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 height, who also beholds mere bad speech, which is totally petty, taking this to be similar to (an offence involving ) Defeat, such a one is also known as “one seeing fear in sins even the size of an atom”. I think this gives an indication of how far there is to go;-) One last note I find interesting relates to the fact that the Buddha knew Meghiya's work would 'fail to be accomplished' but knew it was useless to try to sop him. From the sutta the Buddha says: "How can we speak, Meghiya, when you speak of effort? You should do that for which you deem it now to be the time". We also read in the commentary about all the conditions from previous lives for Meghiya to choose that spot in the grove. Let me sign off by reposting the verse which James posted, prompting these reflections on the story leading up to it: ********************************************************* > 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 > ******************************************************** Let me know if you have any further comments. I find your great respect for the Samyutta and Majjhima Nikayas very inspiring, Frank. Metta, Sarah ====== 19047 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 6:24am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind Dear everyone, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing wrote: < snip > 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. KKT: I just want to add some more info here and hope that Sarah doesn't mind since the info is from a Mahayana source ? :-)) I think this info is useful and interesting. In Abhidhamma, Mana (Conceit) is just a Cetasika. But in Yogacara (the Mind-Only school of Mahayana) I think they had seen the importance of this Cetasika, therefore they raised Mana to become a Citta (ie. the 7th Consciousness) In Yogacara there are: 8 Citta + 51 Cetasika (Caitasika in Sanskrit) 8 Citta = the first 5 senses (eye-consciousness, etc.) + Mano-vijnana (Conscious Mind or 6th Consciousness) + Manas (Subconscious Mind or 7th Consciousness) + Alaya-vijnana (Storehouse Consciousness or 8th Consciousness) Manas or the 7th Consciousness has 4 main characteristics: Self-delusion, Self-belief, Self-conceit, Self-love. Manas has Alaya-vijnana as its object and takes Alaya-vijnana as << Soul or Self >> Manas continuously think about the self to which it is attached. Thus Manas is what we call << ego >> or the << feeling of I, Me, Mine, Myself >> It is believed that at the death of a person, the first 6 Consciousnesses are destroyed but Manas and Alaya continue to pass to the next rebirth. I have noticed that small babies of many months have already their ego. This is the proof of Manas going from one life to the next one :-)) Cheers :-)) KKT 19048 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 7:51am Subject: Samadhi,Ekagatta,Jhana & Concentration Dear Dhamma Friends, Ekagatta always works with citta.Every citta has Ekagata.Even when we are sleeping,there is Ekagata.Citta never stops to happen until it is Cuticitta of Arahats.So Ekagata always happens along with citta.It homes together with Bhavanghacitta as well as Vithicitta.It is a Cetasika. Its lifespan is the same as Citta.It functions as a fixer.It fixes itself at an Aramana and helps other Cetasikas and Citta fix at the same Aramana.This means that it always takes only one and one Aramana. Bhavanghacitta is fixed at the previous life's Mar anasannajavanacitta's Aramana that is Kamma,Kamma-Nimitta and Gati-Nimitta with the help of Ekagatta Cetasika. When Vithicitta occurs,Ekagatta also occurs.Pancadavara-avijjanacitta fixes at Pancarupa-aramana with the help of Ekagatta.If mind senses the sight then Cakkhuvinanacitta fixes at Rupa-aramana and Ekagatta takes the same Aramana.Sampaticcanacitta,then,hand over the same aramana of Rupa- aramana.Ekagatta occurs at the same time again.Next is Santiranacitta.It investigates the aramana handed over by Sampaticcanacitta,fixing at that Rupa-aramana with the help of a new Ekagatta Cetasika.After that,Manodavara-avijjanacitta functions as Wutthoppanacitta fixing at the same Rupa- aramana handed over by Santirana.Here another new Ekagatta appears again and helps all other Cetasika and the present citta to fix at that Rupa -aramana.Wutthoppanacitta decides how to presume,feel,appreciate,understand,realise and view.Next citta has a clear function as the decision has been made.That citta is Javanacitta.It again fixes at the same Rupa-aramana and it feels.There are 7 successive javanacittas,all fixing at the same aramana handed over by previous cittas(Samannatara- Paccayo).In all these Javanacittas there accompanies Ekagatta Cetasika,each time new and new.After the last Javanacitta,there follows Tadaramanacitta fixing at the same Aramana.Tadaramana feels deeply what Javana feeled.Next is the second Tadaramana.Then passes to Bhavanghacitta again and Bhavanghacittas occur many times limitlessly.In the two Tadaramana,they fix at the same aramana taken by javanacitta with the help of new and new each Ekagatta.When passes to Bhavanghacitta aramana fixed is aramana of Maranasannajavanacitta of the previous life.So Ekagatta occurs all the time but each new at each time.It functions as a fixer and help not to spread to other aramanas. Samadhi is the term given for a stage to develop The Highest Panna.Even though it is Ekagatta Cetasika,it works differently compared to Ekagatta of various citta.It has two name,Miccha-samadhi and Samma-samadhi.When a man is fishing,his mind is fixed at the water or pole or whatever it fixed at a single aramana.But it is Miccha-samadhi as the aramana is Akusala-aramana.If Ekagatta falls on the Samatha or Vipassana-aramana,it is called Samma-samadhi.Still,it is not as strong as Ekagatta of Lokuttaracittas,in which Ekagatta is true Samma-samadhi.In Samatha it is just called Samadhi. Ekagatta is one of the members of Jhanacitta.Ekagatta in Jhanacitta is well trained unlike other Ekagattas of Karmavacaracitta.There are five stages of Jhana.All stages contain Ekagatta but higher and higher Jhana has higher and more powerful Ekagatta.All Arupajhanacitta have Ekagatta of high power.Citta can be trained by citta itself.When Citta and the accompanying Ekagatta is well trained,it will be a lot easier to attain the highest Nana or Pana. Concentration is just a lay term.Everyone can concentrate in some ways.The dog concentrates at its food.The monkey concentrates at bananas wherever.Erotically active people concentrate on their interests.Terrorists concentrate at their attack points.Thieves concentrate on the disappearance of the owners.Manslaughters concentrate the weakest points at men and concentrate at these points. From Abhidhamma point of view,whenever citta occurs,Ekagatta occurs.BUT Ekagatta in different people and even in a person in different cittas behaves differently in terms of power,purity and strength even though its function is to fix at a point. Hoping you all have a clear account of the Cetasika Ekagatta. May you all successfully train Ekagatta to be the most effective and purest form. With Metta, Htoo Naing 19049 From: Frank Kuan Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 7:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Forest and Lone Dwelling Thanks for the thoughts on seclusion Sarah, We all have to choose our own path. The more I practice, the more solitude I find to be necessary. In the past, I would enjoy eating a meal in the company of good friends. Now I find it incredibly distracting. Totally interferes with mindfulness of eating. This change in me happened over time, to my surprise actually. Had someone tried to convince me of this years ago, I would believe them, but still be a little skeptical. :-) My theory is those who see the necessity of solitude have a stronger sense of urgency and awareness of dukkha and samvega than the average buddhist. For example, by all accounts I live an extremely privileged life, eat the finest foods, live in the finest place, but even if this kind of lifestyle were sustainable for this entire life, and lives to come, I would still find it a tremendous burden and suffering. The best of conditioned life has to offer still sucks. Driven by this kind of emotion, there is no alternative to strenuous practice, and solitude facilitates it, at least for good chunks of time, varying for individual. Think about how much of your life was spent going to school, learning basic skills, working the rat race to save some money, and then to encounter this precious dhamma, realizing just how difficicult and fortunate it is to encountger these teachings, with no guarantee that you would encounter it again, does it not strike a sense of urgency? Yesterday, I was evaluating and lamenting the state of my mindfulness, which should be focused on only 4 themes for 24/7. Not only is it not within the 4 themes for half of the time, but even when it is, it has a tendency to spend too much on "mindfulness of dhamma". I've been actively trying to shift more of the percentage to mindfulness of body and feeling, and less on dhamma. Not that there isn't a time and place for mindfulness of dhamma, but the percentage of effort just seems out of whack. I won't go into the details of my reasoning, I'll just say it has to do with my working theory of what types of mindfulness are conducive to faith, views, reasoned thinking, and direct realization. -fk 19050 From: bodhi342 Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 7:52am Subject: Re: Dukkha as Medicine? Hello Christine, Thank you for your detailed message. I appreciate your pointing out that most everything worldly revolves around Anicca, and that anatta and dukkha are derivatives. Further that dukkha is more than just dukkha-dukkha, including (as kindly pointed out by Sarah) the nature of change and of the impermanent nature of conditioned realities. Also agree about the contrast/duality of most experience. I hope you had a chance to read my two follow-up messages to TG, that may help clarify what I was trying to get at about not being too averse to dukkha. Without the dukkha-dukkha caused by proximity to the flame, we would not either move our hand away, nor try to extinguish the flame. In this elementary example, the perception of pain is ultimately 'useful'. Why is there the perception heroin addicts, alcoholics etc. lead useless lives? I would suggest that single-minded numbing of their dukkha inhibits the search for resolution of the cause of that dukkha, however imperfect. Indeed it displays the conceit of "I am" at the expense of everything else. Perhaps a more concrete example of the sleep of illusion? It is the 'unsatisfactory' nature of dukkha that presumably leads both to 'artistic creativity' and to the search for 'solutions'. I would venture to suggest that none of us would pursue spiritual improvement, were it not for the sensation of 'unsatisfactoriness'. Ergo the value of dukkha. When we preceive the value of a certain thing, our perception changes, some may consider it a 'gift' in that sense. The 'gift' is the new perception and value added to what was previously solely misery. Who gives and who receives are immense questions that perhaps we could pursue at another time. Thank you for bringing them up, Christine. metta, dharam 19051 From: bodhi342 Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 8:44am Subject: Re: Dukkha as Medicine? Hi Sarah, Thank you for your warm welcome. Thank you also for kindly showing me the ropes. Will look up the archives that you and Sukin have suggested. Answers to your questions: Sukin had recommended joining dsg, after valiantly trying to show me his point of view, done with impressive scholarship and endurance. We (amiably) disagreed a lot of the time! I think his 'classification personality' is that of a 'splitter', while mine is of a 'lumper'. We live in the US, and have never lived in India. I have been considering these questions for what seems like a long time. At least, since gradually realizing the dual dangers of ego- centeredness, and mistaking form for content! Like you, I am not very impressed by either exclusive labels, or by complexity. Rightly or wrongly, I believe that truth is ultimately elementary. The logical assumption is that there is only one ultimate reality. Accepting that, one of my many questions is if there is only one path to that reality, or if it is possible to have several paths to the same ultimate end? At the moment, I believe the latter. Anicca is the basis of most wise understandings/formulations of our universe. Similarly Anatta, when wisely considered, even if using other words, is the ultimate truth about sentient beings. Both immensely useful concepts, as far as I can tell. I am just another seeker of the ultimate reality. Hope my tendency of asking basic questions does not test the patience of most people on dsg. metta, dharam PS: If it is okay with you, I like to refer to the ultimate reality as "......". Anyone is therefore free to insert the word of their choosing, without the friction that arises from ownership! 19052 From: Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 4:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi,Ekagatta,Jhana & Concentrationn Hi, Htoo Naing - I thank you for the following detailed explanation. I regret to say, however, that I don't get much from it. A citta is not some "thing" which does various things. A citta *is* the discerning of an object - it is that operation. There is always, according to Abhidhamma, a single object discerned. That is what vi~n~nan-izing is (to create an ugly Pali-English term). There cannot be degrees of one-pointedness in this sense. A single object is a single object. I fail to see what the one-pointedness (ekagatta cetasika) you describe is other than the ordinary function of vi~n~nana, in which case that would make it a redundancy. It still seems to me that if there were to be any validity to the notion of a cetasika that might rightfully be called one-pointedness, and which could occur with varying degrees of strength, it would have to be a disposition/inclination to maintain the same object in subsequent cittas. With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/24/03 10:52:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > Dear Dhamma Friends, > > Ekagatta always works with citta.Every citta has Ekagata.Even when we > are sleeping,there is > Ekagata.Citta never stops to happen until it is Cuticitta of > Arahats.So Ekagata always happens along > with citta.It homes together with Bhavanghacitta as well as > Vithicitta.It is a Cetasika. > > Its lifespan is the same as Citta.It functions as a fixer.It fixes > itself at an Aramana and helps other > Cetasikas and Citta fix at the same Aramana.This means that it always > takes only one and one > Aramana. > /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) 19053 From: nidive Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 9:22am Subject: Re: Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no. 17 Hi Nina, > 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. Then what happens to the non-returner with dry insight and no jhana attainment? Where is the non-returner reborn for the last lifetime before attaining arahatship? I read somewhere that the non-returner with dry insight will automatically develop jhana when death is approaching. It is also said that a non-returner has perfected concentration and virtue. Is it because most of the hindrances (except sloth and torpor and restlessness) have been eradicated? Is it also possible that jhana kamma from the infinite past might condition the rebirth in the brahma realms (since it is said the non- returner cannot be reborn in the sensuous realm anymore)? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 19054 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 10:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Trim reminder Dear Mods, Could you please help me how to trim, and snip (detail instructions)?I am not an expert in computer use.This is not to post and just enquiry. With thanks Htoo Naing "dsgmods " wrote: 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: ... > <<>> 19055 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 10:20am Subject: Intimation through body and speech, intro Dear friends, I translated from Thai Dhamma Issues no. 3, about intimation through body and speech. This deals with many details on the different groups (kalapas) of rupa, and I can understand very well that some people may feel frustrated when reading this. Lodewijk felt that way, he felt frustrated, and he said that I could chase people away, yelling, but that is the last thing I want to do. For me it is difficult to change the text of Dhamma Issues, I am just translating. Therefore, I decided to first give an introduction to this subject. Gestures and speech are so daily, I feel that it is useful to know more about their intricate conditions. I intend to paste here in different parts Ch 6 of my "Physical Phenomena", which you can also find on the Zolag web. However, let those who find the subject too detailed skip this, I understand very well that it depends on one's accumulations whether one is interested or not (:-) :-) . Nina. 19056 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 10:20am Subject: "Intimation through Body and Speech, no 1" Chapter 6. Intimation through Body and Speech Citta is one of the four factors that produces rúpa. We look different when we laugh, when we cry, when we are angry or when we are generous. Then we can notice that citta produces rúpa. Bodily intimation (kåyaviññatti) and speech intimation (vacíviññatti) are two kinds of rúpa, originated by citta. They are not produced by the other three factors that can produce rúpa, by kamma, temperature or nutrition. As to bodily intimation, this is movement of the body, of the limbs, facial movement or gestures which display our intentions, be they wholesome or unwholesome. The intention expressed through bodily intimation can be understood by others, even by animals. Bodily intimation itself is rúpa, it does not know anything. We read in the ³Dhammasangaùi² (§ 636): What is that rúpa which is bodily intimation (kåyaviññatti)? That tension, that intentness, that state of making the body tense, in response to a thought, whether good or bad, or indeterminate (kiriyacitta), on the part of one who advances, or recedes, or fixes the gaze, or glances around, or retracts an arm, or stretches it forth - the intimation, the making known, the state of having made known - this is that rúpa which constitutes bodily intimation. According to the ³Atthasåliní² (I, Book I, Part III, 82, 83), in the case of bodily intimation citta produces the ³eight inseparable rúpas²[1] and among them the element of air (wind, oscillation or motion) plays its specific part in supporting the body and strengthen the postures. We read: ... But there is a certain peculiar, unique mode of change in the primaries (four Great Elements) when set up by mind, through which, as a condition, mobility (the element of wind or motion) is able to strengthen, support and agitate the coexistent body. This is intimation. ... Because it is a capacity of communicating, it is called ³intimation². What does it communicate? A certain wish communicable by an act of the body. If anyone stands in the path of the eye, raises his hands or feet, shakes his head or brow, the movement of his hands, etc. are visible. Intimation, however, is not so visible; it is only knowable by the mind. For one sees by the eye a colour-surface moving by virtue of the change of position in hands, etc. [2]. But by reflecting on it as intimation, one knows it by mind-door-consciousness, thus: ³I imagine that this man wishes me to do this or that act.²... The intention expressed through bodily intimation is intelligible to others, not through the eye-door but through the mind-door. Knowing, for example, that someone waves is cognition through the mind-door and this cognition is conditioned by seeing-consciousness that experiences visible object or colour. The meaning of what has been intimated is known after reflection on it, thus it can only be cognized through the mind-door. The ³Visuddhimagga² (XIV, 61) defines intimation in a similar way and then states about its function, manifestation and proximate cause: ... Its function is to display intention. It is manifested as the cause of bodily excitement. Its proximate cause is the consciousness-originated air-element. Footnotes: 1.The four Great Elements of solidity, cohesion, temperature and motion, and visible object, odour, flavour and nutrition. 2. Because of saññå, remembrance, one can notice the movement of a colour surface. Seeing sees only colour, it cannot see movement of colour. 19057 From: nidive Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 10:23am Subject: Re: Perception is the Ultimate Reality Hi James, > Kamma is determined by perception > (if there was no perception there would be no kamma and no choice). Why don't you say this? : Kamma is determined by ignorance (if there were no ignorance, there would be no kamma). > Kamma, or perception, is the (only) ultimate reality. "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an06-063.html Perception and Intention are entirely different things. It is almost common sense. The Buddha DID NOT say: "Perception, I tell you, is kamma. Perceiving, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect. "And what is name-&-form? Feeling, PERCEPTION, INTENTION, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements & the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form." [SN XII.2] And what are fabrications? There are these six classes of intention: intention aimed at sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas. These are called fabrications. [SN XXII.56] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html "Whatever (mental) fabrications are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: those are called the aggregate of fabrications. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-048.html If anything, Kamma should be classified as under the aggregate of fabrications instead of the aggregate of perception. It is not to my understanding that Perception and Intention are the same thing. The Buddha had never said that Kamma and Perception are the same thing. It is only your own wishful extrapolation. If you can't find any sutta quote that says directly that only the aggregate of perception is ultimate and the rest are mundane, just admit it. If you need time to search for it, just say so. Regards, NEO Swee Boon Weight Age Gender Female Male 19058 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 10:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intimation through body and speech, intro Dear Nina, I posted so much for Rupa.All physical phenomena are related to Rupa.Gesture and Speeches are rupa but their lifespan is the same as Citta even though they are Rupa which should be 17 lifespan of Citta.These two(Kayavinattirupa and Vacivinattirupa) are both Cittajarupas.So their lifespan is just the same as Citta.Could you please do not go deep about rupa.Learn rupa as a basis for understanding of Abhidhamma.I hope you learned well in Dhamma. With Metta, Htoo Naing nina van gorkom wrote:Dear friends, I translated from Thai Dhamma Issues no. 3, about intimation through body and speech. This deals with many details on the different groups (kalapas) of rupa, and I can understand very well that some people may feel frustrated when reading this. Lodewijk felt that way, he felt frustrated, and he said that I could chase people away, yelling, but that is the last thing I want to do. For me it is difficult to change the text of Dhamma Issues, I am just translating. Therefore, I decided to first give an introduction to this subject. Gestures and speech are so daily, I feel that it is useful to know more about their intricate conditions. I intend to paste here in different parts Ch 6 of my "Physical Phenomena", which you can also find on the Zolag web. However, let those who find the subject too detailed skip this, I understand very well that it depends on one's accumulations whether one is interested or not (:-) :-) . Nina. 19059 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 10:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi,Ekagatta,Jhana & Concentrationn Dear Howard, Maintaining an object that you said is a matter of Vitakka.Ekagatta works to calm all Cetasikas and Citta as well by fixing at an Aramana.Unlike Ekagatta,Vitakka maintain all other mental factors to an Aramana at next successive cittas.You will know there are differences in mental strength among people.It is not quite to say one pointedness.Try to see inside of your mind and find who is Ekagatta.With long long practice you will be aware of its existance.Cetasika is quite difficult to explain but it worths explained. Hoping the best understanding. With Metta, Htoo Naing upasaka@a... wrote:Hi, Htoo Naing - I thank you for the following detailed explanation. I regret to say, however, that I don't get much from it. A citta is not some "thing" which does various things. A citta *is* the discerning of an object - it is that operation. There is always, according to Abhidhamma, a single object discerned. That is what vi~n~nan-izing is (to create an ugly Pali-English term). There cannot be degrees of one-pointedness in this sense. A single object is a single object. I fail to see what the one-pointedness (ekagatta cetasika) you describe is other than the ordinary function of vi~n~nana, in which case that would make it a redundancy. It still seems to me that if there were to be any validity to the notion of a cetasika that might rightfully be called one-pointedness, and which could occur with varying degrees of strength, it would have to be a disposition/inclination to maintain the same object in subsequent cittas. With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/24/03 10:52:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > Dear Dhamma Friends, > > Ekagatta always works with citta.Every citta has Ekagata.Even when we > are sleeping,there is > Ekagata.Citta never stops to happen until it is Cuticitta of > Arahats.So Ekagata always happens along > with citta.It homes together with Bhavanghacitta as well as > Vithicitta.It is a Cetasika. > > Its lifespan is the same as Citta.It functions as a fixer.It fixes > itself at an Aramana and helps other > Cetasikas and Citta fix at the same Aramana.This means that it always > takes only one and one > Aramana. > /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) 19060 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 11:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections, Ch 7, anagami Hi Neo, Once we asked A. Sujin, we were also wondering about this. As far as I remember, it is by nature that the anagami is inclined to jhana, no more attachment to sense objects, no involvement in them. No distractions and no interest in all the sense pleasures. A high degree of calm must come naturally to him, I believe. Perhaps Sarah remembers the exact answer or more details. Nina op 24-01-2003 18:22 schreef nidive op nidive@y...: > Hi Nina, > >> 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. > > Then what happens to the non-returner with dry insight and no jhana > attainment? > > Where is the non-returner reborn for the last lifetime before > attaining arahatship? > > I read somewhere that the non-returner with dry insight will > automatically develop jhana when death is approaching. > > It is also said that a non-returner has perfected concentration and > virtue. Is it because most of the hindrances (except sloth and > torpor and restlessness) have been eradicated? > > Is it also possible that jhana kamma from the infinite past might > condition the rebirth in the brahma realms (since it is said the non- > returner cannot be reborn in the sensuous realm anymore)? 