicca).These four are Dosa-led Cetasika. Anything,Dosa or Lobha always arises along with Moha.Hoha-led Cetasikas are Moha(Avijja),Ahirika,Anottappa and Udicca.Moha doesnot have wisdom.Ahirika will do anything whether suitable or not (shamelessness).Anottappa will also do all things because he dare do anything bad and not considering outcome(fearlessness).Udicca has no concentration and makes powerless to hinder doing bad things. Htina,Middha cause ones weak and then they will do anything without considering.Vicikiccha cannot believe in doing good things and cannot decide properly. All these Cetasikas are happening in a daily basis.If they can be supressed one will feel a bit calm and happy.If they never occur again,then they will be totally liberated. If we practice to be focus the very present,we would see these dhammas and their interactions.With practice bad thought will become thinner and thinner.Panna will become stronger and stronger.If there is enough Parami,the highest Pana can be achieved. It is advisable to collect a bulk of knowledge and then go into practice.Practice cannot be replaced by anything.Three Sasana of Pariyatti,Paripatti and Parivedha should go together if possible.Parivedha is achievement stage and so start today with practice along with learning(Pariyatti).With practice we will see what is happening inside our mind.Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind.What we need to do is to see it with a clear view.So let's practice. May you have clear and right view on Dhamma. Htoo Naing "Sukinderpal Singh Narula " wrote:Dear Htoo Naing, Happy to see that you have joined this group. Welcome. I would like to point out to you at the very outset that many of us here do not engage in any kind of formal meditation practice. For me the path is about the relationship between pariyatti-patipatti-pativedha. Pariyatti here does not mean book-knowledge, but understanding the meaning of what is read or heard. And I believe, this is accompanied by a level, though very small, of sati and panna; and this is anatta. So we may read as much as we want, but if there is no understanding, this would not be considered pariyatti. Likewise patipatti, is not about the intention to apply what has been heard or read, anatta as everything else, it (ie. the appropriate level of sati and panna, of satipatthana) will arise when the conditions are just right. These two mutually support each other and when panna has been accumulated enough, then pativedha can occur. Formal meditation practice can be done with wrong view and attachment. If it is not in the nature of someone to find time to sit alone and look inwards, then it is most likely that it is done with both wrong view and attachment. In this case it cannot lead to the goal, I believe that if one does not have sati in daily life, then surely one will mistake what is not sati to be sati during formal sittings. One only has to ask oneself, "why one wants to do it?" And the answer cannot be anything other than ditthi and/or tanha. If there is understanding at this moment, does one feel propelled to *do* anything (with regard to developing sati and panna)? Even if there is confusion and restlessness, it is just that, even this knowledge is good enough for the moment. Certainly we should not be pushed to seek a quiet surrounding with the idea that sati will arise if we could just sit down and watch the breath or something. When one understands, even in theory, about the complexity of conditions and the not-self nature of it, then one does not presume that any particular thing can be done to cause sati to arise. Htoo Naing, I know that you do apply the teachings in daily life and not particularly attach to formal practice. But I believe that even the subtle idea of having to *do* something, or *be* pratical can lead one away from understanding the moment, I think. I realize that lobha is insidious and it is one thing to talk about dhamma and what is and what is not the correct view, but in practice we all do get attached to what we believe in. I know that I easily make conclusions and stick to it as if that was the experience itself. A long way to go before doubt is totally eradicated and views are seen as such. Meantime it is good to be reminded over and over again about the pitfalls. Thanks for your reminder and welcome again. Much metta, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing " wrote: > 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 19019 From: Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 4:10am Subject: Re: Ekagatta Cetasika & Concentration [Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state] Hi, Sarah - We seem to be in agreement that concentration in the conventional sense has a different meaning from ekagatta cetasika. What I would like clarified, then, is exactly what 'ekagatta cetasika' means. What exactly is that function/feature of a single mindstate? What does the "focussing" on a single object during a mindstate mean when, in fact, that is always what happens during a mindstate (citta) - that is, the citta, per se, is the discerning of a single object, so what additional "focussing cetasika" is required? (And if the ekagatta cetasika is nothing more than the (defining) characteristic of a citta discerning a single object, does that imply that there are not differing degrees/strengths of that cetasika?) I add a couple more comments in context near the end of your post below. In a message dated 1/23/03 3:08:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > As usual, a little late but not forgotten;-) > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > H:> 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. > .... > As you say, there are degrees of concentration (‘right’ and ‘wrong’) and > also conditions for concentration to sometimes be repeated on the same > object (also ‘rightly’ and ‘wrongly’). > > In a post to Victor some time ago, Jon summarised different uses of > developed wholesome concentration in different contexts in the texts: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/10879 > > I think it’s a helpful summary. > ..... > H:>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. > ..... > The distinction between how it is used in the suttas, referring to > concentration in jhana or vipassana (as discussed by Jon) is I think quite > different from what we mean conventionally. For a start, what we refer to > conventionally, such as the concentration during Tai chi, whilst driving, > playing tennis and so forth is seldom accompanied by any understanding at > the level of vipassana or samatha and is seldom concerned with generosity > or abstention from wrong speech or action. In other words, whether the > mind is obviously ‘zig-zagging’ here and there (see the post from the > Udana) or clearly focussed on a set of movements or ton he road in front, > mostly it is accompanied by ignorance and not related to any kind of > bhavana (mental development). > ..... > H:>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? > ..... > I think this is a conventional understanding of concentration. Whether the > mind is concentrated or not conventionally, whether there are wholesome or > unwholesome states arising, there is always ekaggata cetasika arising > momentarily with each citta. It’ll just depend on conditions what the > object is and whether the same object is repeated. I certainly agree that > concentration as we know it is quite different from the meaning of > ekaggata, but this is true with all conventional terms. When we say we are > concentrating on the road ahead, we know there must be many processes, > each consisting of many cittas - realities and concepts. The ekaggata > cetasika takes the same object as the citta, focussing on the object, even > when it seems we’e distracted and not focussing anymore. If it is right > concentration of vipassana, the object has to be the same reality that is > the object of sati and panna. When it is the object in samatha, it has to > be one of the 40 objects (mostly concepts) of samatha and again has to be > accompanied by right understanding of this level. > > When reading about the 24 paccaya (conditions), I like to read about jhana > paccaya. The cetasikas (including ekaggata) which are jhana factors can > also be unwholesome. In other words, there can be conditions for very > highly developed wrong concentration too and this can be taken for right > concentration. > > I’d like to quote again from another more recent post of Jon’s: > > Jon: "One thing is for sure. If we have the idea that awareness can *only* > arise when preceded by 'conscious, deliberate or determined practice', and > not at other times, this would be an almost insurmountable obstacle to the > arising of awareness at moments when no such practice was being > undertaken. It is likewise, but perhaps less obviously so, an obstacle to > have the idea that awareness is *much more likely* to arise when the > circumstance are those we perceive as being more conducive (e.g., our > 'practice' time), and not at other ‘ordinary’ times. > > It is a sobering thought (to me, anyway) that it is not the defilements > that are so easily noticeable to us (and which we would very much like to > be rid of) that are the real obstacles to the development of insight. It > is our wrong view and ignorance -- aspects of our kilesa about which we > have relatively very little idea -- that are the major hindrances. The > development of the path might be a lot easier if it was a matter of > somehow dealing with more obvious kilesa." > ***** > Howard, I’ve forgotten what started this discussion and so I may be just > repeating the obvious and missing your point completely. Pls let me know > if so and if there’s anything we still disagree on. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: What started it was merely my picking out from a post of yours one sentence in which you speak of the ekagatta cetasika as "concentration", and my questioning that. I won't say we disagree. But I am not at all clear on exactly what the ekagatta cetasika is supposed to be. I had one theory, namely that ekagatta cetasika is the *disposition* to remain with the current object in subsequent mindstates. That attepted definition would have the advantage of relating the Abhidhammic "ekagatta cetasika" to the suttic notion of concentration, which is quite conventional for the most part and certainly different from it. Also, this definition characterizing ekagatta cetasika as a disposition would place it squarely in the sankhara khandha within which the cetasikas other than vedana and sa~n~na lie. But you say this isn't it. That's fine. I'd just like to know what, according to Abhidhamma or the commentaries, it actually *is*. --------------------------------------------- > > I think we settled everything on the ‘accumulations’ thread easily;-) As > for being stubborn as in "I can be very stubborn!;-))", James tells us we > can blame it on our dates of birth. I prefer to use "consistent’;-) > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: And I have long loved the euphemism 'intransigent"! ;-)) That love stems, I think, from my Ayn Rand days! ;-)) ---------------------------------------------- > > Metta, > Sarah > > p.s James - you’re in very good Taurus company here - Howard, me, John to > name a few ‘regulars’. No wonder there is a locking or horns from time to > time. As for blaming the Taurean Rooster birth-times, you can swap notes > with Jon on that too;-) > =============== > > > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: My mother, with a birthday 4 days before mine, was also a true Taurean - that is, she was wonderfully "intransigent"! Maybe the astrologers know whereof they speak! ;-)) ============================ With mulish 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) 19020 From: Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 4:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind Hi, Herman - In a message dated 1/23/03 5:06:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Dear Htoo Niang, > > Welcome aboard, and thank you already for your contribution!! I think > you will find that many people on this forum do engage in some kind > of formal meditation practice. And they are very tolerant of those > that don't :-) > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Heh, heh, heh!! ;-)) I love it, Herman! I just love it!! ;-)) ----------------------------------------------- > > > Be well > > > Herman > ============================ With tolerant 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) 19021 From: Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 4:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Patthana Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 1/23/03 10:59:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi Herman, > > >But the Buddhist scheme of things does allow for an end point , or > >a "final cause" if you will, to a forward recursion, does it not? > >Or is unbinding a condition for further conditions? > > Howard said: > >It is said that every (worldly) dhamma arises due to conditions, > >but it isn't said that every worldly dhamma is a condition for > >the arising of other dhammas. The dependency, as I understand it, > >is backward-directed. > > I think this is the correct answer. But I am unable to explain with > clear logic why it cannot be forward-directed. > > I think there are several conditions necessary for the arising of > any single moment. Kamma and defilements would play a part in that. > > I think the difference lies in whether the future moment will > definitely arise. The present and previous moments had definitely > arisen. This is why the recursion is backward-directed > infinitely. > > If there are several conditions necessary for the arising of the > future moment, can we say that the future moment will definitely > arise because of the presence of just the single condition that the > present moment had arisen? This is why it cannot be > forward-directed. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > > =============================== I think your analysis is good. A condition, C, arises due to the coming together of a group of conditions. Should some but not all the needed conditions arise, C will not arise. In particular, certain single conditions, in the absence of other conditions, might not lead to any consequent conditions. Moreover, with the attainment of full enlightenment (the stage of the arahant), or, at least with the advent of parinibbana, there is a total topsy-turvy turning wherein conditionality in the sense of separate conditions leading to the arising of other separate conditions is no longer (seen to be) in play at all. (But here, of course, I am gingerly stepping into unknown territory. "Fools rush in ... ") Nibbana, or at least parinibbana - I won't debate that point, is a stopping. 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) 19022 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 10:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] ultimate realities Dear Htoo, welcome to the group. I greatly appreciate your explanation of the four Great Elements. Earth, Fire and Wind are names designating realities that can be experienced by touch. I was cleaning house this morning and I was reminded how daily the Abhidhamma is, thanks to you. I am so forgetful and thus, I never have enough of hearing about what is real. Some people may think, this is too simple, I know it already. I feel we need a long time to reflect on the elements again and again, we should not be too hasty. We need listening and considering again and again. In that way we can gradually come to understand that they are elements. The hardness is not the vacuum cleaner, not my hand. Hardness has a characteristic that can be experienced through touch and we do not have to name it hardness. It shows its own characteristic and this cannot be changed. Hardness is always hardness. You write: Citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana are paramattha dhammas. Let us talk now on the three conditioned paramattha dhammas, which can also be classified as five khandhas. Paramattha dhammas can be translated as ultimate realities, absolute realities or actualities. We can also call them realities or just dhammas. I was reminded again and again, when in Thailand, that it does not matter what words we use, but it is important to understand that they have each their own unchangeable characteristic that can be experienced, without having to name it. Hardness is experienced through touch, through the body-door and after that through the mind-door. We usually experience it with attachment (even slight) or with ignorance. When we have considered again and again the meaning of what an element is and acquired more understanding, there are conditions for the arising of sati sampajanna which can be directly aware of the characteristic of a reality. At that moment only one reality appears, there is nothing else appearing, no thinking, but of course, this is very difficult. As we all know, it takes a long time to develop panna. We have accumulated so much clinging