19061 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 11:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] The use of verse in the Suttas, Rob Ed Hi Herman, Rob Edison knows all about verses and also how not to translate them. If the Islandic fishermen leave him in peace it would be nice to hear from him. He made once a very good diagram but I lost the end. Like to hear it again. No rhyme, but different metres, very difficult subject for me. The length of the sentence was also adapted to suit the metre. For rehearsing texts verses may be easier. Pali is to be read aloud, it sounds very good. op 24-01-2003 08:01 schreef Egberdina op hhofman@t...: > Hi all, > > According to the suttas, the Buddha quite often spoke in verse, as > opposed to discursive speech. 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? 19062 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 11:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 41, Comm, Breathing, questions Dear Larry and all, just a few remarks. op 24-01-2003 00:52 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > "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]. Nina: This is realized not through thinking, he must have developed all the stages of insight. It does not mean; just saying there is no man. As was discussed before: texts are always very short about the development of insight stage by stage, not many details are given. > Yavadeva = "To the extent necessary." It denotes purpose. > > Nanamattaya patissatimattaya = "For just knowledge and remembrance." Nina: patissati: he translates as remembrance. Why? It must be keen awareness of nama and rupa. See the following phrase: >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. ...... > 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. Nina: pre-craving, I have heard this before. Pali has: Tassaa samu.t.thaapikaa purima ta.nhaa samudayasacca.m. Purima ta.nhaa: former craving, craving in the past. Still, a difficult sentence. >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. Nina. 19063 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 0:38pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind Hi Howard, I never know when I am speaking International English or an Australian variant. :-) Regarding the word 'larrikin' - in every day usage, it is an term (perhaps derived from 'larack, to frolic') used to mean someone from whom there is unconventional speech or behaviour. Their speech is usually bluntly honest, irrepressible and sometimes slightly shocking or tongue-in-cheek. It can be variously applied to have an affectionate friendly meaning (as was my intention with regard to Herman) or, rarely, as a criticism (not my meaning.) It is a little like the word 'rascal' - which nowadays, in Australia, is used to describe someone who is a little naughty but endearing, often a child. In Papua New Guinea, just to our north, the term 'rascal' is used to mean an adult who is a criminal and often a member of a violent gang. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Chris - > 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 19064 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 0:47pm Subject: Re: The use of verse in the Suttas Hi Herman, The Poetry Sutta is in "The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, a New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya" by Bhikkhu Bodhi. It is on page 130 of Volume I, The Book with Verses (Sagathavagga), Chapter 1 'l Devatasamyutta, Connected Discourses with Devatas' (for some inexplicable reason, it is in a sub-section entitiled VI Old Age). [Regarding the term 'cobber' (and if you say it means sakadagami who am I to object?) - I just have one problem ... was I commiting 'blasphemy' or 'heresy'when I named my fox-terrier dog 'cobber' years ago? I rely on you to straighten out my confusion of this matter, Herman :-))] metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " wrote: > 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 > 19065 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 1:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Intimation through body and speech, intro --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing wrote: > > Dear Nina, > > Could you please do not go deep about rupa.Learn rupa as a basis for understanding of Abhidhamma.I hope you learned well in Dhamma. > > With Metta, > > Htoo Naing > > Dear Htoo Naing, I think it is best to let the moderators of the group decide whether someone is sending appropriate letters. You don't like details about rupa but some may. You see vinnati(kaya and vaci) is so common, knowing about the details helps awareness of them to arise.For instance here is a passage about verbal intimation (vacivinnati)– "the mode and the alteration in the consciousness-originated earth element that causes that occurrence of speech utterance which mode and alteration are a condition for the knocking together of clung to matter….." This is not just theory – it happens everytime we talk to others. Speech is merely these elements, not us. You see before I learnt the details of Abhidhamma I believed that evrything was anatta but, nonetheless, when I spoke I had the feeling it was "me" speaking. Contemplating passages like this helped to bring attention to every little moment in life and break it down into its component parts. Then the development of awareness becomes very daily - not just something to do while we are alone or in a special place. It is all Dhamma, all the time. Nina gave the example of someone waving. It is simply kayavinnati, a type of rupa, conditioned by nama - a puppet- and yet without awareness we think it to be a being, either 'ourself' or another (attasanna). Very good to be reminded of the truth.I find the passages from the atthakatha and Tika on these matters are so helpful, I hope Nina will add more. robertK 19066 From: James Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 1:27pm Subject: Re: Perception is the Ultimate Reality --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > It is not to my understanding that Perception and Intention are the > same thing. The Buddha had never said that Kamma and Perception are > the same thing. It is only your own wishful extrapolation. > > If you can't find any sutta quote that says directly that only the > aggregate of perception is ultimate and the rest are mundane, just > admit it. > > If you need time to search for it, just say so. > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, Before further discussion, I think you need a better understanding of the terms involved. Look up the definitions for perception and intention in the dictionary and determine, using common sense, if one can occur without the other. Then look in the suttas and find the difference between the aggregates and the clinging aggregates, of which there is a difference. When you have learned these things for yourself, post again. If you need time to find this information, just say so. Metta, James 19067 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 2:39pm Subject: Re: Perception is the Ultimate Reality Hi James, and Swee Boon, Words are often used in a different sense within Buddhist scriptures than in dictionaries of a foreign language (English) written 2500 years after the Teachings. Maybe you could both use Nyanatiloka's online Buddhist Dictionary as a baseline for your discussions? Perhaps you could start with sanna, chanda, cetana, kamma http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm It also may be worth an expanded reading of some terms in 'Cetasikas' at: http://www.vipassana.info/contents-vipassana.htm metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " > wrote: 19068 From: Egberdina Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 2:59pm Subject: Re: The use of verse in the Suttas Hi Christine, I found it !!! (only after much help. Thanks a bunch) When it comes to your transgressions, I find myself able, at this time, to suspend all judgement on the matter. Hence, there will be no stone throwing from me in the case of the woman taken in blasphemy or heresy. (How not to give an answer in three easy lessons :-)) I'm sure cobber has been true to his name. All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Herman, > > The Poetry Sutta is in "The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, a New > Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya" by Bhikkhu Bodhi. It is on page > 130 of Volume I, The Book with Verses (Sagathavagga), Chapter 1 'l > Devatasamyutta, Connected Discourses with Devatas' (for some > inexplicable reason, it is in a sub-section entitiled VI Old Age). > > [Regarding the term 'cobber' (and if you say it means sakadagami who > am I to object?) - I just have one problem ... was I > commiting 'blasphemy' or 'heresy'when I named my fox-terrier > dog 'cobber' years ago? I rely on you to straighten out my confusion > of this matter, Herman :-))] > > metta, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " > wrote: > > 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 > > 19069 From: Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 3:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 41, Comm, Breathing, questions Hi Nina, Are you disagreeing or making a point about different kinds of thinking? Way 41: "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..." Nina: This is realized not through THINKING, he must have developed all the stages of insight. Larry 19070 From: Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 4:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi,Ekagatta,Jhana & Concentration Hi Howard and Htoo Naing, I also am unclear about the meaning of ekagatta. I have often wondered if Attention Deficit Syndrome (ADS) is a problem with the ekagatta cetasika. A few people have a natural ability to concentrate on a problem or topic with great skill and depth, but others struggle to even pay attention. Certainly great understanding can be achieved with concentration, but insight seems almost magical. Clouds part and we see clearly. Somehow, tranquility is mixed with concentration to make samadhi. This seems to change one's outlook, or predisposition. How do you guys sort out these various elements? Larry 19071 From: James Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 4:28pm Subject: Re: Perception is the Ultimate Reality --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi James, and Swee Boon, > > Words are often used in a different sense within Buddhist scriptures > than in dictionaries of a foreign language (English) written 2500 > years after the Teachings. Hi Christine, I looked at those definitions for sanna (perception), chanda (intention), cetana (volition), and kamma (action). They pretty much fit the standard definitions found in any English dictionary. I am not sure what you are driving at. As far as Cetasikas, I don't believe in them. I only believe in cittas. The mind cannot perceive things with double faculties. There aren't two minds. There is only the `effect' of cetasikas existing because of the echo of feedback from single mind states. That is one of the errors with introspection in determining brain function. However, even these echoes affect subsequent cittas, so it is a minor point of contention. However, I am not sure what you are driving at. Could you clarify? Metta, James 19072 From: Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 11:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind Hi, Christine - Thanks. It apparently is mainly an Australian usage. I found the following on AOL. Main Entry: lar·ri·kin Pronunciation: 'lar-i-k&n Function: noun Etymology: origin unknown Date: 1868 chiefly Australian : HOODLUM, ROWDY - larrikin adjective With rowdy metta, Howard In a message dated 1/24/03 3:39:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > I never know when I am speaking International English or an > Australian variant. :-) > > Regarding the word 'larrikin' - in every day usage, it is an term > (perhaps derived from 'larack, to frolic') used to mean someone from > whom there is unconventional speech or behaviour. Their speech is > usually bluntly honest, irrepressible and sometimes slightly shocking > or tongue-in-cheek. It can be variously applied to have an > affectionate friendly meaning (as was my intention with regard to > Herman) or, rarely, as a criticism (not my meaning.) > It is a little like the word 'rascal' - which nowadays, in > Australia, is used to describe someone who is a little naughty but > endearing, often a child. In Papua New Guinea, just to our north, > the term 'rascal' is used to mean an adult who is a criminal and > often a member of a violent gang. > > metta, > Christine > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Chris - > > > 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) 19073 From: nidive Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 4:47pm Subject: Re: Perception is the Ultimate Reality Hi James, > Look up the definitions for perception and intention in the dictionary > and determine, using common sense, if one can occur without the other. If intention depends on perception for its arising, then this means that kamma is different from perception. If the present moment depends on the previous moment for its arising, does that mean that the present moment is the same as the previous moment? If this is what you imply by "one can occur without the other", then kamma (intention) is different from perception. Kamma (intention) would then be mundane and perception would then be ultimate. For it is through perception that kamma arises (as you claimed). This is in contradiction with what you say: Kamma is the only Ultimate Reality. It cannot be Ultimate Reality, because it is fabrications. In the same manner, if feeling depends on perception for its arising, then this means that feeling is different from perception. If that is the case, isn't feeling then mundane? Is perception the root, or is intention (kamma) the root? > Then look in the suttas and find the difference between the aggregates > and the clinging aggregates, of which there is a difference. "Whatever (mental) fabrications are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: those are called the aggregate of fabrications. "Whatever (mental) fabrications -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- are clingable, offer sustenance, and are accompanied with mental fermentation: those are called fabrications as a clinging- aggregate. Please read carefully, James. There is really no difference between them. The aggregate of fabrications is only a clinging-aggregate when there is clinging, craving as sustenance, accompanied with mental fermentation. If there is no craving, then the aggregate of fabrications is not a clinging-aggregate. Please note the phrases "those are called the aggregate of fabrications" and "those are called fabrications AS a clinging- aggregate". Please note the use of the word "AS". The Buddha is not defining another aggregate of fabrication. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 19074 From: Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 11:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi,Ekagatta,Jhana & Concentration Hi, Larry (and Htoo Naing) - In a message dated 1/24/03 7:24:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard and Htoo Naing, > > I also am unclear about the meaning of ekagatta. I have often wondered > if Attention Deficit Syndrome (ADS) is a problem with the ekagatta > cetasika. A few people have a natural ability to concentrate on a > problem or topic with great skill and depth, but others struggle to even > pay attention. Certainly great understanding can be achieved with > concentration, but insight seems almost magical. Clouds part and we see > clearly. Somehow, tranquility is mixed with concentration to make > samadhi. This seems to change one's outlook, or predisposition. How do > you guys sort out these various elements? > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm afraid I'm not at all clear on this issue or satisfied with any explanations I've read or heard. I personally find this to be an area of weakness in Abhidhamma, an area of imprecision. I don't find myself satisfctorally "sorting out" any of this. I am blissfully unknowing with regard to this issue. I only have questions, no answers. (Hey! Maybe that's not so bad!! ;-)) --------------------------------------------- > > Larry > ======================= With a concentrated dose of 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) 19075 From: azita gill Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 5:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dukkha as Medicine? --- "bodhi342 " wrote: > Hello Christine, > > Thank you for your detailed message. I appreciate > your pointing > out that most everything worldly revolves around > Anicca, and that > anatta and dukkha are derivatives. Further that > dukkha is more > than just dukkha-dukkha, including (as kindly > pointed out by Sarah) > the nature of change and of the impermanent nature > of conditioned > realities> > metta, > dharam > hello dharam and others, not sure about 'dukkha as medicine'. the way I see it all things are dukkha, including the very enjoyable events in our lives. Altho. I do remember K. Sujin asking us did we really want to stop seeing, hearing etc. esp. when all was pleasant. I think I understand the point you are making, but we have to remember that dukkha is also anatta and anicca. It is not 'my' dukkha; it just is. which brings me to the question I have on Mana, to be kindly answered by anyone who can help me out here. Mana does not arise with Ditthi, right? But in my observation, it would seem that they somehow are very closely connected. for example, when we are comparing ourselves to the others, we have this view of the others as being something to be compared with. Surely we are having a 'view' at that moment. I know citta and cetasikas arise and fall away extremely quickly and that Mana and Ditthi may, given the right conditions, be closely associated, but I would like some advice here, please. > BTW, just want to say thanx to all posters, I have found many of the posts so helpful; maybe [for those who are aware of my computor skills] I am just getting better at sitting and reading. may we all have lots of patience, courage and good cheer. Azita. > > 19076 From: Jim Anderson Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 4:59pm Subject: Re:The use of verse in the Suttas Dear Herman, I have scanned the first gathaa of the Dhammapada so you can see its metrical structure. The metre is fairly common for the gaathaa-s found in the Tipitaka as far as I can tell. manopubba"ngamaa dhammaa, manose.t.thaa manomayaa; manasaa ce padu.t.thena, bhaasati vaa karoti vaa; tato na.m dukkhamanveti, cakka.m va vahato pada.m. -- Dhp 1 s / l l l /_s l l_/ l, s / l l l /_s l s_/ l s / s l l /_s l l_/ s, l / s s l /_s l s_/ l s / l l l /_s l l_/ s, l / l s s /_s l s_/ l Notes: 1. 's' refers to an open syllable with a short vowel (laahu -- light). 2. 'l' refers to an open syllable with a long vowel or a closed syllable with a short or long vowel (garu -- heavy) 3. The metre is pathyaavatta which contains the trisyllables: _s l l_ (ya-ga.na) and _s l s_ (ja-ga.na) in their respective positions shown above. 4. The first trisyllable after the 1st syllable of each line of 8 syllables cannot be a sa-ga.na (s s l) nor a na-ga.na (s s s) but note an anomaly in the second half of the middle line above. Anomalies are often seen in the Pali verses, a common one being an additional syllable (a line having 9 instead of 8 syllables). My information is based on a beginner's study I did in 2000 of small parts of an English translation of the Vuttodaya by Dr. B. Jinananda published in The Nava Nalanda Mahavihara Research Publication, Vol. II, pp. 161-234 -- Varanasi, 1960. Best wishes, Jim In a message dated Fri, 24 Jan 2003 07:01:49 -0000, Herman wrote: << 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? >> ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca 19077 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 5:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi,Ekagatta,Jhana & Concentrationn Htoo Naing and Howard First, welcome from me to the list, Htoo Naing. Thanks for posting this info about ‘concentration’ as used in the conventional sense of repeatedly taking the same object. I can see you have an extensive and detailed knowledge of the teachings. Howard, the role of vitakka cetasika here rings a bell. I believe it was mentioned in a discussion we had on the same subject previously(quite some time ago now). I just checked in Nina’s ‘Cetasikas’ and found the following-- << << << Both vitakka and vicara are jhana-factors which can be developed in samatha, tranquil meditation. ... Vitakka which is developed in samatha "thinks" of the meditation subject and it inhibits the hindrances which are sloth and torpor (thina and middha). The Visuddhimagga states in the definition of vitakka IV, 88): "... for the meditator is said, in virtue of it, to hove the abject struck at by applied thought, threshed by applied thought..." Thus, in samatha vitakka "touches" the meditation subject again and again until calm has developed to the degree that jhana can be attained. >> >> >> http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas10.html Jon --- Htoo Naing wrote: > > Dear Howard, > > Maintaining an object that you said is a matter of Vitakka.Ekagatta > works to calm all Cetasikas and Citta as well by fixing at an > Aramana.Unlike Ekagatta,Vitakka maintain all other mental factors > to an Aramana at next successive cittas.You will know there are > differences in mental strength among people.It is not quite to say > one pointedness.Try to see inside of your mind and find who is > Ekagatta.With long long practice you will be aware of its > existance.Cetasika is quite difficult to explain but it worths > explained. > > Hoping the best understanding. > > With Metta, > > Htoo Naing 19078 From: azita gill Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 5:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Intimation through body and speech, intro --- "rjkjp1 " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing > > > > Dear Htoo Naing, > I think it is best to let the moderators of the > group decide whether > someone is sending appropriate letters. You don't > like details about > rupa but some may. [snip] > find the > passages from the atthakatha and Tika on these > matters are so > helpful, I hope Nina will add more. > robertK > > dear Htoo Naing and Robert, firstly, I also hope that Nina will add lots more of this type of matter, I find it so helpfull to read about daily life, and what constitutes daily life from buddhist point of view. We live this daily life, there is nothing else, therefore beneficial to know and understand so that wisdom can develop and one day, eradicate kilesa. Htoo Naing, I'm sure you asked Nina to go 'slow' because you really want to understand, so I encourage you to ask as many questions as you see fit. We all learn from the others questions and answers. cheers, Azita. > > > > > > > 19079 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 6:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dukkha as Medicine? Dharam Welcome to the list from me, and sorry for being slow in getting back on your interesting comment. --- "bodhi342 " wrote: > Hello, ... > We know a little about the cause of Dukkha. We know a little about > the manifestations of Dukkha. We know a little about the > consequences of Dukkha. > > Do we know whether Dukkha itself points to its resolution? Just a comment here about dukkha as used in the texts. Dukkha is an *attribute or quality* of this life and of the phenomena that comprise it. It is not a phenomenon in itself. It seems to me that we can only talk about dukkha in the context of the thing to which that quality pertains, rather than as something in isolation. > One could speculate that if it were not for Dukkha, Buddha would > not have been driven to find out more... > > Seems Dukkha awakens us from the deep sleep of illusion. Most of > us seeking the truth, are moved to do this as a consequence of > experiencing unpleasant dukkha. Therefore dukkha is our benefactor > in disguise :-). Without dukkha, we would not be moved to reach out > for understanding/help. Without Dukkha would we be able to revive > our inner consciousness? Dukkha itself is the first line therapy! If this was so in any meaningful sense, the implication would be something like, 'if you've experienced dukkha, you're on the way to becoming awakened', or even 'the more dukkha, the more awakened', neither of which of course has any validity. But it is I think true to say that unless dukkha is sufficiently apparent, its truth cannot be realised. For this reason, beings with little developed understanding but existing highly refined and pleasant realms may not be susceptible to the teachings. So, 'dukkha as medicine', perhaps no; 'dukkha as a necessary stimulus', definitely yes! Jon 19080 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 6:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? Ranil (and All) Thanks for this. I'm afraid I still can't find 'eeshwara' anywhere. Can anyone help with this term? Thanks. Jon --- ranil gunawardena wrote: > Dear Jon, > > "eeshwara" means King, Have control of, Ruler...etc. > > The Buddha also acquires the "eeshwara"ness to the following, > > Jhana - (Jhana samapaththi - Samadhi ) - so called, > "samadhi-samapaththeeshwara" > Irrdhi - so called, "Irrdeeshiwara" > Dhamma - so called, "Dhammeshwara" > Sanga- so called, "Sangeshwara" > Gana - so called, "Ganeshawara" > Loka - so called, "Lokeshawara" > > ~meththa > ranil 19081 From: Egberdina Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 7:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi,Ekagatta,Jhana & Concentrationn Hi Htoo Naing, I am a little confused, perhaps you or anyone else reading this can shed some light on the issue. I have understood that Ekagatta accompanies all cittas. If this is incorrect, than the problem is solved. What I don't understand is how the mind can discern a state if it is always there. We only identify things by change, for example we know panna through it's absence, we can tell the difference between it being there and not being there, same with sati etc etc. I hope I am clear. All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing wrote: > > Dear Howard, 19082 From: Egberdina Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 7:26pm Subject: Re:The use of verse in the Suttas Thank you Jim (and Nina), This is more information than I dreamed of hoping for. All the best Herman 19083 From: bodhi342 Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 7:47pm Subject: Re: Dukkha as Medicine? Hello Azita, Thanks for your response. How many enjoyable events move us to be willing to seek understanding just by themselves? They are more 'seductive' in keeping us in the state of illusory sleep than painful events, don't you think? I would suggest that if is often the painful aspects of dukkha that lead us to seek understanding of phenomenon. Or, the perception of unsatisfactoriness that lead to the pursuit of more understanding. Perception seems to be important here, or am I wrong? May I ask what the answers were to K. Sujin's insightful question about really wanting to stop seeing, hearing etc. esp. when all was pleasant? I must say a question like this gets to the practical application of knowledge very efficiently, indeed. metta, dharam 19084 From: Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 8:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? Hi Jon, It is sometimes spelled isvara, ishvara for sanskrit. The pali is issara. http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/ddsa/getobject_?HTML.a.0:3170./projects/artfl0/databases/dicos/philologic/pali/IMAGE/ Larry 19085 From: bodhi342 Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 8:07pm Subject: Re: Dukkha as Medicine? Hello Jon, JA: "Just a comment here about dukkha as used in the texts. Dukkha is an *attribute or quality* of this life and of the phenomena that comprise it. It is not a phenomenon in itself. It seems to me that we can only talk about dukkha in the context of the thing to which that quality pertains, rather than as something in isolation." D: Yes, apart from the state of this life in a much more general sense, it also seems to be a specific quality we perceive in various situations. This I think applies to all those listed by Sarah recently. So while all existence is dukkha, yet within that existence we may perceive unsatisfactoriness - here a more specific quality. This for example may appear as the more conventional suffering of sentient beings, and yet still results in a desire for understanding the skewed nature of existence. JA: " If this was so in any meaningful sense, the implication would be something like, 'if you've experienced dukkha, you're on the way to becoming awakened', or even 'the more dukkha, the more awakened', neither of which of course has any validity." D: Correct, these extrapolations do not have any validity, but that was not what I was implying. A stimulus does not necessarily lead to an effect every time. The desired effect may occur only when the conditions are right (Sukin has been drumming this into my noggin ;-)). However, without dukkha there is no impetus/motivation to seek relief/understanding. So, true, true but unrelated! JA: "But it is I think true to say that unless dukkha is sufficiently apparent, its truth cannot be realized. For this reason, beings with little developed understanding but existing highly refined and pleasant realms may not be susceptible to the teachings." D: Exactly. JA: "So, 'dukkha as medicine', perhaps no; 'dukkha as a necessary stimulus', definitely yes!" D: Excellent point, and well taken. Thank you. metta, Dharam 19086 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 8:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi,Ekagatta,Jhana & Concentrationn --- Dear Herman, Citta, the chief in experiencing, is also never absent in that it arises and falls aways but there is no space between cittas. How is it discerned? Well it is present here and now but usually it is taken as self: there is the perception that I see, hear, know, understand. It is the function of panna (wisdom) a conditioned mental factor, in association with sati and other factors (including samma-samadhi) to discern the nature of citta. Even though citta is never absent there are different conditions for each citta - one is never exactly the same as the other. Cakkhu- vinnana (seing consciousness) is different from sota-vinnana(hearing) and so. Likewise each moment of ekaggata is different, in varying degrees, from other moments. robertk In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " wrote: > Hi Htoo Naing, > > I am a little confused, perhaps you or anyone else reading this can > shed some light on the issue. > > I have understood that Ekagatta accompanies all cittas. If this is > incorrect, than the problem is solved. > > What I don't understand is how the mind can discern a state if it is > always there. We only identify things by change, for example we know > panna through it's absence, we can tell the difference between it > being there and not being there, same with sati etc etc. I hope I am > clear. > > > > All the best > > > Herman > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing > wrote: > > > > Dear Howard, 19087 From: Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 4:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? Hi, Jon - I think the term, also given in English as Ishvara, is Sanskrit for 'God'. As I recall, it is the personalized aspect of the Hindu deity, with Brahman being the impersonal godhead. It has also been used as a part of a name. For example there is the Mahayana Bodhisattva called Avalokitesvara. With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/24/03 9:32:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Ranil (and All) > > Thanks for this. I'm afraid I still can't find 'eeshwara' anywhere. > Can anyone help with this term? Thanks. > > Jon > > --- ranil gunawardena wrote: >Dear Jon, > > > >"eeshwara" means King, Have control of, Ruler...etc. > > > >The Buddha also acquires the "eeshwara"ness to the following, > > > >Jhana - (Jhana samapaththi - Samadhi ) - so called, > >"samadhi-samapaththeeshwara" > >Irrdhi - so called, "Irrdeeshiwara" > >Dhamma - so called, "Dhammeshwara" > >Sanga- so called, "Sangeshwara" > >Gana - so called, "Ganeshawara" > >Loka - so called, "Lokeshawara" > > > >~meththa > >ranil > > > /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) 19088 From: Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 4:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi,Ekagatta,Jhana & Concentrationn Hi, Herman - In a message dated 1/24/03 10:08:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Hi Htoo Naing, > > I am a little confused, perhaps you or anyone else reading this can > shed some light on the issue. > > I have understood that Ekagatta accompanies all cittas. If this is > incorrect, than the problem is solved. > > What I don't understand is how the mind can discern a state if it is > always there. We only identify things by change, for example we know > panna through it's absence, we can tell the difference between it > being there and not being there, same with sati etc etc. I hope I am > clear. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: You are clear to me. This is what I meant - or close to what I meant - in saying that such a cetasika is redundant. -------------------------------------------- > > > > All the best > > > Herman > ====================== 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) 19089 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 10:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? Many thanks for this, Howard (I thought it was probably a Sanskrit term). Jon (PS to others. Just because Howard manages to get away with Mahayana AND Hindu references in a post doesn't mean the rest of you should get any ideas ...;-)) --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > I think the term, also given in English as Ishvara, is > Sanskrit for > 'God'. As I recall, it is the personalized aspect of the Hindu > deity, with > Brahman being the impersonal godhead. It has also been used as a > part of a > name. For example there is the Mahayana Bodhisattva called > Avalokitesvara. > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 1/24/03 9:32:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, > jonoabb@y... writes: > > > > > Ranil (and All) > > > > Thanks for this. I'm afraid I still can't find 'eeshwara' > anywhere. > > Can anyone help with this term? Thanks. > > > > Jon 19090 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 10:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? Thanks for this, Larry, especially the helpful link (which, in addition to giving some textual references, also confirms Howard's reference to Brahma) Jon --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, > > It is sometimes spelled isvara, ishvara for sanskrit. The pali is > issara. > http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/ddsa/getobject_?HTML.a.0:3170./projects/artfl0/databases/dicos/philologic/pali/IMAGE/ > > Larry 19091 From: James Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 11:35pm Subject: Re: Perception is the Ultimate Reality --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi James, > It cannot be Ultimate Reality, because it is fabrications. > > In the same manner, if feeling depends on perception for its > arising, then this means that feeling is different from perception. > If that is the case, isn't feeling then mundane? > > Is perception the root, or is intention (kamma) the root? > (James: Well, actually perception is the root because it is from perception that one has intentions. Also, I am using the most common definiton of perception (which does match the Pali definition):1. The act of perceiving; cognizance by the senses or intellect; apperhension by the bodily organs, or by the mind, of what is presented to them; discernment; apperhension; cognition. However, you are correct, the Buddha didn't say that perception is the ultimate reality; he said that kamma was the ultimate reality. So I will grant you that. Doesn't matter to me...at least we are in agreement that nama/rupa isn't the ultimate reality as taught by the Buddha...until you try to slip out again, as I'm sure you will.) > > Then look in the suttas and find the difference between the > aggregates > > and the clinging aggregates, of which there is a difference. > > "Whatever (mental) fabrications are past, future, or present; > internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or > near: those are called the aggregate of fabrications. > > "Whatever (mental) fabrications -- past, future, or present; > internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or > near -- are clingable, offer sustenance, and are accompanied with > mental fermentation: those are called fabrications as a clinging- > aggregate. > > Please read carefully, James. There is really no difference between > them. The aggregate of fabrications is only a clinging-aggregate > when there is clinging, craving as sustenance, accompanied with > mental fermentation. If there is no craving, then the aggregate of > fabrications is not a clinging-aggregate. > > Please note the phrases "those are called the aggregate of > fabrications" and "those are called fabrications AS a clinging- > aggregate". Please note the use of the word "AS". The Buddha is not > defining another aggregate of fabrication. (James: Your statements are confused. The use of 'AS' in the sutta quote doesn't mean anything. One is titled: Aggregate of Fabrication; the other is titled: Fabrications as a clinging- aggregate. One is a aggregate, the other is a 'clingable' aggregate which offers sustenance...and you say there is no difference? You have made a huge leap in logic without explanation.) > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 19092 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 2:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi,Ekagatta,Jhana & Concentration Dear Larry and Dhamma Friends, Thanks for the point you made,Larry.Attention Deficit MAY be a problem with Ekagatta.Ekagatta helps the Sampayottadhammas like Citta and other Namadhamma(Cetasikas) hold the same aramana for a long time.It fixes at that aramana and helps other namadhamma fix at that as well.As I posted in my previous letter,at each time appears a new Ekagatta.But the new Ekagatta holds the same aramana that was held by the previous Ekagattas.Each namadhamma lives a moment(for their lifespan) and that is ANICCA. In your mail,what I like is your word ''tranquility''.Ekagatta behaves like tranquility but not exactly.If Ekagattas are on the same aramana in a defined period,it can be said in a state of tranquility.And that is Samadhi.This again depending on type of aramana has two forms called Miccha-samadhi and Samma-samadhi. In Jhanacitta, Ekagattas stay on the same aramana for a long long time depending on the Aditthana of Jhanalabhis and may stay days,weeks,months,years and as long as Jhanalabhi-Puggala makes Aditthana. After Mara asked The Buddha to have Parinibbana,The Buddha asked Ananda but Ananda did not ask for The Buddha to live a long time exceeding the ordinary lifespan and The Buddha lived 80 years,which shows ANICCA.But The Buddha is not an ordinary Being and could have lived for long long long time.This is just expansion to realise the Ekagatta in Jhanacitta.True Samma-samadhi happens in Lokuttaracittas. Concentration behaves a bit differently even though there are some similarities.And it is a vague word. In the previous post,I said the strength,the power and so on referring to Ekagatta.These words the strength and the power indicate'' the ability of one's Ekagattas to stay long on the same aramana. I refer ''Ekagattas'' because there is only one and one Ekagatta at each moment but as you know The Citta happens in series without interruption then there are many Ekagattas.Actually there is only one in terms of its function.So we can refer it as single or pleural depending on situations.Most people do not see Anicca because they think they are living and think themselve all the same in the past,at the present and will be the same in the future in this life.If someone has eradicated Sakkaya-Ditthi,he will see only Namadhamma of Citta and Cetasika and Rupa-dhamma.Again,these dhammas are passing away every moment.This is for much more clearer view on Nama-dhamma including Ekagatta. So Ekagatta,Samadhi,Jhana and Concentration have some similarities but they behave on their own right and function properly.The basic thing is Ekagatta Cetasika which is one of Paramattha-dhamma. I hope Dhamma Friends will have a clear view on these matters.Thanks Larry for your comment.If there are any queries,please do not hesitate to involve in discussion.This is a discussion forum.Each helps others.Tipitaka is in Tipitaka and The Dhamma is for those who search IT.There is no reason to argue in this forum who is right and who is wrong,who is Puthujana and who is Sikkha.Ariyas will not sit in front of PC and doing ''Tic Tac Tic Tac''.You know what I mean. May you all build up Good Ekagatta and have Samma-Samadhi. With Metta Htoo Naing LBIDD@w... wrote:Hi Howard and Htoo Naing, if Attention Deficit Syndrome (ADS) is a problem with the ekagatta cetasika.Somehow, tranquility is mixed with concentration to make samadhi. How do you guys sort out these various elements? Larry 19093 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 3:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perception is the Ultimate Reality Dear James,Christine,Swee Boon and Dhamma Friends, Cetasika is a namadhamma.It is known only in Buddhism. It cannot be seen(realised) if one does not have enough Panna. So many people confuse.This is usual.Because in mind which many think that it is the only one.Yes,it is the only one and there cannot be two minds.Right.But we are not talking about mind but Abhidhamma. In our mind,Citta is the most powerful in terms of its function.Its chief function is to perceive aramana(different senses including dhamma-aramana like Pannatti,Nibbana,Sukhumarupa,5 Pasadharupa,Citta and Cetasika).There are many other namakkhandhas apart from Citta. But Citta is the leader of all Namakkhandhas.So ordinary people will realise that only Citta is their mind and the only one.Actually there are 4 Namakkhandhas,to detail-89 Citta and 52 Cetasika.At each moment there is only one citta but many cetasikas(at least 7 cetasikas) happen along with that citta.They work in our mind hand in hand. So it is not to blame who believes that there is only one mind and not realise the existance of Cetasika. Ultimate realities are four in terms of their characteristics.They are Citta,Cetasika,Rupa and Nibbana.These four can be examined in any time,anywhere,any way and by any possible means.They are Final Truth,Universal Truth and Ultimate Realities. May you have a good insight into Cetasika. With Metta, Htoo Naing "James " wrote:--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi James, and Swee Boon, > > Words are often used in a different sense within Buddhist scriptures > than in dictionaries of a foreign language (English) written 2500 > years after the Teachings. Hi Christine, As far as Cetasikas, I don't believe in them. I only believe in cittas. The mind cannot perceive things with double faculties. There aren't two minds. There is only the `effect' of cetasikas existing because of the echo of feedback from single mind states. I am not sure what you are driving at. Could you clarify? Metta, James 19094 From: Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 1:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi,Ekagatta,Jhana & Concentration Hi, Htoo Naing and Larry - Htoo Naing, in your understanding, what is the difference between a citta and an ekagatta? A citta is the focussing on or discerning of an aramanna - exactly one. An ekagatta, as you define it, seems to be the same. How, exactly, do they differ? Also, what does it mean for one ekagatta to be stronger or weaker than another? 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) 19095 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 7:03am Subject: The world and dhammas - 1 Victor --- "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Jon, > > I would be interested to know where in the Pali Canon the Buddha > taught that "whatever is taken for oneself or the world in general > is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas." > > I do see some problem with the statement "whatever is taken for > oneself or the world in general is in fact nothing more than the 5 > khandhas." The problem I see is not that whether it is true or > false. The problem I see is whether the Buddha actually taught it. I am glad you asked this. It is a very important issue. To my understanding, the whole of the teachings is directed towards the development of the path to enlightenment by means of the understanding of (insight into) the true nature of the presently arising dhammas/fundamental phenomena/realities. To help people with different predispositions and levels of understanding, the Buddha presented and explained these phenomena in different ways. For ease of discussion here, I would like to expand my statement a little and then discuss it in 3 separate parts, with supporting quotes for each part. So my statement, "The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world around us is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that each of these khandhas is not self." now becomes: (1) The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world around us is in fact nothing more than different phenomena (dhammas). (2) These phenomena are not self. (3) These phenomena can be classified in various ways, including as sense bases (ayatanas), aggregates (khandhas) and elements (dhatus). Taking the first part of that statement, "The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world around us is in fact nothing more than different phenomena (dhammas)", here are 2 suttas from the Samyutta Nikaya that I read as saying just this. 'The All' SN XXXV, 23 The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-023.html) 'The World' SN XXXV, 82 Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "'The world, the world (loka),' it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply? "Insofar as it disintegrates (lujjati), monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye -- experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain -- that too disintegrates. "The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate... "The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate... "The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate... "The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate... "The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect -- experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain -- that too disintegrates. "Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'" (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-082.html) I see these suttas as explaining that the conventional 'all' and 'world' of people and things is in fact different phenomena. Jon (Parts 2 and 3 to follow) 19096 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 7:08am Subject: The world and dhammas - 2 Victor --- "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Jon, > > I would be interested to know where in the Pali Canon the Buddha > taught that "whatever is taken for oneself or the world in general > is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas." (1) The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world around us is in fact nothing more than different phenomena (dhammas). (2) These phenomena are not self. (3) These phenomena can be classified in various ways, including as sense bases (ayatanas), aggregates (khandhas) and elements (dhatus). Now taking the second part of the statement, "These phenomena are not self", here are 2 more suttas from the same section of the Samyutta Nikaya, describing those same phenomena as 'not self'. 'The Internal as Nonself' SN XXXV, 3 "Bhikkhus, the eye is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' "The ear is nonself ... The nose is nonself ... The tongue is nonself ... The body is nonself ... The mind is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'" 'The External as Nonself' SN XXXV, 5 "Bhikkhus, forms are nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' "Sounds are nonself ... Odours are nonself ... Tastes are nonself ... Tactile objects are nonself ... Mental phenomena are nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'" (Trans CDB p.1134, 1135] Jon 19097 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 7:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi,Ekagatta,Jhana & Concentration Dear Upasaka, Thanks for your query. Citta is to do with perceiving Aramana.That is its chief function.It also leads all the Nama-dhamma.It happens in series without interruption.It is the leader,the King of all Nama-dhamma.It is the Creater of all Happenings in the Universe. Ekagatta cannot perceive itself and it is not its function.Ekagatta can never lead Nama-dhamma.But it happens in series like Citta.It appears at the same time at which Citta appears and it disappears in the same fashion like appearing. Both home on the same Watthu and both take the same Aramana. Ekagatta is Ekagatta.It chief function is to focus on an Aramana,to fix at it and not to disperse away. One Ekagatta cannot be stronger than the others. But I mean overall happening.If most Ekagatta can focus on the same object than it becomes stronger. With Metta, Htoo Naing upasaka@a... wrote: Hi, Htoo Naing and Larry - Htoo Naing, in your understanding, what is the difference between a citta and an ekagatta? How, exactly, do they differ? Also, what does it mean for one ekagatta to be stronger or weaker than another? 