and thus, clinging arises time and again. We wish to have sati, we are thinking with clinging about a reality such as hardness that appears. Then we are on the wrong Path, but if we realize this, it will prevent us from being deluded. I liked what you wrote: < Abhidhamma is totally different from other things. It is a means of total liberation> Yes, because in satipatthana the Abhidhamma is applied. Satipatthana is nothing else but the development of understanding of the characteristics of dhammas which appear through the six doorways. There is no need for everybody to learn all the different classifications, the whole Patthana book or all the different groups (kalapas) of rupa, all the details of nama and rupa. Although the details do not appeal to everybody, I think that they are helpful to have more understanding of the manifold and intricate conditions for the dhammas that arise now. As to the Patthana, this shows us the innumerable methods of classifying realities, and this makes us admire the Buddha's incomparable wisdom. Abhidhamma is not book knowledge. As Jaran once said: let everybody just study what he can understand. I believe that some basic knowledge is necessary for the development of insight. Otherwise we do not know what is a sense-door process, what a mind-door process, what is nama, what is rupa. Most important: We should not just have theoretical knowledge stemming from reading and listening, but understanding that grows by weighing things up, considering, so that there are conditions for sati sampajanna. As Jon also remarked before: sati arises in its own time, when there are conditions for it. You also wrote: I like the way you wrote this. There is still a lot to learn. Don't we need a humble attitude of mind? Then we can fully appreciate that we still have a lot to learn. We are lost if we believe that we have understood already. Thank you again, Nina. op 22-01-2003 19:14 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > > 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. > 19023 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 10:12am Subject: Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no. 17 Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no. 17 We read further on in the Commentary to the ³Analysis of the Elements²: It has been asked: why did the almsbowl and robes which can be made to appear by supranatural powers not come to Pukkusåti? Answer: Because the son of a prominent family did not offer the eight requisites [21] in the past. This is what people generally may think. We read that this answer was refuted as follows: However, the son of a prominent family Pukkusåti had made offerings and he had made aspirations, and thus, one should not say that the reason (for not obtaining the requisites) was his lack of generosity in the past... Robes and bowl which can be made to appear by supranatural power can only come to disciples who are in their last life, thus, who have attained arahatship. For this son of a prominent family there would still be rebirth, because he had attained the state of non-returner, anågåmí, not arahatship. Moreover, the lifespan of this son of a prominent family was about to expire. With regard to Pukkusåti, (it can be said that it was as if) the Mahå-brahma (of the brahma plane), the anågåmí of the ³Pure Abodes² (suddhavåsa [22]) came to the potter¹s workshop and sat down there. Afterwards he was reborn as a brahma in the heavenly plane of Avihå, thus, in (the first of) the ³Pure Abodes². Only those who have attained the stage of the non-returner and have developed the fifth stage of jhåna can be reborn in the ³Pure Abodes². Pukkusåti, before his lifespan had come to an end, was close to becoming a rúpa-brahma in the ³Pure Abodes², and therefore, the Commentary stated: ³the Mahå-brahma (of the brahma plane), the anågåmí of the ³Pure Abodes² (suddhavåsa) came to the potter¹s workshop and sat down there.² Very soon his life as Pukkusåti would be changed into the life of a rúpa-brahma of the ³Pure Abodes². The Paramatthadípaní, the Commentary to the Khuddaka Nikåya, Commentary to the ³Theragåthå², Nidåna Kathå, states: The perfection of paññå which supports and fulfils all the perfections, the perfection of generosity and the others, of all Bodhisattas, brings gradually to maturity and complete fulfilment the awakening wisdom of the Buddha by which he attained Buddhahood. Also respectively, in the case of the Silent Buddhas and the disciples: it brings gradually to maturity and complete fulfillment the awakening wisdom of the Silent Buddhas and the disciples... The highest patience in the development of kusala, dåna etc., for the awakening wisdom of the Silent Buddhas and of the disciples is considered as effort or energy (viriya). The endurance when refraining from anger is considered as patience. The performing of generosity (dåna), the undertaking of síla etc., and the abstaining from speech which deviates from the truth is considered as truthfulness (sacca). Decisiveness which is unshakable, firm, and which accomplishes what is beneficial in all respects is considered as determination (aditthåna). Intentness on the benefit of other beings which is the foundation for performing dåna, síla etc., is considered as loving-kindness (mettå). Evenmindedness towards improper deeds done by other beings is considered as equanimity (upekkhå). Therefore, when dåna, síla and bhåvanå (mental development), or síla, samådhi and paññå are present, the perfections, viriya etc., can be regarded as completed. Footnote: 21. The eight parikkhåra, requisites are: three robes, a bowl, a razor, a needle, a girdle and a water-strainer. 22. There are five Pure Abodes, Suddhåvåsa planes for non-retuners, which are the results of the fourth jhåna (or fifth of the fivefold system), and Pukkusåti was born in the first of them, the Aviha plane. 19024 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 10:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical Basis [was: All in a days work] Hi Sarah, Ok. I will try to summarize the difference in interpretation as I understand it. One interpretation to the statement "one finds no one dearer than oneself" is that one is attached to oneself. The attachment to self is to be abandoned. While another interpretation to the statement is that one is dear to oneself. In this interpretation, the statement "one finds no one dearer than oneself" does not mean "one is attached to oneself". Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > > Now that I know that Raja Sutta is what you were referring to, maybe > > we can continue the discussion we had before. > .... > That would be fine - no discussion is ever closed as far as I'm > concerned(unless the moderators say it's off-topic;-)) > ..... > > 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: > ..... > Why don't you start by summarising the different interpretations we both > gave before and the rationale for these and perhaps we can look to see if > we can find any middle ground. I agree with your comment above. > ..... > Metta, > > Sarah > ===== > > > 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. 19025 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 0:14pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind Hello Htoo Naing, I am enjoying your posts and think you may be interested in a recent discussion on Mana (conceit). I think it has a much wider meaning than the one you have discussed in your interesting post. The previous discussion begins at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/17732 metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing wrote: <<>> > Another potential or vivid enemy is Mana.It is so easy to arise.What I think is right and it is me who thinks like that.That's me,that's me.There are many sources for arising of Mana.JATI for example makes one to be proud.I CANNOT sit aside that bagger.I am the Prince,I am the King,I am the Queen,I am the Professor,I am the Boss,I am the Employer and so on. > Rupa that is the good looking of bodily appearance and face.I am beautiful,he should love me why did he love that ugly girl?I am beautiful.I should be the Queen.Why am I an ordinary girlfriend of the King?I am beautiful I should have a better house,food,living and all in all.I am good-looking man.That lady should marry to me,why did she choose that ugly tooth-free wealthy man? > Dhana or wealth is another source for Mana.I am the rich man.I don't want to sit together with that road-side cleaner.I am a rich man.They should treat me with prosperous materials.Why did they treat me with that