19098 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 7:14am Subject: The world and dhammas - 3 Victor --- "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Jon, > > I would be interested to know where in the Pali Canon the Buddha > taught that "whatever is taken for oneself or the world in general > is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas." [(1) The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world around us is in fact nothing more than different phenomena (dhammas). (2) These phenomena are not self. (3) These phenomena can be classified in various ways, including as sense bases (ayatanas), aggregates (khandhas) and elements (dhatus).] Finally, taking the 3rd part of the statement, "These phenomena can be classified in various ways, including as sense bases (ayatanas), aggregates (khandhas) and elements (dhatus)", here are 2 more suttas from the Samyutta Nikaya showing the link between the phenomena discussed in the suttas previously quoted and the 5 khandhas. SN XXII, 48 "Whatever there exists of corporeal things, whether ... one's own or external, ... far or near, all that belongs to the corporeality group [rupa-khandha]. "Whatever there exists of feeling whether ... one's own or external, ... far or near, all that belongs to the feeling group [vedana-khandha]. "Whatever there exists of perception whether ... one's own or external, ... far or near, all that belongs to the perception group [sanna-khandha]. "Whatever there exists of mental formations whether ... one's own or external, ... far or near, all that belongs to the mental formations group [sankhara-khandha]. "Whatever there exists of consciousness whether ... one's own or external, ... far or near, all that belongs to the consciousness-group [vinnana-khandha]." SN XXII, 56 "What, o monks, is the corporeality-group [rupa-khandha]? The 4 primary elements (mahá-bhúta or dhátu) and corporeality depending thereon, this is called the corporeality-group. "What, o monks, is the feeling-group [vedana-khandha]? There are 6 classes of feeling: due to visual impression, to sound impression, to odour impression, to taste impression, to bodily impression, and to mind impression..... "What, o monks, is the perception-group [sanna-khandha]? There are 6 classes of perception: perception of visual objects, of sounds, of odours, of tastes, of bodily impressions, and of mental impressions..... "What, o monks, is the group of mental formations [sankhara-khandha]? There are 6 classes of volitional states (cetaná): with regard to visual objects, to sounds, to odours, to tastes, to bodily impressions and to mind objects.... "What, o monks, is the consciousness-group [vinnana-khandha]? There are 6 classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness." [Trans. Nyanatiloka, 'Buddhist Dictionary'] In the 2 suttas quoted from SN under the first part of the statement, the phenomena were classified by way of the 6 ayatanas (sense-bases). I believe it is these same phenomena, differently classified, that are referred to when the khandhas are described. This is most obviously so in the case of the feeling and consciousness khandhas in the 2nd extract above -- feelings and consciousness are described by reference to the same 6 sense-doors as for the ayatanas. I have set out below a more exact correlation between the ayatanas and the khandhas as I understand it (taking the expanded version of the ayatanas as explained in 'The World' sutta). Jon Correlation between 'ayatanas' and 'khandhas': - The eye [sensitive matter that is the eye-base] = rupa-khandha - Forms [visible object] = rupa-khandha - Consciousness at the eye consciousness [citta and accompanying cetasikas, other than contact and feeling (mentioned separately below)] = vinnana-khandha, sanna-khandha, sankhara-khandha (excluding phassa cetasika) - Contact at the eye [phassa cetasika] = sankhara-khandha - Whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye -- experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain [feeling] = vedana-khandha - The ear, Sounds... = [As for eye & forms] - The nose, Aromas... = [As for eye & forms] - The tongue, Tastes... = [As for eye & forms] - The body, Tactile sensations... = [As for eye & forms] - The intellect [hadaya-vatthu?] = rupa-khandha - Ideas [any object of citta] = any of the 5 khandhas - Consciousness at the intellect consciousness [citta] = vinnana-khandha - Contact at the intellect [phassa cetasika] = sankhara-khandha - Whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect -- experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain [feeling] = vedana-khandha 19099 From: James Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 7:27am Subject: Re: Perception is the Ultimate Reality --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing wrote: > > Dear James,Christine,Swee Boon and Dhamma Friends, > Cetasika is a namadhamma.It is known only in Buddhism. > It cannot be seen(realised) if one does not have enough Panna. > So many people confuse.This is usual.Because in mind which many think that it is the only one.Yes,it is the only one and there cannot be two minds.Right.But we are not talking about mind but Abhidhamma. Hi Htoo, I'm sorry, but this is sounding a lot like superstition and magic. Only if one has Panna (i.e. magical powers) they will be able to see cetasikas (i.e. supernormal occurrences); we are not dealing with the brain, we are dealing with Abhidhamma (i.e. the book of magic). This argumentation is a smack in the face to everything the Buddha taught. He did not teach things that only a select few with `Panna' could understand. Actually, he refused to teach in the developing language of Sanskrit, even though it was more precise, because only the aristocracy of his time spoke it. He wanted his message to reach everyone who wanted to receive it; and he rejected those sects and brahmans who propagated the idea of `secret knowledge'. So now I am to take the Abhidhamma as elitist. Hmmm…I may just have to start that national campaign after all. James 19100 From: nidive Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 8:13am Subject: Re: Perception is the Ultimate Reality Hi James, > However, you are correct, the Buddha didn't say that perception is > the ultimate reality; he said that kamma was the ultimate reality. > So I will grant you that. Doesn't matter to me...at least we are in > agreement that nama/rupa isn't the ultimate reality as taught by the > Buddha...until you try to slip out again, as I'm sure you will.) I am not in disagreement with you here. Granted, kamma is really the only conditioned ultimate reality. Let us take a look at an interesting sutta quote. "Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma. "And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-145.html As we can see, our very existence is simply kamma. The aggregate of form is kamma. The aggregate of perception is kamma. The aggregate of feeling is kamma. The aggregate of fabrications is kamma. The aggregate of consciousness is kamma. You and I and all beings far and near are simply kamma. Seen in this way, it simply doesn't matter whether you regard the five aggregates as 'ultimate' or not. It simply doesn't matter whether you regard rupas and namas as 'ultimate' or not. Kamma, when seen rightly, is really really really the only conditioned ultimate reality. But I am not going to talk about the unconditioned ultimate reality. We had enough of that. May you realize the cessation of kamma as the Buddha taught. "And what is the cessation of kamma? Whoever touches the release that comes from the cessation of bodily kamma, verbal kamma, & mental kamma: This is called the cessation of kamma. > One is a aggregate, the other is a 'clingable' aggregate > which offers sustenance...and you say there is no difference? You > have made a huge leap in logic without explanation. If there are two aggregates of fabrications, which one is the one that is dukkha? The "clingable" one only? Or both? If both are dukkha, what's the difference between them? If one is dukkha and another is not, doesn't that violate all that of what the Buddha taught? Unless you are telling me that the one that is not dukkha is nibbana. Or are you going to tell me that one set of aggregates is ultimate and another set is mundane? At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, I will teach you clingable phenomena & clinging. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "And what, monks, are clingable phenomena? What is clinging? "Form is a clingable phenomenon. Any desire or passion related to it, is clinging related to it. "Feeling is a clingable phenomenon. Any desire or passion related to it, is clinging related to it. "Perception is a clingable phenomenon. Any desire or passion related to it, is clinging related to it. "Fabrications are clingable phenomena. Any desire or passion related to them, is clinging related to them. "Consciousness is a clingable phenomenon. Any desire or passion related to it, is clinging related to it. "These are called clingable phenomena. This is clinging." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-121.html Cling-Able means that it is possible to be clung on to. But it does not imply that it will definitely be clung on to. If there is no desire or passion related to it, clinging is not related to it; that aggregate is not clung on to. I think I have made myself clear. If you still insist on saying there are two sets of aggregates, please make a thunder (solid detailed logical explanation). Regards, NEO Swee Boon 19101 From: Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 3:42am Subject: Some Support for the "Disposition-to-Remain" Defintion of 'Ekagatta' Hi, Htoo Naing, Larry, Sarah, Robert, and all involved with this thread - From the ATI Glossary: ekaggatarammana: Singleness of preoccupation; "one-pointedness." In meditation, the mental quality that allows one's attention to remain collected and focused on the chosen meditation object. Ekaggatarammana reaches full maturity upon the development of the fourth level of jhana. (Howard comment: Note the idea of allowing the attention to *remain* collected and focussed on the object. This seems close to the disposition for "the same" object to remain during subsequent mindstates.) A definition by Khun Sujin: 5. Ekaggata-cetasika is the cetasika that is firmly established in the arammana. No matter which kind of arammana it arises to know, the ekaggata-cetasika would be focused in that arammana. But the ekaggata-cetasika that arises with akusala-citta is not as strong or as steadfast as the one that arises with kusala-citta. Any moment when citta arises and falls away continuously for long periods of time, knowing the same arammana, the characteristics of ekaggata-cetasika, which is steadfast in the arammana with each instant of citta, would appear as different levels of samadhi. Whenever kusala-ekaggata-cetasika is steadfast in the arammana of the moment, there is samma-samadhi according to the level of the specific kusala. I'd like to make a couple comments with regard to the foregoing definition: 1) Note that difference in strength of ekagatta is *not* ruled out. 2) The portion to the effect "Any moment when citta arises and falls away continuously for long periods of time, knowing the same arammana, the characteristics of ekaggata-cetasika, which is steadfast in the arammana with each instant of citta, would appear as different levels of samadhi." is very close to defining ekagatta as the tendency/disposition for the current aramanna to remain during subsequent cittas. With metta, Howard 19102 From: James Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 9:00am Subject: Re: Perception is the Ultimate Reality --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Cling-Able means that it is possible to be clung on to. But it does > not imply that it will definitely be clung on to. If there is no > desire or passion related to it, clinging is not related to it; that > aggregate is not clung on to. > > I think I have made myself clear. If you still insist on saying > there are two sets of aggregates, please make a thunder (solid > detailed logical explanation). > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, Okay, there are and there aren't two different sets of aggregates. I was trying to get you to this realization on your own, but I see that that isn't going to work…so I will just spell it out. There is only one set of aggregates but what is different is the perception of them. One type of perception makes them clingable, while another type makes them non-clingable. So literally there is only one set, but practically there are two sets. Let me explain with this analogy: When one looks at a ball from a set distance and maintains that position without moving, that ball looks like a circle of color. That is one perception of that ball. However, if the person if finally able to move and see that ball from another angle or from several other angles, they finally see that it isn't a circle of color at all…it is a ball. That is a different perception of that ball. The ball hasn't changed but the perception of it has. The aggregates, and everything actually, can be understood in the same way. From the samsara existence, they are seen with one perspective, like a circle of color, and that perspective makes those aggregates clingable. However, when one becomes enlightened, or even with sufficient insight, those aggregates are seen with another perspective and there true nature is revealed, not a circle of color at all but actually a ball. When this happens, the former clinging drops away and one has an `Ah Hah!' experience. Can be quite funny actually due to the irony. And NEO, if you want a lot of Theravada text support for this, I cannot provide it. The Lord Buddha had a certain philosophy of teaching and that was that people needed to experience things for themselves, he wasn't going to give the answer. He would give a lot of clues to lead the person there, but he didn't tell it outright. However, there is a lot of support for this in Mahayana texts because they operated under a different philosophy of teaching: We might as well spell it out because they won't believe it anyway until they experience it for themselves! ;-) Metta, James 19103 From: nidive Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 9:08am Subject: Re: Perception is the Ultimate Reality Hi James, > There is only one set of aggregates but what is different is the > perception of them. One type of perception makes them clingable, > while another type makes them non-clingable. So literally there is > only one set, but practically there are two sets. OK, I get you now. It's not literally two sets. It's merely a difference in perspective. This I agree. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 19104 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 10:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] rupas and insight Dear Htoo, I like best to discuss with you on dsg, because others are also interested to listen. I think rupa is very practical, it is with us all the time. If you read the next parts you will see my intention, reminding myself and others of akusala. I end up with the puppets. I want to help others showing conditions, anattaness. Also: intimation as well as the vikara rupas are rupas which are asabhava, not with their own distinct nature. Some people think they can be aware of them, but there are many pittfalls. We have accumulated so much ignorance and clinging and knowing about pittfalls will help us to keep our heads cool. In Thailand we were reminded all the time that rupas have characteristics different from the characteristics of nama. A. Sujin explained this time, as so many times befor, that we have to remember: the first stage of insight is knowing the difference between nama and rupa, not by thinking, but by direct understanding, and this arises in a mind-door process.At this moment we do not know what the mind-door is, we know only in theory. Seeing occurs, hearing occurs, but there must be mind-door processes in between. Visible object experienced through the eyedoor is, after the process is over, experienced through the mind-door. We do not notice this, processes are so fast, the mind-door process is hidden, hidden by the sense-doors. It seems that there is seeing immediately followed by hearing, but this is not so. At the first stage of vipassana it becomes clear what the mind-door is. Rupa is realized as rupa and nama is realized as nama in mind-door processes. I only understand this in theory, but I am glad to be reminded, because we could because of our clinging make ourselves believe that we know already what we don't know yet. A. Sujin stresses this point time and again, because it is important to discern the difference between thinking and a moment of direct awareness. Another point that was brought up again: when our eyes are open it seems that it is light all the time. In reality there is light only when seeing, and not at all the other moments. Seeing is interrupted by many cittas arising in different processes. During the mind-door process, and the ear-door process, for example, it is dark. I find it so useful to know this. It helps me not to take for right awareness what is not right awareness. I enjoy talking to you, Nina. op 24-01-2003 19:46 schreef Htoo Naing op htootintnaing@y...: How are you?Rupa is a wide subject.Focus on practical matters.Study to up the practice.I think you have a clear view on Rupa.I look forward to hearing from you. 19105 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 10:07am Subject: Intimation through body and speech. no 2 Intimation through body and speech. no 2 We are inclined to take intimation as belonging to self, but bodily intimation is only a kind of rúpa, originated by citta. There is no person who communicates by gestures. Are we aware of nåma and rúpa when we gesticulate? Are there kusala cittas or akusala cittas at such moments? Most of the time there are akusala cittas, but we do not notice it. Do we realize which type of citta conditions the bodily intimation when we wave to someone else in order to greet him, when we gesticulate in order to tell him to come nearer, when we nod our head while we agree with something or shake it while we deny something? Such gestures are part of our daily routine and it seems that we make them automatically. Perhaps we never considered what types of citta condition them. Akusala citta conditions bodily intimation, for example, when we with mimics ridicule someone else or show our contempt for him. In such cases it is obvious that there is akusala citta. We should remember that bodily intimation is more often conditioned by akusala citta than by kusala citta. There may be subtle clinging that is not so obvious while we are expressing our intention by gestures. When there is mindfulness we can find out whether there is kusala citta or akusala citta. There may also be the performing of akusala kamma through bodily intimation, for example when someone gives by gesture orders to kill. There may be kusala cittas that condition bodily intimation when we, for example, stretch out our arms to welcome people to our home, when we stretch out our hand in order to give something, when we point out the way to someone who is in a strange city, when we by our gestures express courtesy or when we show respect to someone who deserves respect. However, there may also be selfish motives while we are doing so, or we may be insincere, and then there are akusala cittas that condition bodily intimation. More knowledge about citta and rúpas which are conditioned by citta can remind us to be aware of whatever reality appears, also while gesticulating. Then there is at such a moment no opportunity for akusala citta. 19106 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 10:07am Subject: Commentary to the Greater Discourse to Rahula, M, sutta 62. no. 1. Dear friends, On Pali yahoo we are reading this sutta, and our moderator indicated his interest in the commentary. I shall now frwd it to dsg. Please, could one of you give the link to the English, so that people who are interested can read this sutta. I would rather like a translation other than ATI if possible. But I do only small parts at a time, we go very slowly. Frank, how are you doing with Pali, what are you reading or studying? I am reading this in Thai, but I am waiting for the arrival of the Pali text so that later on I have both Pali and Thai. Commentary to the Greater Discourse to Rahula, M, sutta 62. no. 1. The Commentary, the papa~ncasuudanii, states why the Buddha explained to Rahula the meditation on rupa and why Sariputta explained to him aanaapaana sati. Rahula was so attached to his body, to attabhaava. As we read in the sutta, Rahula followed the Buddha closely. He did not leave him out of sight. He admired the Buddha with his thirtytwo bodily characteristics of a Great Man and his halo. He was thinking that he himself was handsome, and when the Buddha would be the Emperor of the four continents, he would obtain the rank of advisor. The Buddha walked ahead and considered that Rahula was distracted by form (ruupaaramma.na) and that he had attachment. He thought, "Raahula is my son, he walks behind me, he has attachment (chandaraaga) that is of a householder (worldly), it concerns his body (attabhaava), thinking, I am handsome, I have a fair complexion..." We read further on that the Buddha considered that Rahula was going the wrong way, that he was erring. When Rahula's defilements would become greater afterwards, he would neither see his own benefit, nor that of someone else nor of both. He would have an unhappy rebirth, such as in hell, as an animal as a peta, he would be in the cycle of birth and death without end. Attachment (lobha) leads to ruin, and thus lobha becomes worse. Peril occurs but people do not realize that there is peril. People in the world do not know cause and effect. There is dense darkness when attachment overwhelms people. 19107 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 11:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 41, Comm, Breathing, translation and Pali Hi Larry, You were so silent for a few days, I became worried about you. Glad you emerged. See below. op 25-01-2003 00:55 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: , > > Are you disagreeing or making a point about different kinds of thinking? > > Way 41: "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..." Larry, this is a matter of unfortunate translation. The Pali does not have cintati, thinking, here, but just the quotation marks ti: atthi kaayoti vaa panassaati kaayova atthi, na satto, na puggalo, na itthii, na puriso, na attaa, na attaniya.m, naaha.m, na mama, na koci, na kassaciiti evamassa sati paccupa.t.thitaa hoti. > Nina: This is realized not through THINKING, he must have developed all > the stages of insight. >atthi kaayoti : see the ti. and notice the other ti. Larry, do you get my point? I know this for sure: He realizes through insight that there is no being etc. We can all think: there is no being, but this does not mean anything. Here we see again, Pali is really necessary. Nina. 19108 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 11:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind You guys make me laugh, I can savour the subtle humour, remarks about tolerance, etc. And always a variation with metta. I am glad you all keep good cheer, Nina. op 25-01-2003 01:40 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > With rowdy metta, > Howard > 19109 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 11:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Issaro Dear Jon and Ranil, Yes, I have it. In Pali: Issaro: lord, master, creator. Same in Thai. I see Larry found it too, and others, I just saw. Nina. op 25-01-2003 03:31 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: I'm afraid I still can't find 'eeshwara' anywhere. 19110 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 11:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dukkha as Medicine?Upanisa sutta. Dear Dharam and all, about dukkha as stimulant for insight: See Wheel, 277/278, BB: Transcendental Dependent arising. Dukkha is the supporting condition for faith, etc. K II Causal Association, Upanisa sutta. It is very helpful. See below: op 25-01-2003 04:47 schreef bodhi342 op bodhi342@y...: I would suggest that if is often > the painful aspects of dukkha that lead us to seek understanding of > phenomenon. > May I ask what the answers were to K. Sujin's insightful question > about really wanting to stop seeing, hearing etc. esp. when all was > pleasant? I must say a question like this gets to the practical > application of knowledge very efficiently, indeed. Nina: Life is only one moment of experiencing an object. Life is seeing, or hearing, etc. Do we want to stop seeing, thus, to stop life now? Answer from most people: No. Nina 19111 From: Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 0:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi,Ekagatta,Jhana & Concentration Hi Htoo Naing, Thanks for your comments. Does ekagatta cetasika play a decisive role in clinging (upadana)? What clings? Larry 19112 From: Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 0:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 41, Comm, Breathing, translation and Pali Hi Nina, I didn't understand the pali but I think I get your point, although I disagree a little. I think you are making a distinction between realization and practice, and saying practice doesn't make a difference. By "practice" I mean thinking in a discursive, contemplative way, as suggested by the commentary. I agree this isn't realization, but I think it makes a difference in accumulating right view, even if not on a deep level. Larry 19113 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 1:18pm Subject: Re: Some Support for the "Disposition-to-Remain" Defintion of 'Ekagatta' --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Htoo Naing, Larry, Sarah, Robert, and all involved with this thread - > > > (Howard comment: Note the idea of allowing the attention to *remain* > collected and focussed on the object. This seems close to the disposition for > "the same" object to remain during subsequent mindstates.) > > > A definition by Khun Sujin: > 5. Ekaggata-cetasika is the cetasika that is firmly established in the > arammana. No matter which kind of arammana it arises to know, the > ekaggata-cetasika would be focused in that arammana. But the > ekaggata-cetasika that arises with akusala-citta is not as strong or as > steadfast as the one that arises with kusala-citta. Any moment when citta > arises and falls away continuously for long periods of time, knowing the same > arammana, the characteristics of ekaggata-cetasika, which is steadfast in the > arammana with each instant of citta, would appear as different levels of > samadhi. Whenever kusala-ekaggata-cetasika is steadfast in the arammana of > the moment, there is samma-samadhi according to the level of the specific > kusala. > > I'd like to make a couple comments with regard to the foregoing > definition: > 1) Note that difference in strength of ekagatta is *not* ruled out. > 2) The portion to the effect "Any moment when citta arises and falls > away continuously for long periods of time, knowing the same arammana, the > characteristics of ekaggata-cetasika, which is steadfast in the arammana with > each instant of citta, would appear as different levels of samadhi." is very > close to defining ekagatta as the tendency/disposition for the current > aramanna to remain during subsequent cittas. > ___________ Dear Howard, As I said yesterday: "Likewise each moment of ekaggata is different, in varying degrees, from other moments." Thus certainly, as you question in point one, there are different intensities of samadhi depending on conditions. And remember ekaggatta is not arising by itself, it always comes with other dhammas that are conditioning it and being conditioned by it. Some of these such as vitakka and vicara assist ekaggata to focus on the arammana during the development of jhana. And panna is needed to understand the development in the right way. All these phenomena are performing their functions with no being or self anywhere. As Htoo Naing has indicated the highest samma-samadhi is that during the moments of lokuttara citta,and this is different from the samadhi during mundane jhana. RobertK > With metta, > Howard > > > > 19114 From: Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 1:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Commentary to the Greater Discourse to Rahula, M, sutta 62. no. 1. Hi all, Here are some links (english,pali) to sutta: http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/062-maha-rahulovada-e1.htm http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/062-maha-rahulovada-p.htm Larry 19115 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 3:12pm Subject: defending oneself Dear Group, My