awful food and things? > Education is another source.I am a wise man.They all should take my advice.Why are they taking advice from that less wise man?I am an expert.They all should know that.I am well learned in Tipitaka.They all should worship me and ask me.And there are many other sources for arising of Mana.Mana again is one of Lobha-led Cetasika. > Tanha(Lobha),Mana ans Ditthi are dhammas that expand Sansara of individual's life. > They easily arise.They are visitors who come and go without invitation into our home mind.And they destroy the host home mind.Even worse,they sometimes come together with Dosa.If Mana is quite prominent it will come along with Dosa. 19026 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 0:32pm Subject: Re: Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind Hello Sukin, (Herman, Howard and Htoo Naing), Great to see your posts again - and two in one day. :-) I really liked your comments "For me the path is about the relationship between pariyatti-patipatti-pativedha. Pariyatti here does not mean book-knowledge, but understanding the meaning of what is read or heard. And I believe, this is accompanied by a level, though very small, of sati and panna; and this is anatta." AND "When one understands, even in theory, about the complexity of conditions and the not-self nature of it, then one does not presume that any particular thing can be done to cause sati to arise." [BTW, just ignore that larrikin Herman and his mate Howard ... let's try to view them with kindness and a compassionate understanding of the conditions that made them the way they are. :-) :-)] Thanks Sukin, much metta, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula " wrote: > Dear Htoo Naing, <<>> 19027 From: Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 10:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind Hi, Chris - In a message dated 1/23/03 3:34:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > [BTW, just ignore that larrikin Herman and his mate Howard ... let's > try to view them with kindness and a compassionate understanding of > the conditions that made them the way they are. :-) :-)] > > =========================== Your compassionate understanding is much appreciated! BTW, I'm not familiar with the term 'larrikin'. Is that the Oz equivalent to the Pali 'arahant'? ;-)) With modest 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) 19028 From: Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 3:52pm Subject: Way 41, Comm, Breathing "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commntary, The Section on Breathing, p.53 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html Atthi kayoti va panassa sati paccupatthita hoti = "Or, indeed, his mindfulness is established, with the thought: 'The body exists.'" Mindfulness is established for the yogi through careful scrutiny. He thinks: There is the body, but there is no being, no person, no woman, no man, no soul, nothing pertaining to a soul, no "I", nothing that is mine, no one, and nothing belonging to anyone [kayoti ca attli, na satto, na puggalo, na itthi, na puriso, na atta, na attaniyam naham, na mama, na koci, na kassaciti evam assa sati paccupatthita hoti]. Yavadeva = "To the extent necessary." It denotes purpose. This is said: The mindfulness established is not for another purpose. What is the purpose for which it is established? Nanamattaya patissatimattaya = "For just knowledge and remembrance." That is just for the sake of a wider and wider, or further and further measure of knowledge and of mindfulness [aparaparam uttaruttari ñanapamanatthaya ceva satipamanattha-yaca]. For the increase of mindfulness and clear comprehension is the meaning. [Tika[ For the purpose of reaching the knowledge of body-contemplation to the highest extent [kayanupassana ñanam param pamanam papanatthaya] is the meaning of: To the extent necessary for just knowledge [yavadeva ñanamattaya]. Anissito ca viharati = "And he lives independent." He lives emancipated from dependence on craving and wrong views. [T] With these words is stated the direct opposition of this meditation to the laying hold on craving and wrong views. Na ca kiñci loke upadiyati = "And clings to naught in the world." In regard to no visible shape... or consciousness, does he think: this is my soul; or this belongs to my soul. Evampi = "Thus also." With this expression ("Thus also") the Blessed One wound up the instruction on the section on breathing. In this section on breathing, the mindfulness which examines the respirations is the Truth of Suffering. The pre-craving which brings about that mindfulness is the Truth of Origination. The non-occurrence of both is the Truth of Cessation. The Real Path which understands suffering, abandons origination, and takes cessation as object, is the Truth of the Way. Thus having endeavored by way of the Four Truths, a person arrives at peace. This is the portal to emancipation of the bhikkhu devoted to meditation on breathing. 19029 From: James Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 4:38pm Subject: Perception is the Ultimate Reality Hi All, Okay, I guess I'm ready now, let us begin the Abhidhamma wars. Rupa is nonsense and nama is partially nonsense. They do not exist as ultimate realities. Nama/Rupa, the four elements, etc., all of those are mundane realities. The Buddha explained what is ultimate reality when he told his monks what they must always remember (and it wasn't nama/rupa): "'Of kamma I am constituted. Kamma is my inheritance; kamma is the matrix; kamma is my kinsman; kamma is my refuge. Whatever kamma I perform, be it good or bad, to that I shall be heir.' This must be reflected upon again and again by one who has gone forth. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/protection.html#s1 So, the basis of everything is kamma. Kamma is determined by perception (if there was no perception there would be no kamma and no choice). Kamma, or perception, is the ultimate reality. Thus the Buddha taught. Everything else is extrapolation of kamma, not an ultimate reality. Metta, James 19030 From: david_wheeler58 Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 6:02pm Subject: Re: Perception is the Ultimate Reality Good evening James The ultimate reality, from an experiential point of view, is the direct experience of phenomenon dissolved of subject and object. And kamma doesn't need perception to exist. Does the moon percieve? It is loaded with kamma. Metta, Dave --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > Hi All, > > Okay, I guess I'm ready now, let us begin the Abhidhamma wars. Rupa > is nonsense and nama is partially nonsense. They do not exist as > ultimate realities. Nama/Rupa, the four elements, etc., all of those > are mundane realities. The Buddha explained what is ultimate reality > when he told his monks what they must always remember (and it wasn't > nama/rupa): > > "'Of kamma I am constituted. Kamma is my inheritance; kamma is the > matrix; kamma is my kinsman; kamma is my refuge. Whatever kamma I > perform, be it good or bad, to that I shall be heir.' This must be > reflected upon again and again by one who has gone forth. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/protection.html#s1 > > So, the basis of everything is kamma. Kamma is determined by > perception (if there was no perception there would be no kamma and no > choice). Kamma, or perception, is the ultimate reality. Thus the > Buddha taught. Everything else is extrapolation of kamma, not an > ultimate reality. > > Metta, James 19031 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind Dear Htoo Naing, Thanks a lot for this letter. It is good to be reminded again and again. Any kilesa name it, I have them all in great abundance. But what can be done?! Hope wise friends will always be around to point them out, and maybe little by little they come into view with right understanding. metta, Sukin. ps: I sent this post last night from my regular mailbox but it did not reach the list. The same thing happened on another list. So now I am wondering if my private posts to you and Christine did go through? Chris let me know if you received my post or not!? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing wrote: > > Dear Sukin, > Lobha has different forms.It has different names.Lobha,Tanha,ragha,Upaddana and so on.The most prominent form can be seen by anyone.But subtle one cannot be easily seen.Lobha in Puthujana-Arupa Bramas and -Rupa Bramas are hard to be seen. > Before the Time of The Buddha Gotama,what prevailed was religion related to trying to obtain Bramahood.Bramas live long and some think they are immortal.See Bhaka-Brama example.They hardly know their lobha. > If someone thinks like this''All I know is right and all other things against my knowledge are wrong.My religiom is true and others' are false.My practice is right and other people are doing wrong.Even someone who firmly grasps without Panna like 'The religion I belief that is Buddhism is right other's are wrong;Theravada only is right and all non-Theravada Buddhisms are wrong''is said to has lobha. > To be exact, that wrong view is called ''Ditthi'' which is a form of Lobha-led Cetasika.''Ditthi'' is so prevalent that I think in the present world population,there is hardly anyone who does not have ''Ditthi''.I mean the percentage.There are still Arahats in this world alive.But no one know where they are. > Another potential or vivid enemy is Mana.It is so easy to arise.What I think is right and it is me who thinks like that.That's me,that's me.There are many sources for arising of Mana.JATI for example makes one to be proud.I CANNOT sit aside that bagger.I am the Prince,I am the King,I am the Queen,I am the Professor,I am the Boss,I am the Employer and so on. > Rupa that is the good looking of bodily appearance and face.I am beautiful,he should love me why did he love that ugly girl?I am beautiful.I should be the Queen.Why am I an ordinary girlfriend of the King?I am beautiful I should have a better house,food,living and all in all.I am good-looking man.That lady should marry to me,why did she choose that ugly tooth-free wealthy man? > Dhana or wealth is another source for Mana.I am the rich man.I don't want to sit together with that road-side cleaner.I am a rich man.They should treat me with prosperous materials.Why did they treat me with that awful food and things? > Education is another source.I am a wise man.They all should take my advice.Why are they taking advice from that less wise man?I am an expert.They all should know that.I am well learned in Tipitaka.They all should worship me and ask me.And there are many other sources for arising of Mana.Mana again is one of Lobha-led Cetasika. > Tanha(Lobha),Mana ans Ditthi are dhammas that expand Sansara of individual's life. > They easily arise.They are visitors who come and go without invitation into our home mind.And they destroy the host home mind.Even worse,they sometimes come together with Dosa.If Mana is quite prominent it will come along with Dosa. > I am the King.Kill those who hinder my journey around the country.He saw obstruction.Then disappointed for that and thought he is the most powerful of all people in the country(Mana arises).Those poor people should not obstruct my way.Why did they do that?(Dosa arises) and he decided to order to his ministers ''Kill those who obstruct my way.'' > Dosa has many forms.Or has peers similar to him.Macchariya,Issa and Kukkicca.These things are my own.They should not use them (Macchariya).Oh!he became rich and richer than me.He was a poor man.It should not be happen to him(Issa).I didn't do good things,I have done a lot of bad things.These thought pass back into the past and will not give any good(Kukkicca).These four are Dosa-led Cetasika. > Anything,Dosa or Lobha always arises along with Moha.Hoha-led Cetasikas are Moha(Avijja),Ahirika,Anottappa and Udicca.Moha doesnot have wisdom.Ahirika will do anything whether suitable or not (shamelessness).Anottappa will also do all things because he dare do anything bad and not considering outcome(fearlessness).Udicca has no concentration and makes powerless to hinder doing bad things. > Htina,Middha cause ones weak and then they will do anything without considering.Vicikiccha cannot believe in doing good things and cannot decide properly. > All these Cetasikas are happening in a daily basis.If they can be supressed one will feel a bit calm and happy.If they never occur again,then they will be totally liberated. > If we practice to be focus the very present,we would see these dhammas and their interactions.With practice bad thought will become thinner and thinner.Panna will become stronger and stronger.If there is enough Parami,the highest Pana can be achieved. > It is advisable to collect a bulk of knowledge and then go into practice.Practice cannot be replaced by anything.Three Sasana of Pariyatti,Paripatti and Parivedha should go together if possible.Parivedha is achievement stage and so start today with practice along with learning(Pariyatti).With practice we will see what is happening inside our mind.Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind.What we need to do is to see it with a clear view.So let's practice. > May you have clear and right view on Dhamma. > Htoo Naing > "Sukinderpal Singh Narula " wrote:Dear Htoo Naing, > > Happy to see that you have joined this group. Welcome. > > I would like to point out to you at the very outset that many of us here > do not engage in any kind of formal meditation practice. For me the > path is about the relationship between pariyatti-patipatti- pativedha. > Pariyatti here does not mean book-knowledge, but understanding the > meaning of what is read or heard. And I believe, this is accompanied by > a level, though very small, of sati and panna; and this is anatta. > > So we may read as much as we want, but if there is no understanding, > this would not be considered pariyatti. Likewise patipatti, is not about > the intention to apply what has been heard or read, anatta as > everything else, it (ie. the appropriate level of sati and panna, of > satipatthana) will arise when the conditions are just right. These two > mutually support each other and when panna has been accumulated > enough, then pativedha can occur. > > Formal meditation practice can be done with wrong view and > attachment. If it is not in the nature of someone to find time to sit alone > and look inwards, then it is most likely that it is done with both wrong > view and attachment. In this case it cannot lead to the goal, I believe > that if one does not have sati in daily life, then surely one will mistake > what is not sati to be sati during formal sittings. One only has to ask > oneself, "why one wants to do it?" And the answer cannot be anything > other than ditthi and/or tanha. > > If there is understanding at this moment, does one feel propelled to > *do* anything (with regard to developing sati and panna)? Even if there > is confusion and restlessness, it is just that, even this knowledge is good > enough for the moment. Certainly we should not be pushed to seek a > quiet surrounding with the idea that sati will arise if we could just sit > down and watch the breath or something. When one understands, even > in theory, about the complexity of conditions and the not-self nature of > it, then one does not presume that any particular thing can be done to > cause sati to arise. > > Htoo Naing, I know that you do apply the teachings in daily life and not > particularly attach to formal practice. But I believe that even the subtle > idea of having to *do* something, or *be* pratical can lead one away > from understanding the moment, I think. > > I realize that lobha is insidious and it is one thing to talk about dhamma > and what is and what is not the correct view, but in practice we all do > get attached to what we believe in. I know that I easily make > conclusions and stick to it as if that was the experience itself. A long > way to go before doubt is totally eradicated and views are seen as such. > Meantime it is good to be reminded over and over again about the > pitfalls. Thanks for your reminder and welcome again. > > Much metta, > Sukin. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing > " wrote: > > 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 19032 From: James Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 7:13pm Subject: Re: Perception is the Ultimate Reality --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "david_wheeler58 " wrote: > Good evening James > > > The ultimate reality, from an experiential point of view, is the direct experience of phenomenon dissolved of subject and object. (James: Right! And when this is done, the only thing that remains is perception.) > And kamma doesn't need perception to exist. Does the moon percieve? It is loaded with kamma. (James: This is a mundane view.) > > Metta, Dave > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Okay, I guess I'm ready now, let us begin the Abhidhamma wars. Rupa > > is nonsense and nama is partially nonsense. They do not exist as > > ultimate realities. Nama/Rupa, the four elements, etc., all of those > > are mundane realities. The Buddha explained what is ultimate reality > > when he told his monks what they must always remember (and it wasn't > > nama/rupa): > > > > "'Of kamma I am constituted. Kamma is my inheritance; kamma is the > > matrix; kamma is my kinsman; kamma is my refuge. Whatever kamma I > > perform, be it good or bad, to that I shall be heir.' This must be > > reflected upon again and again by one who has gone forth. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/protection.html#s1 > > > > So, the basis of everything is kamma. Kamma is determined by > > perception (if there was no perception there would be no kamma and no > > choice). Kamma, or perception, is the ultimate reality. Thus the > > Buddha taught. Everything else is extrapolation of kamma, not an > > ultimate reality. > > > > Metta, James 19033 From: James Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 10:20pm Subject: Photos and Trimming Hi David (and All), Oh, I forgot to mention that I haven't seen your photo in the Photos section of this group. Do you have one to upload? When mixing it up over mundane and ultimate realities, I like to picture who I am addressing…makes it so much more `real', if you know what I mean ;- ). Also, I didn't notice that you had responded to my last post and kept my original post at the end, otherwise I would have trimmed all of that extra stuff off in my reply. If replying to my posts, I would recommend only quote a little bit and then snip the rest…or the posts are going to become as long as the Patthana! ;-) I write very long posts! And though each word is worth its weight in gold ;-), I'm sure very few read them more than once. Thanks. Metta, James Ps. KKT, if you are out there, as you often phase in and out, you promised a photo (well, not really, but kinda) and I am still waiting to see it. ;-) Other new members, please post a photo...don't be shy.... ;-) 19034 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 10:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical Basis [was: All in a days work] Hi Victor, --- "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > One interpretation to the statement "one finds no one dearer than > oneself" is that one is attached to oneself. The attachment to self > is to be abandoned. While another interpretation to the statement is > that one is dear to oneself. In this interpretation, the > statement "one finds no one dearer than oneself" does not mean "one > is attached to oneself". ..... OK, so far so good;-) In a wheel publication on ‘Buddhist Women.....’, Helmuth Hecker gives the following summary. Do you think that both interpretations above would agree with this as a modern conventional language summary, given that we’re talking about a ‘worldling’ couple: “One day when the King was standing on the parapet of the palace with the Queen and was looking down upon the land, he asked whether there was anyone in the world she loved more than herself. He expected her to name him since he flattered himself to have been the one who had raised her to fame and fortune. But although she loved him, she remained truthful and replied that she knew of no one dearer to herself than herself. Then she wanted to know how it was with him: Did he love anyone possibly her - more than herself? Thereupon the Kind also had to admit that self-love was always predominant. but he went to the Buddha and recounted the conversation to find out how a Saint would consider this. The Buddha confirmed his and Mallika’s statement.” ***** I agree that it’s more long-winded than your summary, Victor;-) Look f/w to hearing how the 2 interpretations would view this or anything else you'd care to share. Metta, Sarah ==== 19035 From: Egberdina Date: Thu Jan 23, 2003 11:01pm Subject: The use of verse in the Suttas Hi all, According to the suttas, the Buddha quite often spoke in verse, as opposed to discursive speech. The devas, and beings from other realms, also often spoke in verse. This, to me, is highly significant, as discursive speech is normally rendered by the left brain hemisphere (in right handed folks), while poetry and verse tend to originate in the right brain hemisphere. The left brain is analytical and thinks in terms of tree, while the right brain is synthetic and thinks in terms of forest. Because these two modes of thought are available it is possible to have the Dhamma Sangani (atomistic) approach to reality and the Patthana (wholistic) approach to reality. After this long intro, which was designed to make anyone who was going to call me fat or an arahant think again :-), my question is this: In the original language versions of the verse I have referred to, what structure did the verse take? Is there anything like iambic hexameters in Pali? Is there rhyme in the verse at all? Was it meant to be rhythmically delivered? Thank you in advance Herman 19036 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 0:13am Subject: Letter to Kom Dear Kom, Thank you once again for helping me out on the question I asked you in the previous letter I sent. However, I am quite confused about some of the questions. Approximately, in what year did the Buddha die in ? Do Buddhists have prayer books or prayers? At the end of the letter, you gave me some new vocabulary. Can you use them like 'metta'? Are they goods or symbols in the religion? Well that is all! Keep in touch! Metta, Janice 19037 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 0:16am Subject: Letter from Janice Dear James, Thank you for the poems again and for explaining me why you didn't want to be a Poet writer! Here are a few questions to assist me to answer: Which country do you like the best? Which country contains the most Buddhists? Is it really true your parents did not allow you to become a monk? How does the Buddha teach you how to build up happiness? Was your sister a Buddhist? Sorry to bring that subject up again after it had diminish quite a long time ago! Please send me more poems! (I hope you are not out of poems!) Metta, Janice P.S. I really like the poem on how to torture your teacher! maybe I could try it out! 19038 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 1:28am Subject: JATAKAS Dear Kimmy, I am Kiana. That's really nice that you read through my letter and borrowed the book that I introduced on the "JATAKAS". The meaning is quite easy to understand. The question that you asked, why a horse's death can save a country, right? Then I'll tell you now. Because the horse fought with the enemy to protect its country, and it got hurt and died, so its death saved the country. If I keep on telling you all the stories, meaning and more about the tales, you won't get anything at the end so it is better you look it up and find by yourself. Hope your exam result would be good. ^-^ Kiana. 19039 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 1:31am Subject: ~ < Deep Thinker >~ Dear James, I am really glad to receive your letter and thank you for it. You want to find evidence before you trust - You are a really deep thinker too! I want to say that 'TRUE' or 'FALSE' are deep words, because they are different to all people, just depending whether you believe or not. If you don't believe that, you can say it is false, if you believe it, you can also say it is true, so, I think it is hard to decide what is true, what is false and what is right, what is wrong. I asked the questions - are those true, maybe there are no answers, but I am glad to hear your ideas. Do you believe in Buddhism? If you do, does it help you to control your emotions? In which way, and why? Hope you will have a happy Chinese New Year. Kiana. 19040 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 2:31am Subject: Re: The use of verse in the Suttas Hi Herman, What the Buddha said about poetry ... S.I.60(10) "Poetry" 201 "What is the scaffolding of verses? What constitutes their phrasing? On what base do verses rest? What is the abode of verses?" 202 Metre is the scaffolding of verses; Syllables constitute their phrasing; Verses rest on a base of names; The poet is the abode of verses." (I think Thanissaro Bhikkhu made some comments on Pali poetry in an article on the Dhammapada. Can't locate it though.) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " wrote: my question is > this: In the original language versions of the verse I have referred > to, what structure did the verse take? Is there anything like iambic > hexameters in Pali? Is there rhyme in the verse at all? Was it meant > to be rhythmically delivered? > > Thank you in advance > > > Herman 19041 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 2:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] ultimate realities Dear Nina and Dhamma friends, Thanks Nina for your appreciation of my contribution.All you wrote to me is nice and every word in it has sound meaning and I got all of it.But I am still learning and I am not a perfectionist.If I wrote something unclear or wrongly,could you please remind me.I think you are more mature than me.This is just personal opinion and not important for further discussion. The 4 great elements are real existances and other dhammas like other rupas(although they have their own characteristics,they have to depend on 4 elements),Citta and Cetasika have to depend on them. Another set of rupa which function as aramana(senses) are Vanna(vision or sight),Saddha(sound),Gandha(smell),Rasa(taste) and 3 of 4 great elements(excluding Apo or water property as it cannot be sensed_ Water can be sensed as Pathavi,Tejo and Vayo but Apo cannot be sensed and Apo is the matter of Dhamma-aramana) as Phutthappa.Vanna,Saddha,Ghandha,Rasa and Phutthappa are also known as external Panca-dhatu (of rupa-based).In this set it has 4 (Phutthappa included in elements). There are 5 rupa function as doors for senses;Cakkhupasada,Sotapasada,Ghanapasada,Jinvapasada and Kayapasada.These 5 rupa are also called internal Panca-dhatu(of rupa-based). So there has been described 13 rupa.These rupas should be known well and they involve in the interactions with Citta and Cetasika. Another set of 5 comes here.Hadaya-watthu,Purisabhavarupa(Y-chromosome and other male characteristics),Itthiyabhavarupa(Absence of Y-chromosome and other female characteristics),Jivitarupa(rupa-life) and Ojarupa(or Ahara-rupa). These 18 rupas are real existance and are apparent to our mind. In external objects or all things in this universe have unseparable combination of 8 rupas.They are Pathavi,Tajo,Vayo,Apo,Vanna,Gandha,Rasa and Oja.These worth to be appreciated. For completeness,there left 10. 1.Pariccheda(Akasa or space between 2 or more rupas). 2.Two, Vinatti-Kayavinattirupa and Vacivinattirupa. 3.Three,Rupalahuta(lightness),Rupamuduta(tenderness)Rupakammanata(ease-functioning). 4.Four Lakkhanarupa 1.Upacayarupa(initial formation) 2.Santati (developping till mature) 3.Jarata (getting olg) 4.Aniccata( destruction of disappearance). We don't need to examine these rupas from scientific view as science behave differently and it is not the way of escape.Even worse,the scientists are trying to live eternal life which is against Anicca.If someone lives for long long long long,he will find the way different if this happened. I hope Rupa has been well explained from Abhidhamma point of view.We need to understand Rupa well.Citta and Cetasika are major characters and will soon be examined.The interactions of Rupa,Citta and Cetasika can be seen in Paticcasamuppada and Pathana.Pathana has extra properties than Paticcasamuppada. Life is precious,time is precious,let's learn when we have a chance and let's make an effort to find Truth. May you all be free from Miccha-Ditthi which easily intrudes us. Htoo Naing nina van gorkom wrote:Dear Htoo, welcome to the group. I greatly appreciate your explanation of the four Great Elements. Earth, Fire and Wind are names designating realities that can be experienced by touch. I was cleaning house this morning and I was reminded how daily the Abhidhamma is, thanks to you. I am so forgetful and thus, I never have enough of hearing about what is real. Some people may think, this is too simple, I know it already. I feel we need a long time to reflect on the elements again and again, we should not be too hasty. We need listening and considering again and again. In that way we can gradually come to understand that they are elements. The hardness is not the vacuum cleaner, not my hand. Hardness has a characteristic that can be experienced through touch and we do not have to name it hardness. It shows its own characteristic and this cannot be changed. Hardness is always hardness. You write:Paramattha dhamma.> Citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana are paramattha dhammas. Let us talk now on the three conditioned paramattha dhammas, which can also be classified as five khandhas. Paramattha dhammas can be translated as ultimate realities, absolute realities or actualities. We can also call them realities or just dhammas. I was reminded again and again, when in Thailand, that it does not matter what words we use, but it is important to understand that they have each their own unchangeable characteristic that can be experienced, without having to name it. Hardness is experienced through touch, through the body-door and after that through the mind-door. We usually experience it with attachment (even slight) or with ignorance. When we have considered again and again the meaning of what an element is and acquired more understanding, there are conditions for the arising of sati sampajanna which can be directly aware of the characteristic of a reality. At that moment only one reality appears, there is nothing else appearing, no thinking, but of course, this is very difficult. As we all know, it takes a long time to develop panna. We have accumulated so much clinging and thus, clinging arises time and again. We wish to have sati, we are thinking with clinging about a reality such as hardness that appears. Then we are on the wrong Path, but if we realize this, it will prevent us from being deluded. I liked what you wrote: < Abhidhamma is totally different from other things. It is a means of total liberation> Yes, because in satipatthana the Abhidhamma is applied. Satipatthana is nothing else but the development of understanding of the characteristics of dhammas which appear through the six doorways. There is no need for everybody to learn all the different classifications, the whole Patthana book or all the different groups (kalapas) of rupa, all the details of nama and rupa. Although the details do not appeal to everybody, I think that they are helpful to have more understanding of the manifold and intricate conditions for the dhammas that arise now. As to the Patthana, this shows us the innumerable methods of classifying realities, and this makes us admire the Buddha's incomparable wisdom. Abhidhamma is not book knowledge. As Jaran once said: let everybody just study what he can understand. I believe that some basic knowledge is necessary for the development of insight. Otherwise we do not know what is a sense-door process, what a mind-door process, what is nama, what is rupa. Most important: We should not just have theoretical knowledge stemming from reading and listening, but understanding that grows by weighing things up, considering, so that there are conditions for sati sampajanna. As Jon also remarked before: sati arises in its own time, when there are conditions for it. You also wrote: founded The Real Dhamma and left a lot to learn for later and later generations for their liberation.> I like the way you wrote this. There is still a lot to learn. Don't we need a humble attitude of mind? Then we can fully appreciate that we still have a lot to learn. We are lost if we believe that we have understood already. Thank you again, Nina. op 22-01-2003 19:14 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > > 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. > 19042 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 3:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind Dear Christine, Thanks for your kind reference.I will go through these topics of Mana. Actually Mana and Ditthi are quite similar and they behave only a bit difference.But they never come together.The basis is Lobha.So Lobha,Mana,Ditthi are called Lobha-Mula Cetasikas.If someone wrongly views Ditthi prevails and if he refers himself strongly, Mana prevails. I think we should search these differences in Milandha and Nagasena's questions and answers or somewhere else in Tipitaka. Thanks for your kindness. May you be free from Mana. Htoo Naing "christine_forsyth " wrote:Hello Htoo Naing, I am enjoying your posts and think you may be interested in a recent discussion on Mana (conceit). I think it has a much wider meaning than the one you have discussed in your interesting post. The previous discussion begins at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/17732 metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing wrote: <<>> > Another potential or vivid enemy is Mana.It is so easy to arise.What I think is right and it is me who thinks like that.That's me,that's me.There are many sources for arising of Mana.JATI for