daughter is a university student and is beginning to read more about Buddhism. We met for lunch yesterday and were discussing the world political situation, peace and non-violence, and the seeming helplessness of individuals in the face of the decisions of the intra- penetrating big business and political systems. (That was with the entree.) We moved on to how Buddhists regard 'self defence'. She wanted to know whether harming or killing another can be justified from a Buddhist perspective in defense of one's nation, and what constitutes 'self defence' geoghaphically. e.g. only out to the borders of one's own country? Shouldn't Buddhists be Holy Sheep and die unprotestingly if war came? Shouldn't they be Conscientious Objectors? Shouldn't 'someone who strongly supports peace and non- harming' join the 'human shield' volunteers going to Baghdad hoping to prevent the bombing by placing themselves in strategic positions? (That was with the main course). I'm not sure I did too well in answering. Those to whom one has given birth can be scathing in their assessment of one's speech vs actions. Especially as I felt the 'human shield volunteers' remark was getting a little personal. :-)) Moving from the global level to the individual, she wanted to know if someone attacked a Buddhist or their loved ones (and escape was not possible) should they resist, using force, and possibly harm or kill the assailant before they themselves could be harmed or killed, or should they not resist in any way? Isn't it kamma (she meant vipaka)? Isn't there really no-one anyway? (This was with the dessert). We stopped the discussion when the meal ended and went to view 'The Two Towers' - no indecisiveness about morality and what action to take there! But not real life, of course. I found myself thinking over this scenario afterwards, as it is the most likely of all to occur in daily life. What should one do according to the Teachings if one is attacked and there is no-one else to help? metta, Christine 19116 From: Egberdina Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 4:22pm Subject: Re: Some Support for the "Disposition-to-Remain" Defintion of 'Ekagatta' Hi Howard, Robert, well everyone really, I can understand that through the differences in strength of ekaggata , it can be identified. And for that to happen we would need to be aware of it in flux, not as a momentary snapshot. I think the citta-vithi model of the consciousness process is fine and can be useful, as long as it only remains a model, and we don't try to make our experience fit into , rather than the other way around. The experience happens, the model notwithstanding :-) With K. Sujin's definition, for example, she talks about "the same arammana". I'm pretty sure I know what she means, but according to the citta-vithi model, if the arammana is a sense object, it won't be *the same* for very long. At times I try to be deliberately unconcentrated. This is very difficult for me. The mind always gets stuck on certain objects. Then there is awareness that it is stuck. Then it moves on to something else, and before you know it (literally) it is stuck again. I am sure that concentration and clinging are very closely intertwined. It is easier for me to be concentrated for a long time than it is to be unconcentrated for a long time. But even then, when I want to be stuck, after a while I become aware the mind has moved elsewhere. All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Htoo Naing, Larry, Sarah, Robert, and all involved with this thread - > > > From the ATI Glossary: > ekaggatarammana: Singleness of preoccupation; "one-pointedness." In > meditation, the mental quality that allows one's attention to remain > collected and focused on the chosen meditation object. Ekaggatarammana > reaches full maturity upon the development of the fourth level of jhana. > > (Howard comment: Note the idea of allowing the attention to *remain* > collected and focussed on the object. This seems close to the disposition for > "the same" object to remain during subsequent mindstates.) > > > A definition by Khun Sujin: > 5. Ekaggata-cetasika is the cetasika that is firmly established in the > arammana. No matter which kind of arammana it arises to know, the > ekaggata-cetasika would be focused in that arammana. But the > ekaggata-cetasika that arises with akusala-citta is not as strong or as > steadfast as the one that arises with kusala-citta. Any moment when citta > arises and falls away continuously for long periods of time, knowing the same > arammana, the characteristics of ekaggata-cetasika, which is steadfast in the > arammana with each instant of citta, would appear as different levels of > samadhi. Whenever kusala-ekaggata-cetasika is steadfast in the arammana of > the moment, there is samma-samadhi according to the level of the specific > kusala. > 19117 From: Egberdina Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 4:50pm Subject: Re: defending oneself --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > > I found myself thinking over this scenario afterwards, as it is the > most likely of all to occur in daily life. What should one do > according to the Teachings if one is attacked and there is no-one > else to help? > > metta, > Christine Hi Christine, I often find myself thinking over the issues you and your daughter discussed. I tend to do that as I am sitting behind my computer, comfortable office chair, Bach expounding some fugue theme in the background, refreshments at hand, in short, I think about these things when there is no threat in any way shape or form. I think that in a case of threat, the reaction will come first, the thought what should I have done will come later. And I don't think that the post reaction analyses themselves will do much to change the reaction next time, unless at the time of threat there is a different awareness of what is actually happening. Having said all that, I would not hesitate to defend myself or those I am with. To allow anyone to deliberately hurt me (or my friends / family) would be a double failing - they have hurt me, and they have hurt themselves. And in the matter of the impending Bush / Blair / Howard sponsored blooddbath (in comparison to which Twin Towers will seem like a 60's sitcom), the best I feel I can do is to write letters to politicians, editors, anyone with a brain and an ear. All the very best Herman Weight Age Gender Female Male 19118 From: Egberdina Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 5:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 41, Comm, Breathing, translation and Pali Hi Larry, Is the following relevant here? " With regard to the condition of its arising one distinguishes 3 kinds of knowledge knowledge based on thinking (cintá-mayá-paññá), knowledge based on learning (suta-mayá-paññá), knowledge based on mental development (bhávaná-mayá-paññá) (D. 33). " 'Based on thinking' is that knowledge which one has accquired through one's own thinking, without having learnt it from others. 'Based on learning' is that knowledge which one has heard from others and thus acquired through learning. 'Based on mental development' is that knowledge which one has acquired through mental development in this or that way, and which has reached the stage of full concentration" (appaná, q.v.) (Vis.M. XIV). " This is taken out of Nyanatiloka's definition of panna. Hope I'm not duplicating what has already been said. All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Nina, > > I didn't understand the pali but I think I get your point, although I > disagree a little. I think you are making a distinction between > realization and practice, and saying practice doesn't make a difference. > By "practice" I mean thinking in a discursive, contemplative way, as > suggested by the commentary. I agree this isn't realization, but I think > it makes a difference in accumulating right view, even if not on a deep > level. > > Larry 19119 From: bodhi342 Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 5:18pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dukkha as Medicine?Upanisa sutta. Dear Nina and all, Thank you for the reference - will try to find it. By the title, it seems to suggest that indeed dukkha is a supporting (necessary?) condition for faith. D: May I ask what the answers were to K. Sujin's insightful question > about really wanting to stop seeing, hearing etc. esp. when all was > pleasant? I must say a question like this gets to the practical > application of knowledge very efficiently, indeed. Nina: Life is only one moment of experiencing an object. Life is seeing, or hearing, etc. Do we want to stop seeing, thus, to stop life now? Answer from most people: No. D: Yes, I think that would indeed be the answer. However, the eye is dukkha, seeing is dukkha, the feelings which arise on account of what is seen are dukkha. What are the implications of this choice of continuing to see? Craving to see? Attachment to both seeing and the object of sight? Would not-seeing or blindness aid in understanding to some extent? What is our state during sleep, when there may be a significant drop off in namas: seeing, hearing etc. Related: is someone blind therefore partially or fully dead? (I ask this in the conventional sense, which I think you were referring to, not in terms of Anicca). I hope you do not mind these questions which arise from a stimulating response. [I feel like Vacchagotta :-) !] metta, dharam 19120 From: dotl Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 7:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: defending oneself I am reminded about the time when Buddha lied to protect someone..(he told his pursuers that he had not seen him) I believe this comes under the eightfold path of right action... I would defend my child and myself ...using this right action. love dotl 19121 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 6:55pm Subject: RE: [dsg] defending oneself Dear Christine, According to the teachings we should not kill any living things, as per defense also we should not harm anytthings. Now, I am a Viet Veteran, I went to Viet Nam with the USA army, I was drafted and sent to fight, so I know how horrible is the war. I also have six sons and as a father I really dont know how I will react if one of my sons was being hurt. I ask this questions months ago to senior monks and their answer was that the hurting of my sons was their own accumulated Karma and I should let it go. But really, monk or no monk my children are my children and I do not want to see them suffer. The teachings said it very clear. No killing , no harming. How we react I really dont know. Metta. Venerable Yanatharo -----Mensaje original----- De: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] Enviado el: Domingo, Enero 26, 2003 10:13 a.m. Para: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Asunto: [dsg] defending oneself Dear Group, My daughter is a university student and is beginning to read more about Buddhism. We met for lunch yesterday and were discussing the world political situation, peace and non-violence, and the seeming helplessness of individuals in the face of the decisions of the intra- penetrating big business and political systems. (That was with the entree.) We moved on to how Buddhists regard 'self defence'. She wanted to know whether harming or killing another can be justified from a Buddhist perspective in defense of one's nation, and what constitutes 'self defence' geoghaphically. e.g. only out to the borders of one's own country? Shouldn't Buddhists be Holy Sheep and die unprotestingly if war came? Shouldn't they be Conscientious Objectors? Shouldn't 'someone who strongly supports peace and non- harming' join the 'human shield' volunteers going to Baghdad hoping to prevent the bombing by placing themselves in strategic positions? (That was with the main course). I'm not sure I did too well in answering. Those to whom one has given birth can be scathing in their assessment of one's speech vs actions. Especially as I felt the 'human shield volunteers' remark was getting a little personal. :-)) Moving from the global level to the individual, she wanted to know if someone attacked a Buddhist or their loved ones (and escape was not possible) should they resist, using force, and possibly harm or kill the assailant before they themselves could be harmed or killed, or should they not resist in any way? Isn't it kamma (she meant vipaka)? Isn't there really no-one anyway? (This was with the dessert). We stopped the discussion when the meal ended and went to view 'The Two Towers' - no indecisiveness about morality and what action to take there! But not real life, of course. I found myself thinking over this scenario afterwards, as it is the most likely of all to occur in daily life. What should one do according to the Teachings if one is attacked and there is no-one else to help? metta, Christine 19122 From: Egberdina Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 7:03pm Subject: Re: Dukkha as Medicine?Upanisa sutta. Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Dharam and all, > Nina: Life is only one moment of experiencing an object. Life is seeing, or > hearing, etc. Do we want to stop seeing, thus, to stop life now? Answer from > most people: No. > Nina I wonder why it is OK in Buddhism to have the separation of what is essentially a unity / oneness into experience (verb), the object (noun) of experience, the flavour of the object (adverb, adjective) but on no account can there be a subject (pronoun)? Surely the distinction between verb, noun, adjective, adverb and pronoun is conceptual and non-self. It would be as insidious and pernicious to conceive of adjective, verb or noun as self as it would be to conceive of pronoun as self. It is considered to be a stage of insight to be able to differentiate between nama and rupa. But why wouldn't it be a stage of insight to realise that the particular nama/rupa (which really is one, not two) is only happening to the subject? "I see blue" incorporates the awareness that there are also other things happening (the precise nature of which is unknown but including other subjects who are aware thusly "I see yellow" "I smell a rose fragrance" etc etc.) It is said the Buddha and others possessed of higher powers could "read" the mind of others. Surely they would be able to distinguish between the mind of the other and their own mind. To be able to describe this situation don't you need pronouns (which do not require the idea of self)? Wishing you, Lodewijk and your family well And all the rest of us too Herman 19123 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 7:43pm Subject: Same Day, Different Day Dear Group, especially the Aussies, Not having had the radio on today, and the public holiday being tomorrow, I've only just realised that today is actually Australia Day. May I offer mudita, hugs and smiles to all those who are happily celebrating the existence of our nation today and or will be tomorrow. To my Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters, my metta and karuna on this day of mourning, this remembrance of the beginning to the invasion. May the wrongs be righted, May the voices be heard, May the Date be changed, May we all, one day, truly be able to say together "We are One but we are Many, and from all the lands on earth we come." Christine 19124 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 7:44pm Subject: Re: Some Support for the "Disposition-to-Remain" Defintion of 'Ekagatta' --- Dear herman and howard, In this brief quote A. Sujin was referring to the development of samatha and for that the same arammana, object is taken: usually a concept. It is different in vipassana where - as herman notes-the objects (the khandhas, ayatanas, dhatus) are continually changing. Herman wrote: I am sure > that concentration and clinging are very closely intertwined." -------- I thought this quite insightful. It is because clinging (lobha) is so very natural, it is our companion in samsara. Thus as soon as we try to concentrate there is the development of samadhi associated with lobha, wrong concentration. What is needed is understanding that can comprehend what kusala really is, that it is quite different from clinging. Then there can be the development of samadhi with alobha, detachment, right concentration. Many people seem to go backwards here and first try to develop samadhi- not truly seeing the right one - and, because samadhi comes with strange experiences, get excited by these and take them for stages of insight or jhana. But samma-samadhi is always associated with wisdom and non-attachment. robertk > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " wrote: > Hi Howard, Robert, well everyone really, > > > With K. Sujin's definition, for example, she talks about "the same > arammana". I'm pretty sure I know what she means, but according to > the citta-vithi model, if the arammana is a sense object, it won't be > *the same* for very long. > > At times I try to be deliberately unconcentrated. This is very > difficult for me. The mind always gets stuck on certain objects. Then > there is awareness that it is stuck. Then it moves on to something > else, and before you know it (literally) it is stuck again. > It is easier for me to be concentrated for a long time than it is to > be unconcentrated for a long time. But even then, when I want to be > stuck, after a while I become aware the mind has moved elsewhere. > > All the best > > > > Herman > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Htoo Naing, Larry, Sarah, Robert, and all involved with this > thread - > > > > > > From the ATI Glossary: > > ekaggatarammana: Singleness of preoccupation; "one-pointedness." In > > meditation, the mental quality that allows one's attention to > remain > > collected and focused on the chosen meditation object. > Ekaggatarammana > > reaches full maturity upon the development of the fourth level of > jhana. > > > > (Howard comment: Note the idea of allowing the attention to > *remain* > > collected and focussed on the object. This seems close to the > disposition for > > "the same" object to remain during subsequent mindstates.) > > > > > > A definition by Khun Sujin: > > 5. Ekaggata-cetasika is the cetasika that is firmly established in > the > > arammana. No matter which kind of arammana it arises to know, the > > ekaggata-cetasika would be focused in that arammana. But the > > ekaggata-cetasika that arises with akusala-citta is not as strong > or as > > steadfast as the one that arises with kusala-citta. Any moment > when citta > > arises and falls away continuously for long periods of time, > knowing the same > > arammana, the characteristics of ekaggata-cetasika, which is > steadfast in the > > arammana with each instant of citta, would appear as different > levels of > > samadhi. Whenever kusala-ekaggata-cetasika is steadfast in the > arammana of > > the moment, there is samma-samadhi according to the level of the > specific > > kusala. > > 19125 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 8:32pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Same Day, Different Day Dear Christine, It is not a nice day here in Canberra. As you know more that six hundred houses were lost totally to the fire last Saturday. Today I am very nervous waiting to evacuate my temple. My temple is in Belconnen and we have been given warning to be ready to evacuate any minute. It is 38 C and windy and the fire is coming. Metta. Ven. Yanatharo -----Mensaje original----- De: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] Enviado el: Domingo, Enero 26, 2003 02:44 p.m. Para: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Asunto: [dsg] Same Day, Different Day Dear Group, especially the Aussies, Not having had the radio on today, and the public holiday being tomorrow, I've only just realised that today is actually Australia Day. May I offer mudita, hugs and smiles to all those who are happily celebrating the existence of our nation today and or will be tomorrow. To my Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters, my metta and karuna on this day of mourning, this remembrance of the beginning to the invasion. May the wrongs be righted, May the voices be heard, May the Date be changed, May we all, one day, truly be able to say together "We are One but we are Many, and from all the lands on earth we come." Christine 19126 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 9:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? (Here's a message on this topic from Rob Edd (who's having problems getting posts through to Yahoo Groups at the moment).) --------------------------------------------- "Robert T. Eddison " Sanskrit: citta + i'svara = citte'svara Pali: citta + issara = cittissara Cittissara is an epithet of the Buddha in the Apadaana. The Ap Commentary defines it as "having mastery of the mind" (cittagatika -- a synonym for cittavaasika) and "accomplished in absorption" (jhaanasampanna). Best wishes, Robert 19127 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 9:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Same Day, Different Day Ven.Yanatharo Bhikkhu, Sir, I didn't realise the weather conditions had deteriorated again - not listening to the radio or watching T.V. has it's drawbacks. My thoughts are with you - last week at work several of my colleagues with family in Canberra were extremely worried, but I thought the worst was over. May you be safe and protected, and may the winds and temperature drop and the rains come. Please be very careful Sir, don't take any unnecessary risks, and let us all know (when you can) that you remain safe and well. with respect and metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: > Dear Christine, It is not a nice day here in Canberra. As you know more that > six hundred houses were lost totally to the fire last Saturday. Today I am > very nervous waiting to evacuate my temple. My temple is in Belconnen and we > have been given warning to be ready to evacuate any minute. It is 38 C and > windy and the fire is coming. Metta. Ven. Yanatharo > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: christine_forsyth > [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > Enviado el: Domingo, Enero 26, 2003 02:44 p.m. > Para: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Asunto: [dsg] Same Day, Different Day > > > Dear Group, especially the Aussies, > > Not having had the radio on today, and the public holiday being > tomorrow, I've only just realised that today is actually Australia > Day. May I offer mudita, hugs and smiles to all those who are > happily celebrating the existence of our nation today and or will be > tomorrow. > > To my Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters, my > metta and karuna on this day of mourning, this remembrance of the > beginning to the invasion. May the wrongs be righted, May the voices > be heard, May the Date be changed, May we all, one day, truly be > able to say together "We are One but we are Many, and from all the > lands on earth we come." > > Christine > 19128 From: Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 9:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 41, Comm, Breathing, translation and Pali Hi Herman, We haven't discussed these three kinds of knowledge (thinking, learning, mental development), but it does seem relevant. Thanks for the reference and your thoughts on concentration and clinging. I'm calling concentration ekagatta cetasika, not samadhi. I think samadhi is something else altogether, specifically associated with tranquility cetasika and jhana cittas, whatever they are, but also ekagatta cetasika. How do you see it? Larry 19129 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 9:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? James I agree with your description of the extraordinary powers that the Buddha enjoyed. They were powers that had been developed over countless aeons. And it seems from the companion thread on 'issara' that one of the epithets for the Buddha is 'the one of controlled mind'. Nevertheless, I think it's also true to say his powers had limits. For example, the Buddha could not - stop the effects of aging, sickness or death - prevent himself experiencing akusala vipaka - 'enlighten' everyone. So I would prefer to say that he had complete control, but *within limits* (if that's not too much of a contradiction in terms ;-)). Jon --- "James " wrote: ... > Jonathan, > > I would disagree. The Buddha must have had complete control over > his body and mind. The Lord Buddha was able to multiply himself, > pass his body through solid objects, and transport his body to > alternate realms…and other enlightened monks and nuns could > levitate > and fly…according to the written suttas, which I don't think are > lying. If you think these are exaggerations or fantasy, well, > sutta- > yourself. ;-)just kidding. I don't have concrete proof. But I > think that far too many members of this group are evaluating what > the Buddha could or could not do based on themselves, and > forgetting > the highest of human potential. We are limited, the Buddha was > not. > > Metta, James 19130 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 9:59pm Subject: Re: defending oneself Hello Herman, Thanks for your reply. You say: "And I don't think that the post reaction analyses themselves will do much to change the reaction next time, unless at the time of threat there is a different awareness of what is actually happening." I agree with you. But I have actually noticed some slight changes in myself, with regard to decreasing emotional reactivity, and therefore decreasing incidents of impulsive speech or action. Once there would be emotional flare-ups that used inevitably to progress to akusala behaviour. This slight change has come about from developing the habit of reading the Texts, discussing and reflecting on the Dhamma with the aid of Good Friends. So I have hope that if I continue with 'this' habit, changes will continue to build regarding 'that' tendency. I wonder at what point one is 'not able' to break the precepts even when the consequence of non-action will be ones own death? I say 'not able' rather than 'choosing not to' because I feel eventually accumulations and conditions would be such that a choice would be only hypothetical and not actually possible. (Not wishing to wave a red flag again, Herman :-)) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " wrote: > Hi Christine, > > I often find myself thinking over the issues you and your daughter > discussed. I tend to do that as I am sitting behind my computer, > comfortable office chair, Bach expounding some fugue theme in the > background, refreshments at hand, in short, I think about these > things when there is no threat in any way shape or form. > > I think that in a case of threat, the reaction will come first, the > thought what should I have done will come later. And I don't think > that the post reaction analyses themselves will do much to change the > reaction next time, unless at the time of threat there is a different > awareness of what is actually happening. > > Having said all that, I would not hesitate to defend myself or those > I am with. To allow anyone to deliberately hurt me (or my friends / > family) would be a double failing - they have hurt me, and they have > hurt themselves. > > And in the matter of the impending Bush / Blair / Howard sponsored > blooddbath (in comparison to which Twin Towers will seem like a 60's > sitcom), the best I feel I can do is to write letters to politicians, > editors, anyone with a brain and an ear. > > All the very best > > Herman 19131 From: James Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 10:04pm Subject: Re: Letter from Janice --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > 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! Hi Star Kid Janice! Well, well, well…aren't you just full of questions! ;-) That is okay; I don't mind. I live my life very much like an open book. Whatever you want to know, just ask. Okay, let me get to your questions. Inquiring minds want to know!! ;-) Question: Which country do you like the best? Answer: I like the USA the best. I wouldn't want to live in any other country. I have traveled to France, Spain, Italy, Monaco, Thailand, Mexico, and Canada…and I always want to come back to the good ole' USA! But I do like to travel to different countries. I am thinking about traveling to China this summer, maybe even Hong Kong, and visit your teacher Mrs. Abbott. Maybe I will see you! Question: Which country contains the most Buddhists? Answer: China contains the most Buddhists. There are over 100 million Buddhists in China. However, only 8% of the population in China is Buddhist. Thailand has 56 million Buddhists but 94.21% of the population is Buddhist. I would have to say that really Thailand is the most Buddhist country with Sri Lanka running a close second with 69% of the population being Buddhist. Question: Is it really true your parents did not allow you to become a monk? Answer: For a while, my parents wouldn't allow me to become a monk but I finally convinced them that I wanted to try it. I told them that Buddhism was the most important thing to me and I wanted to try and become a monk. They finally said yes, but with one condition: they would only give me permission for one try. If that one try didn't work, they wouldn't give me permission to keep trying again and again. Since they are my parents, and I owe them my life and upbringing, I of course agreed. So I went to Thailand, to what I had been told and read was the best temple in the world for men wanting to become a monk who are interested in meditation. But I didn't like that temple at all because I felt that it wasn't sufficiently Buddhist (segregated `classes' of monks, not happy with the interest of lay people wanting to be taught Buddhism [a `feed us and leave us alone' attitude], and not living in mindful harmony with nature [putting leftover food into the woods that escalated the poisonous ant population and killed the other wildlife], all of these things were not in keeping with what the Buddha taught about being a monk, so I came back to the USA. That was my last and only chance. But I am not unhappy about that now; it was karma for me not to become a monk. After all, if I was a monk, meditating in a jungle somewhere, I wouldn't be able to answer your delightful e-mails! ;-) Question: How does the Buddha teach you how to build up happiness? Answer: The Eightfold path is the way to build up happiness. In summary: you need to know what is true happiness and what is not; you need to structure your life so that you will develop happiness; and you need to focus your mind so that you will develop happiness. Actually, seeing, finding, and keeping happiness is very common sense, but not so easy for people to do most of the time. Most people look for happiness all over the place when it is right at the tip of their noses all the time. Know the breath and you will know happiness. Question: Was your sister a Buddhist? Sorry to bring that subject up again after it had diminish quite a long time ago! Answer: No problem, my sister was a Christian/Buddhist. She believed in God and Jesus and Lord Buddha. Actually, her funeral was a Buddhist funeral. Me and my family took her ashes to my Buddhist temple shortly after she was cremated. There was a ceremony to wish her a good rebirth. And now her ashes are at my house on a Buddha altar with a Buddha statue and candles. She and the Lord Buddha are with me when I meditate. Please send me more poems! (I hope you are not out of poems!) Okay, Janice, I will end this e-mail with some more poems. I hope you are studying hard and obeying your teachers (that other poem was just for fun…please don't do any of that stuff to torture your teacher! ;-). Love, James I Should Have Studied by Bruce Lansky I didn't study for the test and now I'm feeling blue. I copied off your paper and I flunked it just like you. ******** There's a New Cook in the Cafeteria by Bruce Lansky Good Morning, staff and students. We have a brand new cook. And that's why our lunch menu will have a brand new look. To make a good impression, our cook's prepared a treat: your choice of snapping turtle soup or deep-fried monkey meat. If you're a vegetarian, we have good news today: she's serving pickled cauliflower and jellyfish souffle. And for dessert our cook has made a recipe from France: I'm sure you'll all want seconds-- of chocolate-covered ants. I hope you like this gourmet feast. I hope you won't complain. But if you do we'll have to bring our old cook back again. ********** The Aliens Have Landed! by Kenn Nesbitt The aliens have landed! It's distressing, but they're here. They piloted their flying saucer through our atmosphere. They landed like a meteor engulfed in smoke and flame. Then out they climbed immersed in slime and burbled as they came. Their hands are greasy tentacles. Their heads are weird machines. Their bodies look like cauliflower and smell like dead sardines. Their blood is liquid helium. Their eyes are made of granite. Their breath exudes the stench of foods from some unearthly planet. And if you want to see these sickly, unattractive creatures, you'll find them working in your school; they all got jobs as teachers. 19132 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 10:04pm Subject: [dsg] Re: defending oneself Hi Dotl, If you could dig up the reference to the sutta about this that would be great. No hurry though, just if ever it comes to hand. I'll think about it being part of right action ... intellectually, I feel a little strange about that though - something to do with partiality for my own child or myself over another. But, as has been said - there won't be time for anything but action. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dotl" wrote: > I am reminded about the time when Buddha lied to protect someone.. (he told > his pursuers that he had not seen him) I believe this comes under the > eightfold path of right action... > I would defend my child and myself ...using this right action. > love > dotl 19133 From: Egberdina Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 11:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 41, Comm, Breathing, translation and Pali Hi Larry, Thank you for your question. You've probably figured out that I tend to trust what I experience. It is good to discover that most people know salty taste, and that they call it variously zout, salt, du selle etc. And the truth or the reality is not in the word. I differentiate between sensing and thinking by the volatile nature of the first, and the static nature of the second. I do not understand why there would be the description of concentration in a single moment, as ekagatta appears to be. But it is not a point of contention. I think any type of concentration has to be pure thinking. And I agree with Robert K. that not all concentration is desirable. (I'm sure there is some heavy duty concentration going on in the proposed demolition / defence of Baghdad). Concentration is single-mindedness. That single-mindedness can be hateful, or it can be rapturous or many other things. All I can say is that, whether I get there with volition or without it, when discursive thought ceases I am invariably filled with a very pleasant feeling. The assumptions I could make about this state would be post hoc discursive thought, so hardly compatible. The awareness of the body and it's empirical world always returns. It makes me think that mind and body are inseparable, and that the body is primary, though it knows nothing. An empty mind is not empty, but full of joy. Be well Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Herman, > > We haven't discussed these three kinds of knowledge (thinking, learning, > mental development), but it does seem relevant. Thanks for the reference > and your thoughts on concentration and clinging. I'm calling > concentration ekagatta cetasika, not samadhi. I think samadhi is > something else altogether, specifically associated with tranquility > cetasika and jhana cittas, whatever they are, but also ekagatta > cetasika. How do you see it? > > Larry 19134 From: azita gill Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 11:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dukkha as Medicine?Upanisa sutta. --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Dharam and all, > about dukkha as stimulant for insight: > See Wheel, 277/278, BB: Transcendental Dependent > arising. Dukkha is the > supporting condition for faith, etc. K II Causal > Association, Upanisa sutta. > : > > op 25-01-2003 04:47 schreef bodhi342 > op > bodhi342@y...: > > I would suggest that if is often > > the painful aspects of dukkha that lead us to seek > understanding of > > phenomenon. > > > May I ask what the answers were to K. Sujin's > insightful question > > about really wanting to stop seeing, hearing etc. > esp. when all was > > pleasant? I must say a question like this gets > to the practical > > application of knowledge very efficiently, indeed. > Nina: Life is only one moment of experiencing an > object. Life is seeing, or > hearing, etc. Do we want to stop seeing, thus, to > stop life now? Answer from > most people: No. > Nina > > dear Nina, Dharam and others, thank you Nina, this is the perfect answer. I'd like to add that if it is the dukkha aspect of life, or rather the unpleasant side of life that we worldlings call dukkha, that is the stimulus for us to seek an understanding of phenomena then maybe, just maybe, it's not motivated by wisdom, but by lobha or dosa - attachment or aversion. from my own experience, when life is very pleasant and it continues to be pleasant seemingly for a long time; when you are with the one you love or lust, when the weather is perfect, the food is delicious, dare I say it - o why not - when the drugs are 'trippy'' who wants to stop all that??? my point is, do we just not want bad feelings, not want to be separated from the things we enjoy, or is there a degree of panna that knows that ALL things are dukkha, subject to rapid change and has absolutely no substance at all. I suggest that lobha is very, very subtle and that we can even get attached to the idea of getting rid of kilesa, well in my case I'm sure this is true. 'only formations see formations with insight, comprehend, define, discern and delimit them' Vis XX83 > even the famous 'patience, courage and good cheer' is 'not me, not mine, not my self'. > Azita, from wet FNQ. aust. the only place in Aus. that doesn't seem to be on fire. > > 19135 From: azita gill Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 11:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] defending oneself --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > My daughter is a university student and is beginning > to read more > about Buddhism [snip] > I found myself thinking over this scenario > afterwards, as it is the > most likely of all to occur in daily life. What > should one do > according to the Teachings if one is attacked and > there is no-one > else to help? > > metta, > Christine > dear Chris, I can almost hear you sigh when you read this, but....... it all depends on conditions. That time in question, if it ever arises, is no different to now. there will be seeing, hearing, etc. Do you know what your reaction to the next moment will be? I listened once to some JJJ radio anouncers who were discussing cockroaches, two of the three people were gleefully relating their stories about 'dispensing with' the cockroaches, the third person was mournfully saying no matter how she went about it, she could not kill the creatures, could not make the final 'death' action - I cheered for her!! who knows how you'll react, you'll have to wait and see. cheers, Azita. > > > > > 19136 From: dotl Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 11:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: defending oneself I will do that Christine..I have been thinking about this issue a lot today.. love dotl 19137 From: Egberdina Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 1:01am Subject: Re: defending oneself Hi Christine, Funny thing. I have noticed the same thing about myself. I would surmise that if things go on like this I would not recognise a red flag if it bit me on the posterior. It may be a bit like forgiveness, which is not so much the identifying of error and then choosing to overlook it (with an occasional reminder to milk it for what it is worth :-)), but seeing that suffering arises out of the belief in false premises. May all beings be bathed in metta May Canberra be bathed in a moderate amount of water (we don't want floods) May John Howard see no difference between the children of Baghdad and his own Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hello Herman, > > > I agree with you. But I have actually noticed some slight changes in > myself, with regard to decreasing emotional reactivity, and therefore > decreasing incidents of impulsive speech or action. Once there would > be emotional flare-ups that used inevitably to progress to akusala > behaviour. (Not wishing > to wave a red flag again, Herman :-)) > > metta, > Christine > 19138 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 4:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - .. .. .. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > To me, to "generate desire, endeavour, arouse persistence, > uphold & > exert one's intent for the sake of" something is quite conventional > effort. > The Buddha was very good with language, and, to me my reading is > quite > straightforward. > ------------------------------------------------- The suttas are not, as a rule, susceptible of a 'straightforward' reading, in the sense of a reading at a purely conventional level. In the passage above, for example, that would give a wrong reading right away for the expression 'generate desire' which, as we know from our studies, must be intended as a reference to kusala, not akusala, mind-states. To my knowledge, the Buddha *never* encouraged akusala mind-states of any kind under any circumstances (btw, I have yet to hear your own view on this point). In a note to his CDB translation of this sutta, Bhikkhu Bodhi summarises the commentary in the Vibhanga on this passage as follows (I give his translation first, then the summary): Sutta: 'He generates desire for the arising of unarisen wholesome states; he makes effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and strives.' Note: 'Briefly: - desire (chanda) is wholesome wish-to-do, wholesome righteous desire; - effort, energy and striving are all terms for energy (viriya) ... The Abhidhamma analysis treats right striving as the energy factor in the supramundane paths, which accomplishes all four functions [J: i.e., all 4 right strivings] simultaneously.' Now, whatever our own inclinations or intuition about the teachings in general or this sutta in particular, we should give careful consideration to these views of the ancients. Note particularly the reference to 'right striving' being the 'energy factor' in the supramundane paths. On the general question of interpretation of the suttas, it seems to me that we need to allow for the fact that no matter how un-conventional or non-intuitive the truths being taught, there was no choice but to employ conventional language to describe them. So if there is a pattern of the commentaries and Abhidhamma ascribing to terms from the suttas meanings and functions that differ markedly from the present-day conventional use of those terms (as translated), then perhaps the sutta references should be considered in their own light and without the 'bias' of our conventional views regarding the expressions. In this respect the Dhamma is perhaps little different from any field of study/expertise (science, economics, politics, etc), where ordinary terms take on or are given a particular, specialised meaning. It would not be fruitful to insist on treating terms of art in these areas as having their ordinary meaning. Jon 19139 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 4:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? Victor No disagreement from me on your statement here, Victor. 'Assuming that one is made up of the five aggregates' dos not fall within any of the skilful courses of conduct given by the Buddha, as far as I am aware. Jon --- "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Jon, > > It is not skillful to assume that one is made up of the five > aggregates. > > Regards, > Victor 19140 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 4:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? Herman --- "Egberdina " wrote: > Hi Jon, > > In an ultimate (paramattha) sense, the picture is quire > > different. > > According to the teachings, all dhammas are conditioned and arise > > by > > virtue of a number of conditions that are unseen/unknown to us. > > Here we diverge, and probably because we have different > paradigms. "Dhamma" is used to refer to many different realities > throughout the relevant literature. I use dhamma to refer to mental > events only. And for me a more or less functioning body with a > nervous system is a sine qua non for dhammas to arise. A body > (known > about only through the mind) is always a precondition for that > mind. > Human bodies, to the extent that they function properly within some > very broad parameters, always exercise control, albeit limited. To borrow a suggestion of your own, let's not quibble over whether to call it this or that. I am happy to agree with your conclusion that: 'Human bodies, to the extent that they function properly within some very broad parameters, always exercise control, albeit limited', if only because it is so heavily qualified ;-)). (Except of course that it would be the mind rather than the body that exercises any 'control'.) It describes admirably the way the majority of people in the world would see things. It is conventionally valid, and it's useful to know. (It is also, I think you'll agree, a conclusion that does not require any knowledge of the Dhamma or any understanding of the reality of the present moment to be drawn.) > Does control have to be conscious in order for it to qualify as > control? There are literally millions of stimulus/response > reactions > taking place in my body. I am aware of about two of those per > second. > Still, I can develop awareness of many more of the control > mechanisms > of the body, after which I can, to a limited extent, consciously > interact with those control mechanisms. Again, I have no problem, as a purely conventional description of how things are, with your statement that: 'I can develop awareness of many more of the control mechanisms of the body, after which I can, to a limited extent, consciously interact with those control mechanisms.' But we have to consider whether it is the kind of knowledge that helps us get any closer to the true nature of the present reality, to escape from samsara. There are lots of conventionally true and useful bits of information to be learnt in life, but the truths regarding fundamental phenomena are said to be deep and difficult to ascertain. > > However, in paramattha > > terms, the dhammas that made up what we take for the Buddha were > > no more subject to control than the dhammas that make up what we > > take for you or me. > > The Buddha for me was never separate from his body. I was not aware I was saying anything that suggested otherwise ;-)) Thanks for you comments here. I am enjoying reading your posts of late. Jon 19141 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 5:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Commentary to the Greater Discourse to Rahula, M, sutta 62. no. 1. Dear Nina & All, --- nina van gorkom wrote: . > > Commentary to the Greater Discourse to Rahula, M, sutta 62. no. 1. > > The Commentary, the papa~ncasuudanii, states why the Buddha explained to > Rahula the meditation on rupa and why Sariputta explained to him > aanaapaana > sati. Rahula was so attached to his body, to attabhaava. ..... Thankyou for the detailed notes from the commentary. I had read B.Bodhi’s brief summary of the same before in his transl of MN, but appreciate the extra detail you give. I find it another good example of how only the Buddha knew exactly what was appropriate for everyone to hear or take as object of contemplation/meditation: ***** MA (BB transl) “....................hence the buddha framed his advice in terms of contemplating the body as neither a self nor the possession of a self>” MA “Ven Sariputta, Rahula’s teacher, gave Rahula this advice unaware that he had already been given different meditation instructions by the Buddha. he was misled by Rahula’s cross-legged posture into thinking that he was practising mindfulness of breathing.” ***** A little later, the Buddha gives Rahula the discourse on the elements, starting with the earth element, as Htoo explained so very well I thought in his rupas and science posts. We cling to the body or parts of the body when in truth only elements are experienced which are taken for self. ***** MA “The Buddha here explains the meitation on the four great elements rather than mindfulness of breathing in order to dispel Rahula’s attachment to the body, which had not yet been removed by the brief instruction on the egolessness of material form. ***** With metta, Sarah ===== 19142 From: Robert Eddison Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 5:07am Subject: Re: Questions about Questions I should like to thank Victor, Rob K, Howard and the others who replied. I don't have much to add at present. I'm on holiday now and am studying Jayatilleke's very lengthy treatment of the four types of question in his "Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge". It all seems a much trickier subject than I had thought. Azita asked regarding "questions to be set aside": > I was wondering if it could also > apply to mundane questions e.g. questions that are > asked on a daily basis, about work or anything. > What do you think? I don't know, but I suspect not. Such questions are very often just part of the ice-breaking routine that takes place when two people first meet. Or what in the opening of many suttas is called "the courteous and aimiable talk". I guess there may be a pretty thin line between this and "animal talk", but even when the questions posed are conducive to the latter I don't think they would be thapaniiya pa~nhaa in the strict sense of the term. Best wishes, Robert 19143 From: James Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 6:49am Subject: Re: ~ < Deep Thinker >~ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > 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. Hi Star Kid Kiana, Well, thank you for this e-mail. There is some pretty deep thinking in this e-mail for one so young! Yes, it is hard to determine true/false and right/wrong because everyone has a different perspective; but the Buddha told us each to be a `light unto ourselves'. In other words, find the answers for ourselves. Albert Einstein said that he was only great because he stood on the shoulders of great men. But I say that he had to be the one to stand on those shoulders so it was really up to him. No one could make him do that could they? It is really up to each of us to find out for ourselves what is true/false and right/wrong. You ask: Do you believe in Buddhism? If you do, does it help you to control your emotions? In which way, and why? Yes, I believe in Buddhism and yes it helps me to control my emotions (though some may disagree with that but that is because they don't understand me). Before I get into the explanation, I have to explain a little bit about control. Some people believe that you either have total control over the things in your life or you have no control and everything is determined by fate or destiny. I believe that both of these ideas are extremist and incorrect. Everything in life comes about because of conditions: if you water a plant, it will grow; if you study for the test, you will get a good grade; if you go on a diet, you will lose weight. But you see, you have to do something to something else to get the desired result. You cannot, with willpower alone like some kind of magic, make plants grow, get good grades, and lose weight. It would be nice if you could, but life doesn't work that way. If you want to control something, you have to affect those conditions that created that something. Now, to get to your question of controlling emotions: yes, you can control emotions but you cannot control them directly. You cannot, like magic, make yourself happy, sad, joyful, depressed, scared, or any other kind of emotion; you can only control that factors that create the emotion. In Buddhism, the way that one controls negative emotions is to simply observe that emotion and how it was created by a whole series of thoughts. If you stop the series of thoughts, the condition for that negative emotion, the negative emotion will go away. There are many more things I could write about this but I would end up writing a book ;-) I will just leave it at that. In short, Buddhism helps you to control emotions by letting you be mindful of the conditions that caused those emotions so that you can do something about them. This is a complicated subject and I hope you understand my answer; if not, feel free to ask more questions. Love, James 19144 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 7:40am Subject: intimation through body and speech, no. 3 intimation through body and speech, no. 3 Our intentions are not only communicated by gestures, but also by speech. Speech intimation (vacíviññatti) is a kind of rúpa, originated by citta. The ³Dhammasangani² ( Ch II, § 637) states: What is that rúpa which is intimation by language (vacíviññatti)? That speech, voice, enunciation, utterance, noise, making noises, language as articulate speech, which expresses a thought whether good, bad, or indeterminate - this is called language. And that intimation, that making known, the state of having made known by language - this is that rúpa which constitutes intimation by language. When someone¹s intention is intimated through speech it is then intelligible to others. The meaning of what is intimated is known after reflection about it, thus, it is cognizable through the mind-door. Speech intimation itself does not know anything, it is rúpa. The ³Visuddhimagga² (XIV, 62) gives the following definition of speech intimation [3] : Verbal intimation is the mode (conformation) and the alteration (deformation) in the consciousness-originated earth-element that causes that occurrence of speech utterance which mode and alteration are a condition for the knocking together of clung to matter [4] . Its function is to display intention. It is manifested as the cause of voice in speech. Its proximate cause is the consciousness-originated earth element.... The proximate cause of bodily intimation is the element of wind or motion which is produced by citta, whereas the proximate cause of speech intimation is the element of earth or solidity which is produced by citta. According to the ³Atthasåliní² (I, Book I, Part III, Ch 2, 87), in the case of speech intimation, citta produces the eight inseparable rúpas and among these the element of earth or solidity (hardness) plays its specific role when there is impact producing sound. A ³certain unique change² among the great elements produced by citta conditions the impact between the sound base, a rúpa produced by kamma (called clung to matter) and the element of solidity produced by citta. Footnotes 3. See Dhammasangaùi Ch II, 636, 637, and also Atthasåliní I, Book I, Part III, Ch 2, 86,87, and II, Book II, Part I, Ch 3, 324. 