example makes one to be proud.I CANNOT sit aside that bagger.I am the Prince,I am the King,I am the Queen,I am the Professor,I am the Boss,I am the Employer and so on. > Rupa that is the good looking of bodily appearance and face.I am beautiful,he should love me why did he love that ugly girl?I am beautiful.I should be the Queen.Why am I an ordinary girlfriend of the King?I am beautiful I should have a better house,food,living and all in all.I am good-looking man.That lady should marry to me,why did she choose that ugly tooth-free wealthy man? > Dhana or wealth is another source for Mana.I am the rich man.I don't want to sit together with that road-side cleaner.I am a rich man.They should treat me with prosperous materials.Why did they treat me with that awful food and things? > Education is another source.I am a wise man.They all should take my advice.Why are they taking advice from that less wise man?I am an expert.They all should know that.I am well learned in Tipitaka.They all should worship me and ask me.And there are many other sources for arising of Mana.Mana again is one of Lobha-led Cetasika. > Tanha(Lobha),Mana ans Ditthi are dhammas that expand Sansara of individual's life. > They easily arise.They are visitors who come and go without invitation into our home mind.And they destroy the host home mind.Even worse,they sometimes come together with Dosa.If Mana is quite prominent it will come along with Dosa. 19043 From: Egberdina Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 3:22am Subject: Re: The use of verse in the Suttas Dear Christine, Thanks so much for this. I need to confess my ignorance, I can't find anything that clarifies the meaning of S.I. I'm pretty sure it's not Smithsonian Institute or Sports Illustrated. Want to rake up some more merit :-) Thanks, cobber (that's something like sakadagami for the uncouth) Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Herman, > > What the Buddha said about poetry ... > > S.I.60(10) "Poetry" > > 201 > "What is the scaffolding of verses? > What constitutes their phrasing? > On what base do verses rest? > What is the abode of verses?" > 202 > Metre is the scaffolding of verses; > Syllables constitute their phrasing; > Verses rest on a base of names; > The poet is the abode of verses." > > (I think Thanissaro Bhikkhu made some comments on Pali poetry in an > article on the Dhammapada. Can't locate it though.) > > metta, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " > wrote: > my question is > > this: In the original language versions of the verse I have > referred > > to, what structure did the verse take? Is there anything like > iambic > > hexameters in Pali? Is there rhyme in the verse at all? Was it > meant > > to be rhythmically delivered? > > > > Thank you in advance > > > > > > Herman 19044 From: Sarah Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 4:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical Basis [was: All in a days work] Correction - see ***below ============ --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, > “One day when the King was standing on the parapet of the palace with > the > Queen and was looking down upon the land, he asked whether there was > anyone in the world she loved more than herself. He expected her to > name > him since he flattered himself to have been the one who had raised her > to > fame and fortune. But although she loved him, she remained truthful and > replied that she knew of no one dearer to herself than herself. Then > she > wanted to know how it was with him: Did he love anyone possibly her - > more than ***HIMSELF?***(not herself as I typed) >Thereupon the Kind also had to admit that self-love > was always predominant. but he went to the Buddha and recounted the > conversation to find out how a Saint would consider this. The Buddha > confirmed his and Mallika’s statement.” > ***** Sarah ======= 19045 From: dsgmods Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 4:57am Subject: Trim reminder Dear All Chris' timely reminder here is most welcome. Please remember to trim tails as much as you can (if in doubt, snip it!). Thanks for your cooperation. Jon & Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth < cforsyth@v...>" wrote: ... > <<>> 19046 From: Sarah Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 5:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Forest and Lone Dwelling Hi Frank, Thanks for all your kind advice and intresting comments on health and fitness. Maybe I'll follow up off-list sometime. Back to the main discussion on seclusion and forest life for now. --- Frank Kuan wrote: >...... 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. ..... You may be right, Frank, but increasingly I check the fine print;-) I laugh now when I think about the months I spent secluded in a Sri Lankan forest temple, not associating with anyone, earnestly trying to cultivate mindfulness and concentration, pursuing all my actions in slow motion and causing a lot of anxiety to others;-) I think my experiences were mild compared to others’, but could anyone have persuaded me in advance that this was wrong practice? I’m not sure. Were those who resorted to the forest in the Buddha’s time necessarily all on the right track? Was everyone told to live a secluded life in the first instance? Yesterday I picked up on a quote from “Meghiya” in the Udana which James had given in support of ‘control’. I added some commentary notes which clearly suggested an interpretation of the importance of developing awareness and understanding of different mental states. The chapter which precedes the quote (Ud4, Meghiya,1)is quite interesting as it is relevant to many current threads including this one. In brief, Meghiya is the Buddha’s attendant at the time. He sees a mango grove which inspires ‘serenity’ and which he considers suitable for making an effort on the Path. The Buddha gives some brief comments which Meghiya doesn’t appreciate and after asking permission to go to the grove for the third time ‘for the purposes of effort’, the Buddha just suggests he should do what it seems to be the time to do. To Meghiya’s great surprise, even though he has become a bhikkhu in good faith and gone to the secluded grove to make an effort, he is ovrwhelmed by thoughts concerned with sense-desires, ill-will and cruelty. He returns to the Buddha who says: “When liberation of heart is not fully mature , Meghiya, five things conduce to full maturity.” He then proceeds to elaborate on these five conditions conducive to the development of wisdom. ***** These five in brief are: 1. The good friend 2. Morality. “..............seeing fear in sins even the size of an atom.....’ 3. Talk concerned with the Dhamma and development of wholesome states 4. the 4 Right Efforts 5. Insight leading to the destruction of dukkha. ***** With regard to the first point, the good friend, the commentary adds a lot of detail.“This is the first thing that conduces to full maturity (aya.m pa.thamo dhammo paripaakaaya sa.mvattati): this blameless thing, reckoned as possession of a lovely friend, which is first on acount of its having been spoken of at the beginning of these five things due to its being primary for living the Brahmacariya and due to its being pre-eminent on account of its being of great service to all skilled states, conduces to liveration of heart’s full maturity by way of causing there to be purified 9the faculties of) faith and so that are as yet unpurified....” It then quotes various suttas about the value of the ‘lovely friend’: “For this, Ananda, forms the entire Brahmacariya, that is to say, possession of a lovely friend..”. Earlier the commentary says: “Since he proceeds, by way of both mind and body, in a state that slopes. tends, inclines towards lovely individuals alone, he is “one with a lovely intimate”. by means of this triad of words, he gives rise to regard with respect to association with a lovely friend.”.end quote> ***** I’m sure we’re all talking together (rather than in solitude in the mango grove at this moment;-)) because we appreciate and respect the value of ‘lovely individuals’ and the sloping towards those who encourage us in kusala, especially panna (wisdom). Let me just share a comment from the commentary on the note above about “seeing fear in sins even the size of an atom” as it related to your discussion with Chris before: “...For whatever monk there be who beholds a sin, even the size of the smallest of atoms, taking this to be similar to Sineru, king of mountains, that is a hundred thousand yojanas, plus sixty-eight thousand more besides, in he