4. According to the Commentary to the Visuddhimagga, the ³Paramattha Mañjúså² (452): ³The function (knocking together) of the vocal apparatus (clung to matter)². 19145 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 7:40am Subject: answers to questions Dear Larry, Herman, Daram, Azita and all, Your input is imporant, but Sunday is my busy day, I need a little time. Music for my father and dog, music with my nephews. Trying to put in some translation work too. And oh, I have to add a correction: I said Pali is necessary, but I do not want to put off my friends who do not like Pali. Pali is helpful, it depends on one's accumulations how much one will study. Accumulations again! Larry, thanks for the links very thoughtful. How to keep them alive when copying them? It does not work to copy them into my documents. Nina. 19146 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 7:40am Subject: Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no. 18 Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no. 18 The Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct² (Miscellaneous Sayings) reminds us to consider our own patience : Again, only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate the wrongs of others, not the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, the wrongs of others only provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call his patience into play and make it grow even stronger. There is a difference between a person with paññå and without it. As to the person with paññå, no matter what wrong someone else has done to him, this makes his patience grow firmer and more accomplished. As to the person who lacks paññå, the wrongs of someone else provoke an increase in impatience, the opposite of patience. We read further on: The word ³adhivåsanåya² (for endurance), means, for the need to refrain, to endure, namely, restraint. Patience in all respects with regard to our environment, in the different situations of daily life, is a test for patience or endurance. We read in the ³Gradual Sayings², Book of the Fives, Ch IX, §5, ³He cannot endure² that the Buddha said: Monks, possessed of five qualities, among his fellows in the godly life (brahma cariya), an elder becomes neither dear nor pleasant nor respected nor praised. He cannot endure forms, sounds, smells, tastes and touches. Monks, possessed of these five qualities, an elder becomes neither dear nor pleasant nor respected nor praised. By the opposte qualities, a person who can endure forms (visible objects), sounds, smells, tastes amd touches, will become, among his fellows in the godly life, dear, pleasant, respected and praised. 19147 From: Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 2:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 1/26/03 7:27:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Jon - > .. .. .. > >---------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > To me, to "generate desire, endeavour, arouse persistence, > >uphold & > >exert one's intent for the sake of" something is quite conventional > >effort. > >The Buddha was very good with language, and, to me my reading is > >quite > >straightforward. > >------------------------------------------------- > > The suttas are not, as a rule, susceptible of a 'straightforward' > reading, in the sense of a reading at a purely conventional level. > In the passage above, for example, that would give a wrong reading > right away for the expression 'generate desire' which, as we know > from our studies, must be intended as a reference to kusala, not > akusala, mind-states. To my knowledge, the Buddha *never* encouraged > akusala mind-states of any kind under any circumstances (btw, I have > yet to hear your own view on this point). > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't recall ever having been queried on this issue, nor do I recall ever having indicated that I thought the Buddha might encourage harmful thoughts or actions. Of course, I do not. As far as "generating desire" for something worthwile is concerned, when reading this phrase, I immediately understood 'desire' to mean 'chanda' and not 'tanha'. Actually, the sense I had for "generate desire" was to "create the intention and determination for". -------------------------------------------------- > > In a note to his CDB translation of this sutta, Bhikkhu Bodhi > summarises the commentary in the Vibhanga on this passage as follows > (I give his translation first, then the summary): > > Sutta: 'He generates desire for the arising of unarisen wholesome > states; he makes effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and > strives.' > > Note: 'Briefly: > - desire (chanda) is wholesome wish-to-do, wholesome righteous > desire; > - effort, energy and striving are all terms for energy (viriya) ... > The Abhidhamma analysis treats right striving as the energy factor in > the supramundane paths, which accomplishes all four functions [J: > i.e., all 4 right strivings] simultaneously.' > > Now, whatever our own inclinations or intuition about the teachings > in general or this sutta in particular, we should give careful > consideration to these views of the ancients. Note particularly the > reference to 'right striving' being the 'energy factor' in the > supramundane paths. > > On the general question of interpretation of the suttas, it seems to > me that we need to allow for the fact that no matter how > un-conventional or non-intuitive the truths being taught, there was > no choice but to employ conventional language to describe them. So > if there is a pattern of the commentaries and Abhidhamma ascribing to > terms from the suttas meanings and functions that differ markedly > from the present-day conventional use of those terms (as translated), > then perhaps the sutta references should be considered in their own > light and without the 'bias' of our conventional views regarding the > expressions. > > In this respect the Dhamma is perhaps little different from any field > of study/expertise (science, economics, politics, etc), where > ordinary terms take on or are given a particular, specialised > meaning. It would not be fruitful to insist on treating terms of art > in these areas as having their ordinary meaning. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: To an extent I agree with you on this, Jon. I would sound the cautionary note, however, that we - each of us - should not be too certain that we are in possession of the correct translational dictionary for these terms of art (or even that the commentators always were), and, moreover, that sometimes, as Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." ;-) ---------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > > ========================== 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) 19148 From: bodhi342 Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 7:49am Subject: Re: defending oneself Hi Herman, In a follow-up to your prior message you write: "May John Howard see no difference between the children of Baghdad and his own" Is it not curious that you ask of John Howard what you yourself cannot do? You are quite willing to fight to defend yourself and those around you, yet are content with less for the 'other children', in this case presumably Iraqi. I ask this not from a political viewpoint, but rather wondering about the practical application of your understanding of the dhamma. metta, dharam 19149 From: Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 3:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 1/26/03 10:50:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > sometimes, as Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar ===================== Well, maybe he only *said* it once. ;-)) With repetitive 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) 19150 From: Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 7:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: defending oneself In a message dated 1/25/2003 7:03:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, dotl1@o... writes: > I am reminded about the time when Buddha lied to protect someone..(he told > his pursuers that he had not seen him) I believe this comes under the > eightfold path of right action... > I would defend my child and myself ...using this right action. > love > dotl > Dot Would you please list a reference of the sutta you are referring to. I am not aware of any such story in the Suttas. However, in the Suttas the Buddha does say that from the time he became a Buddha to the time of his death, he is incapable of telling a lie. Perhaps the story you reference came from a later collection of teachings? TG 19151 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 1:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Same Day, Different Day --- Dear venerable Yanatharo, I hope the fire missed your temple? I was looking out for news on it last night. Robertk In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: > Dear Christine, It is not a nice day here in Canberra. As you know more that > six hundred houses were lost totally to the fire last Saturday. Today I we come." > > Christine 19152 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 2:30pm Subject: Re: defending oneself Hi Dharam, Herman, and All, An interesting question Dharam - I wonder if you wouldn't mind drawing out a little more just how Herman's wanting to prevent the unleashing of the Anglo-American war machine onto the civlian population of Iraq is 'being content with less for the 'other children' in this case presumably Iraqi'. I think Hermans' point was that he was hoping that the Australian Prime Minister would realise that the lives of Iraqi children (and for that matter Iraqi women and Iraqi men) are just as precious as the lives of British, American or Australian children. They should not be used as pawns in the games that the business, media, government conglomeration plays on the international stage. Large numbers of Iraqi children will begin to die if bombing of their country commences, or if the 'over a hundred thousand heavily armed American, British, and Australian troops' cross its borders and invade the independent nation of Iraq. You say: 'I ask this not from a political viewpoint, but rather wondering about the practical application of your understanding of the dhamma.' Politics is not something separate from life. Now is the only time there is. Buddhism is how we try to live daily life informed by the Teachings. It is not something idealistic and unachievable - but I find it very difficult and have differing levels of success at different times. I am always picking myself up and starting again. I think Herman was being honest about having to make instant decisions in the event of a sudden attack on himself or his loved ones. He was indicating that, as there would be no time for thinking and reflection, accumulated tendencies rather than intellectual understanding would inevitably condition his actions. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi342 " wrote: > Hi Herman, > > In a follow-up to your prior message you write: "May John Howard see > no difference between the children of Baghdad and his own" > > Is it not curious that you ask of John Howard what you yourself > cannot do? You are quite willing to fight to defend yourself and > those around you, yet are content with less for the 'other children', > in this case presumably Iraqi. > > I ask this not from a political viewpoint, but rather wondering about > the practical application of your understanding of the dhamma. > > metta, > dharam 19153 From: dotl Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 3:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: defending oneself I read this many years ago, and have been going through my library to try and find the reference..perhaps it was ex sutta-will keep looking! love dotl 19154 From: dotl Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 3:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: defending oneself good response Christine.. I am reminded of a line in one of Stings songs.."Russians love thier children too" May I step out of bounderies here and ask for karuna for the people of Palestine this morning..3 1/2 million of them are now virually penned down in thier own country by the Israeli army..another 8 year old boy killed there this morning.. There is an election in Israel Tuesday..this is the excuse for this latest incursion. love and peace will be the norm one day. I know nothing is permanant. love dotl- also picking myself up and starting again Christine!!! 19155 From: James Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 4:09pm Subject: Re: defending oneself --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Dharam, Herman, and All, > > An interesting question Dharam - I wonder if you wouldn't mind > drawing out a little more just how Herman's wanting to prevent the > unleashing of the Anglo-American war machine onto the civlian > population of Iraq is 'being content with less for the 'other > children' in this case presumably Iraqi'. I think Hermans' point > was that he was hoping that the Australian Prime Minister would > realise that the lives of Iraqi children (and for that matter Iraqi > women and Iraqi men) are just as precious as the lives of British, > American or Australian children. They should not be used as pawns in > the games that the business, media, government conglomeration plays > on the international stage. Large numbers of Iraqi children will > begin to die if bombing of their country commences, or if the 'over a > hundred thousand heavily armed American, British, and Australian > troops' cross its borders and invade the independent nation of Iraq. Dear Christine, I believe that the role of the Buddhist at times like these is to view events with dispassion and equanimity. As war is eminent, it is not for the Buddhist to take sides or to hope that there is or is not a war. And please understand that dispassion doesn't equate to apathy… quite the opposite. Dispassion is a choice that springs from wisdom. As the flames of conflict start to grow, the Buddhist knows that trying to the blow the flames one way or another, or even trying to blow them out, will only make them grow. Passionate response only fuels more passion. Dispassion is like a cooling mist that puts out the flames because it is of the opposite nature. And like with children playing war games with sticks, rocks, and bottles, it is not the place for the adult to take sides and hope that one side wins over another, or to vainly wish that children didn't play such games; it is the place for adults to simply wish blessings that the children grow up some day. Metta, James 19156 From: Egberdina Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 4:27pm Subject: Re: defending oneself Dharam, It would be an interesting spin on things to suggest that the impending attack on Iraq is a defensive move. It is my understanding that USA, Britain Australia et al are launching an unprovoked attack on Iraq. I wrote what I did on the assumption that John Howard would defend his children as most parents would, but he appears to have no qualms about the innocent lives his quest will claim. Your position re politics is also an interesting spin on things. All human interaction is political. Politics is the division of power in a social situation. There are those you revere, those you revile, those you like, those you dislike. In any real, or imagined (like the Internet) social situation your mind is constantly creating a hierarchy and where you fit into it. I canot even say that it would be noble to divorce politics from understanding the dhamma. It is impossible. All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi342 " wrote: > Hi Herman, > > In a follow-up to your prior message you write: "May John Howard see > no difference between the children of Baghdad and his own" > > Is it not curious that you ask of John Howard what you yourself > cannot do? You are quite willing to fight to defend yourself and > those around you, yet are content with less for the 'other children', > in this case presumably Iraqi. > > I ask this not from a political viewpoint, but rather wondering about > the practical application of your understanding of the dhamma. > > metta, > dharam 19157 From: dotl Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 4:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: defending oneself Thankyyou James..a timely reminder. Sometimes the desire for justice and peace overcomes my dispassion for politics. still starting over.. love dotl 19158 From: Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 4:39pm Subject: Way 42, Comm, Deportment "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on the Modes of Deportment, p.54 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Section on the Modes of Deportment The Buddha, after dealing in the aforesaid manner with body-contemplation in the form of respiration-meditation, in detail, said: "And further," in order to deal exhaustively with body-contemplation, here, according to the meditation on the modes of deportment [iriyapatha]. Gacchanto va gacchamiti pajanati = "When he is going (a bhikkhu) understands: 'I am going.'" In this matter of going, readily do dogs, jackals and the like, know when they move on that they are moving. But this instruction on the modes of deportment was not given concerning similar awareness, because awareness of that sort belonging to animals does not shed the belief in a living being, does not knock out the percept of a soul, and neither becomes a subject of meditation nor the development of the Arousing of Mindfulness. [Tika] "Going". The term is applicable both to the awareness of the fact of moving on and to the knowledge of the (true) characteristic qualities of moving on. The terms sitting, standing and lying down, too, are applicable in the general sense of awareness and in the particular sense of knowledge of the (true) characteristic qualities. Here (in this discourse) the particular and not the general sense of awareness is to be taken. [T] From the sort of mere awareness denoted by reference to canines and the like, proceeds the idea of a soul, the perverted perception, with the belief that there is a doer and an experiencer. One who does not uproot or remove that wrong perception owing to non-opposition to that perception and to absence of contemplative practice cannot be called one who develops anything like a subject of meditation. But the knowledge of this meditator sheds the belief in a living being, knocks out the idea of a soul, and is both a subject of meditation and the development of the Arousing of Mindfulness. Indeed, who goes, whose going is it, on what account is this going? These words refer to the knowledge of the (act of) going (the mode of deportment) of the meditating bhikkhu. 19159 From: Egberdina Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 4:59pm Subject: Re: defending oneself Hi James, Christine, Dotl, and all, James, I do agree with you , dispassion is very important. But dispassion does not equate to inaction. I am reminded of something Sarah once wrote re a monk who was lying in a pool of dysentery, and the Buddha's admonishing the other monks to assist the chap. It is possible to act with equanimity. To sit on your hands and think "truly , all beings reap their own kamma" is merely adding further kamma to your own harvest. To radiate metta to all livings things, and not share a piece of bread with one who is hungry is hypocrisy to the max. To radiate metta to all living things and not share your strength with the weak redefines metta into a filthy little daydream. But when you share your strength with the weak, do it dispassionately. Thanks too, Christine, you read what I wrote how I meant it :-) All the best PS Your rejection of the monastic life how you found it, James, truly did inspire me. Thank you! > > Dear Christine, > > I believe that the role of the Buddhist at times like these is to > view events with dispassion and equanimity. As war is eminent, it is > not for the Buddhist to take sides or to hope that there is or is not > a war. And please understand that dispassion doesn't equate to > apathy… quite the opposite. Dispassion is a choice that springs from > wisdom. As the flames of conflict start to grow, the Buddhist knows > that trying to the blow the flames one way or another, or even trying > to blow them out, will only make them grow. Passionate response only > fuels more passion. Dispassion is like a cooling mist that puts out > the flames because it is of the opposite nature. > > And like with children playing war games with sticks, rocks, and > bottles, it is not the place for the adult to take sides and hope > that one side wins over another, or to vainly wish that children > didn't play such games; it is the place for adults to simply wish > blessings that the children grow up some day. > > Metta, James 19160 From: dotl Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 5:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: defending oneself Thankyou Egberdina..I am still trying to find the fine line that seems to be my path..I cant forsake the world and all its ills and beauty..I have to be able to do something practical to help wherever and however I can.. I am going to read Ken Jone's " Buddhism and Social Action" again. Wheel Publication No. 285/286 (1981) love dotl 19161 From: Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 5:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 41, Comm, Breathing Way 41: 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. Hi all, My take on this passage is that even mindfulness is suffering so the desire to act in any sort of correct way is ultimately abandoned choicelessly, without volition, resulting in the recognition of the non-occurrence of both action and volition as a sort of inescapable, ultimately good, truth. If anyone has an alternate reading, I would be interested. Larry 19162 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 5:44pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Letter to Kom Hi Janice, Thanks for writing again. The Buddha died approximately at 543 BC. The Buddhists would say that the Buddha has passed away completely on this date, as he is no longer reborn unlike us when we die. In Thailand, instead of using Christ's year as the year designation, they use the Buddha's year. So, this year would be 2546 (Buddha's year): that's 2003 + 543 = 2546. The Buddhists also have prayers that help reminding us the good qualities of the Buddha. When you see a Buddhist pray, he/she may be recollecting the different good qualities of the Buddha: his wisdom about all realities, his compassion toward other beings for their sufferings, and his purity of actions, speeches, and mind. This is like when you remind yourself or recollect about your parent's benefaction (they wish well for you, they treat you nicely) toward you. The Buddhists recollect the good qualities of the Buddha when they pray. Yes, we talked briefly about Metta (kindness), Karuna (compassion), mudita (sympathetic joy), and upekkha (equanimity). These four are all qualities of the (good) mind. People don't usually sign their letter with the other three. This is because you can have Metta towards anybody at any time. The other three have different conditions for them to arise. You can only have compassion toward people who are suffering. When you see your family or friends in pain (either physical or mental) and you help them however you can, this is compassion: compassion is directed towards suffering beings. When you see your friends or family receiving good results (like when they are praised, or when they have other kinds of gains [like new toys], and you feel joyful toward their good fortune, this is sympathetic joy: sympathetic joy is directed towards others' good fortunes. When you see other people in pain, and you truly cannot help, but you don't feel mental pain because you know that each person must receive the results of their own kamma, this is equanimity (with wisdom). This is probably the most refined feeling of all 4, and is the most difficult to have. Many Buddhists strive to develop these mental states (not just to sign their letters with the words!). Although having these feelings all the time is not the goal of Buddhism, people develop them because they are beneficial mental states, and they bring a more refined happiness into this life. You can see this for yourself. How do you feel when you treat other people nicely? Like, treating your guests well when they visit you. How do you feel when you help other people when they need it (whether or not they ask)? How do you feel when are joyful toward other people's good fortune? You can then compare these mental feelings towards other kinds of happiness (like when you are praised, have new toys, etc.), are happiness / feelings that come because of kindness, compassion, and sympathetic joy more refined and peaceful than other kinds of happiness? The Buddha always teaches us to prove his teachings to ourselves. I enjoyed your creative ending to your letter. I hope you write again. Metta, kom > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > > 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 > 19163 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 5:49pm Subject: Re: defending oneself Hello James, Herman, Dot, Dharam and All, I don't think that understanding the conditions that lead to violence, and opposing all violence, has anything to do with taking sides. Metta and Karuna are great, Equanimity is also admirable. However, I believe followers of the Dhamma should actively work for peace when the opportunity arises. I agree with Herman that equanimity/dispassion does not mean inaction. All human lives are rare and precious opportunities to find the Dhamma - too rare and precious to be wasted because of circumstances and the (possibly changeable) actions of others. Shall we look for some scriptural references on how the Blessed One would expect his disciples to conduct themselves with regard to violence aimed at themselves or others? Whether he ever saw the use of violence as acceptable? And perhaps references where he indicates the consequences to those who engage in violence even if mandated by a national government or body of allegedly 'united' nations? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > " wrote: > > Hi Dharam, Herman, and All, > > > > An interesting question Dharam - I wonder if you wouldn't mind > > drawing out a little more just how Herman's wanting to prevent > the > > unleashing of the Anglo-American war machine onto the civlian > > population of Iraq is 'being content with less for the 'other > > children' in this case presumably Iraqi'. I think Hermans' point > > was that he was hoping that the Australian Prime Minister would > > realise that the lives of Iraqi children (and for that matter Iraqi > > women and Iraqi men) are just as precious as the lives of British, > > American or Australian children. They should not be used as pawns > in > > the games that the business, media, government conglomeration > plays > > on the international stage. Large numbers of Iraqi children will > > begin to die if bombing of their country commences, or if the 'over > a > > hundred thousand heavily armed American, British, and Australian > > troops' cross its borders and invade the independent nation of > Iraq. > > Dear Christine, > > I believe that the role of the Buddhist at times like these is to > view events with dispassion and equanimity. As war is eminent, it is > not for the Buddhist to take sides or to hope that there is or is not > a war. And please understand that dispassion doesn't equate to > apathy… quite the opposite. Dispassion is a choice that springs from > wisdom. As the flames of conflict start to grow, the Buddhist knows > that trying to the blow the flames one way or another, or even trying > to blow them out, will only make them grow. Passionate response only > fuels more passion. Dispassion is like a cooling mist that puts out > the flames because it is of the opposite nature. > > And like with children playing war games with sticks, rocks, and > bottles, it is not the place for the adult to take sides and hope > that one side wins over another, or to vainly wish that children > didn't play such games; it is the place for adults to simply wish > blessings that the children grow up some day. > > Metta, James 19164 From: James Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 7:09pm Subject: Re: defending oneself --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hello James, Herman, Dot, Dharam and All, > > I don't think that understanding the conditions that lead to > violence, and opposing all violence, has anything to do with taking > sides. Metta and Karuna are great, Equanimity is also admirable. > However, I believe followers of the Dhamma should actively work for > peace when the opportunity arises. Dear Christine, Of course action should be taken to lead toward peace. What action that is cannot be enumerated or classified in this type of forum; it is up to each individual to decide as the appropriate time. However, the correct answers won't arise until dispassion is present and there is no attempt to 'fix' things. If you are unfamiliar with the Tao Te Ching, you will not understand where I am coming from. Take care. Metta, James 19165 From: bodhi342 Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 7:23pm Subject: Re: defending oneself Hi Christine, Herman and all, CF: "An interesting question Dharam - I wonder if you wouldn't mind drawing out a little more just how Herman's wanting to prevent the unleashing of the Anglo-American war machine onto the civlian population of Iraq is 'being content with less for the 'other children' in this case presumably Iraqi'." D: What I was trying to understand from Herman was the apparent contrast in his reactions to a) an attack to those near and dear, as opposed to b) those further away Iraqis; For a) he wrote "I would not hesitate to defend myself or those I am with. To allow anyone to deliberately hurt me (or my friends / family) would be a double failing - they have hurt me, and they have hurt themselves." For b) he wrote "And in the matter of the impending Bush / Blair / Howard sponsored blooddbath ....., the best I feel I can do is to write letters to politicians, editors, anyone with a brain and an ear." Therefore a different reaction, yet he expects "May John Howard see no difference between the children of Baghdad and his own", when he would react differently towards threats to his own children vs others. Hence, my curiosity about the practical issue of choice of action according to the principles of the dhamma. So, for example, is the remoteness of the victim (spatial or emotional) a valid reason to act differently? If everything is non-self, then why differentiate and physically defend some 'selves' as opposed to others? If every condition is impermanent, and present only for a fraction of time, why be concerned about something 'about' to happen? Why concentrate on a particular potential manifestation of dukkha, and not those occuring at the present moment, everywhere around us? James has addressed my implicit questions about kamma and dispassion already! This was not meant to explore the political side of the issue, which is no doubt present, but more the practical issue of individual reaction when the attack is expected 'later' and further away (allowing time for reflection), instead of here and now. Neither is it a criticism of any, or no, specific action or moral stance. Herman, I hope you now see that I made no attempt to spin any of the things you suggested. Politics is collective and has ends other than compassion and understanding. Its means include deception, power, intimidation, display and murder. Therefore, I am able to quite easily separate politics from individual moral understanding and action. Unfortunately, so do the movers and shakers who wield enormous power - they may personally be 'good' Christians/Muslims piously believing in righteous action, but are able to twist and turn things to suit a less loftier goal. In other words, self-delusion and ultimately an increase in dukkha. metta, dharam 19166 From: bodhi342 Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:17pm Subject: Re: defending oneself Hello James and all, Thank you for introducing dispassion as the Buddhist option to deal with the issue of war. Also for differentiating dispassion from apathy. There is a depth of wisdom in this approach to conflict. Implicit is observing, understanding yet not necessarily intervening. I have to suggest however, that to "simply wish blessings that the fighting children grow up some day" falls short as an analogy to adults playing war. Children have the potential to grow-up. Their war games seldom maim, let alone kill, and therefore we can reasonably be patient. Maturing usually occurs, and therefore we can believe in the eventual outcome. However, war has been occurring despite the probable hopeful wishes of humans for eons, with no sign of let up. Can we just take comfort in such a dream? Is this not mistakenly believing eternal peace could be implemented in the world because it exists in our hopes? Wishful thinking does not seem to be an aspect of Buddhism, where the emphasis is on understanding reality in its full measure. Is my understanding accurate? I was intrigued with "Of course action should be taken to lead toward peace. What action that is cannot be enumerated or classified in this type of forum; it is up to each individual to decide as the appropriate time. However, the correct answers won't arise until dispassion is present and there is no attempt to 'fix' things. If you are unfamiliar with the Tao Te Ching, you will not understand where I am coming from." If there is dispassion alone, why choose peace over war, or vice- versa? Surely it is attachment and passion that move us to protect, defend etc., however much we delude ourselves that it is done dispassionately. In Buddhism, are such choices considered noble or misguided? May I ask why suitable action cannot be enumerated or classified in this type of forum? Mysterious - when so much is apparently at stake, and there is time to reflect, decide and prepare, yet we would be denied the very secrets that could potentially save untold number of lives??!! Confusing. metta, dharam 19167 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:20pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Same Day, Different Day Dear Robert. The winds have calm down so we are safe for the moment. Metta. Venerable Yanatharo -----Mensaje original----- De: rjkjp1 [mailto:rjkjp1@y...] Enviado el: Lunes, Enero 27, 2003 08:48 a.m. Para: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Asunto: Re: [dsg] Same Day, Different Day --- Dear venerable Yanatharo, I hope the fire missed your temple? I was looking out for news on it last night. Robertk In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: > Dear Christine, It is not a nice day here in Canberra. As you know more that > six hundred houses were lost totally to the fire last Saturday. Today I we come." > > Christine 19168 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 9:05pm Subject: Re: defending oneself Hello James, I think most of us have a passing knowledge of the writings of Lao Tzu/ Lao Tan/ Li Erh and the practice of wu-wei. But you are correct in that this is a Theravada Buddhist forum, the teachings discussed here are those of the Buddha. I would have enjoyed your contributions on the Dhamma, James - if you feel like joining in at any time, please do. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > " wrote: > > Hello James, Herman, Dot, Dharam and All, > > > > I don't think that understanding the conditions that lead to > > violence, and opposing all violence, has anything to do with taking > > sides. Metta and Karuna are great, Equanimity is also admirable. > > However, I believe followers of the Dhamma should actively work > for > > peace when the opportunity arises. > > Dear Christine, > > Of course action should be taken to lead toward peace. What action > that is cannot be enumerated or classified in this type of forum; it > is up to each individual to decide as the appropriate time. However, > the correct answers won't arise until dispassion is present and there > is no attempt to 'fix' things. If you are unfamiliar with the Tao Te > Ching, you will not understand where I am coming from. Take care. > > Metta, James 19169 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 9:15pm Subject: Re: defending oneself Hi Dharam, Perhaps it is 'what is possible' that is the key. If those one is with are attacked, then the attack is happening right now, in the present moment, within arms reach. It is possible to act. The type of instant action chosen (to run, to fight)is beyond control and the result of one's accumulations. John Howard, as Prime Minister of Australia, has power and time to plan and make decisions and commit troops. Whatever his intended outcome, he is building conditions that will result in bloodshed. The troops may do great harm to the Iraqi population and may be harmed themselves physically and with respect to the kamma they commit. Herman and I, as Australians, are quite powerless to take action at an international level. I don't recall the electors giving the P.M. and his Party the mandate to be an aggressor in a war, and our possibilities for action are limited. As Herman says, 'the best I feel I can do is to write letters to politicians, editors, anyone with a brain and an ear." The Intention to protect and bring peace is there. The remoteness of the victim is not a consideration - the choice to attempt to protect, to ensure their peace and safety, is no different than with our own children - only the possibilities for action and therefore, the means open to us are different. There is not a 'one size fits all' response covering all circumstances. My hope, as expressed by Herman when he said "May John Howard see no difference between the children of Baghdad and his own", is that the leaders of the nations involving themselves in this conflict will feel no 'spatial' or 'emotional' remoteness from people of Iraq. You say: "If everything is non-self, then why differentiate and physically defend some 'selves' as opposed to others?" Who is differentiating? We each deal with what comes to our notice in the best way we can - for myself, this involves how I behave towards beings I meet in daily life, and concerns matters that as a citizen of Australia are my responsibility to comment or act upon. I try to live as closely as possible to the way that is required by the Teachings. What do you do Dharam - what Spiritual Teaching do you try to live by? You say: "If every condition is impermanent, and present only for a fraction of time, why be concerned about something 'about' to happen?" A 'condition' is something on which something else, the so- called 'conditioned thing', is dependent, and without which the latter cannot be. If I don't want the young men of Australia, America and Britain and the people of Iraq to be injured and killed (conditioned thing) than I ought to try with whatever means are at my disposal to change the 'condition' (attitudes and decisions of the Australian Government) that will possibly bring it about. [acknowledging that there are multiple conditions for any conditioned thing.] You say:"Why concentrate on a particular potential manifestation of dukkha, and not those occuring at the present moment, everywhere around us?" There is no concentration on a particular thing. I deal with whatever I can in my daily life, when it arises, when it is possible to be dealt with. The Buddha taught non-violence and peace, he didn't teach non- action. He even went to the field of battle itself and intervened personally, and prevented war, as in the case of the dispute between the Sakyas and the Koliyas, who were prepared to fight over the question of the waters of the Rohini. And his words once prevented King Ajtasattu from attacking the kingdom of the Vajjis. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi342 " 19170 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 9:29pm Subject: Re: Jan's letter Dear Jan, I am Kimmy and I have read through your letter about the book, "Twenty Jataka Tales". In the last two weeks, I was reading that book also which was borrowed from Mrs Abbott, and so I would like to answer your question but I am not sure is my answer right or not. When the fairy first appear in the story, the book said that Sakka knew that "the four friends in the wood were not eating, and that any food that they might find wwas to be given to any poor creature they might meet". Then because of the hare's three friends found that food which might be given to the poor creature and so the fairy didn't take the food that the three friends offered to her. In my opinion, I like the story "The monkey-Bridge" the most, it is because the story give me a very good advice and teach me how to treat my friends when I am the group leader. The story is about there is a grant-monkey who leave in the Himalaya mountain where there are many great fruit, then he ordered the rest of the monkey not to let any fruit fall into the river in order to let the human know all about the fruit. Unfornuately, the human found that and the King ordered them to go to the mountain. The Chief monkey wanted to help the others escaped, so he used his body to be a brigde and so he taught the King a great lesson. He taught him that rule the people with Love instead of power. Hope my answer is correct and can help for your question. Kimmy 19171 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 9:31pm Subject: rusty/buddha Dear Christine, My name is Hilary, I am 11.I have read some letters about your lucky dog Rusty.I love dogs and have one of my own call Heidi (even as I am writing this to you she is under my legs)she will be turning two this July.There was one time when Heidi was ill and the whole family was worried sick about her. Do you think the Buddha can bless the family and the dog to safe and in good health? I'd love to hear more about Rusty Hope your dog is getting well! From Hilary 19172 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 9:36pm Subject: About me Dear Robert, It's me again I won't tell you my name. It starts with a C and ends with a S. I am someone who has sent you a lot of letters. You know my name. I am someone that has no heart. I am 9. I just was 8 when you last heard from me. Who am I? Please tell me more about kamma. Is there kamma in every country. Please answer back. From "-----" 19173 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 9:45pm Subject: I read a letter number 17226 Hi, Ajahn Paul, Sorry I didn't reply. I read your letter (17226) about your life being a vegetarian. ~_~ I was surprised when you memorized all the dates about the when many people died in China and when you started to be a vegetarian... how can you remember all that? Because I can't remember the exact date like you (You must be really smart +_+)... T^T;;; You had some spelling problems.... (not trying to make you angry) so I couldn't understand some sentences. I have a question... why did you have to stop watching movies, tv, and no sports when you became a vegetarian?? I thought vegetarians were allowed to do those things. And i didnt understand the 5th paragraph... which started like "during that period, I found out that there are two kinds of kamma, one is individual............. and so on" Could you or someone else explain it to me? Thank you for trying your best to write a letter to me~ hahahaha;;; hope to see you write again~ Thanks Bye Ki Yong 19174 From: James Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 10:00pm Subject: Re: defending oneself --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hello James, > > I think most of us have a passing knowledge of the writings of Lao > Tzu/ Lao Tan/ Li Erh and the practice of wu-wei. > But you are correct in that this is a Theravada Buddhist forum, the > teachings discussed here are those of the Buddha. > I would have enjoyed your contributions on the Dhamma, James - if you > feel like joining in at any time, please do. > > metta, > Christine Hi Christine, The writings of the Tao Te Ching are the dharma. The Lord Buddha wasn't the only one who taught dharma. I will step out of this fray until everyone settles down and thinks dispassionately. Things are not so black-and-white with this issue. I spent several hours today reading a lot of articles, and I have a feeling that things are going to get much worse before they get better. That is karma. Sometimes children won't stop being rough until they get hurt. Let us, as Buddhists, not be swept up into the frenzy. Let us serve as examples for wise action or inaction. Now, the time is for concentrated effort to remember those teachings from those who are selfless: "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred. He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal. There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels. -The Dhammapada If you are courageous in daring you will die. If you are courageous in not-daring you will live. Among these two, one is beneficial and the other is harmful. -The Tao Te Ching Metta, James 19175 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 10:01pm Subject: Re: About me --- Dear C.B. I was a bit naughty and lazy in not replying to your last letter. Sometimes us adults get involved in different matters but it doesn't mean we forget. thanks for the reminder though. I didn't get much for Xmas but Alex got a watergun, clothes some computer games (from a friend in thailand)... No Gamecube yet though. What did you get for Xmas? I didn't send Alex to the Boarding school because I decided it was too expensive. But I bought him a new bike (BMX) this week as consolation the buddha taught kamma in different ways. I think examples are good though. Alex was in thailand with me and we went down for a swim. He was excited and happy and ran straight into the glass door that opens to the pool (very hard to see it). He was bleeding and started crying. I said that it is nice to know that when we get a painful feeling through the body it is the result of old past kamma and so we can be happy to know that - and also that that particular kamma has used its result(or some of it). He understood and started laughing. Now kamma is not the only cause for that to happen to Alex. the Buddha explained that always there are many things that need to come together for any result. So also the fact that Alex was a little careless etc. helped that kamma to bring its result. Robertk In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear Robert, > > It's me again I won't tell you my name. It starts > with a C and ends with a S. I am someone who has sent > you a lot of letters. You know my name. I am someone > that has no heart. I am 9. I just was 8 when you last > heard from me. Who am I? Please tell me more about > kamma. Is there kamma in every country. > > Please answer back. > > From > > "-----" 19176 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 10:04pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Way 41, Comm, Breathing Hi Larry, Here's an alternative view point. > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 5:40 PM > > Way 41: 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. > 1) Mindfulness is the truth of suffering because it too is anicca, dukkha, and anatta. 2) The pre-craving that brings about the mindfulness. This is very interesting. For samatha development, this could be a craving for peacefulness (of concentration / jhana) or for higher existence, and for insight, the craving for the insights / feelings associated with insights / results of insights (attainment). 3) Thru the abandoning of both, by turning away from both truth, nibbana becomes the object of insight. Nibbana is the cessation, and insight is the (supramundane) path. Suffering is to be known, craving to be abandoned, and (mundane) path is to be developed. Without these three, then the 3rd noble truth cannot be realized. We can see that craving (for anything, including insight itself) is not the way and should be abandoned. kom ps: The abhidhamma tells us that there are 4 kinds of volition: kusala, akusala, kiriya, and vipaka. The volition that is kusala and akusala are the 2nd chain (abhi-sankara) in dependent origination. There is no citta without volitions, and all volition co-arising with cittas in the javana process are part of the chain. In the mundane insight, there is always volition that is kusala. Volition is a conditioned reality. Whether or not we actively choose to do something or not, there is already volition when we do anything. Something as automatic as blinking your eyes have volition as its condition. Do we actively control this volition (or any other volition)? Do we actively choose to blink our eyes? 19177 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 10:28pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Jan's letter Dear Kimmy, > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > In my opinion, I like the story "The monkey-Bridge" > the most, it is because the story give me a very good > advice and teach me how to treat my friends when I am > the group leader. The story is about there is a > grant-monkey who leave in the Himalaya mountain where > there are many great fruit, then he ordered the rest > of the monkey not to let any fruit fall into the river > in order to let the human know all about the fruit. > Unfornuately, the human found that and the King > ordered them to go to the mountain. The Chief monkey > wanted to help the others escaped, so he used his body > to be a brigde and so he taught the King a great > lesson. He taught him that rule the people with Love > instead of power. > I very much like this story you told about the great monkey and the king. I appreciate your conclusion (about ruling with love) even better. I think you are doing a great job telling the story and answering the question. There are other things that we can learn from this story as well: 1) Do you see that having something requires the protection of the thing we have? The more we have, the more efforts we need to put into protecting it. We need to eat well to protect our body, eat carefully to not stain our clothes, and be careful with the plate and glass so that we don't break them. The Buddha teaches that this is one of the disadvantages of having. 2) Even when put all our hearts into protecting what we have, sometimes we fail. This is another disadvantage of having. 3) We shouldn't expect other (and ourselves) to be exactly like what we want them (and us) to be. Things often don't go the way that we want to, even if we are a great monkey. 4) We can learn a lesson from anybody, and we shouldn't prejudice people because of how they seem to be (human & animal, people younger or older, boy or girl, etc.). The useful truths (that we learn) is the most important aspect of learning. Great job, Kimmy! kom 19178 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Jan 26, 2003 11:49pm Subject: Re: About me --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " wrote: > --- > Dear C.b. p.s.He was bleeding and started > crying. A little exaggeration there. Alex had a nasty lump and a hint of blood in the nose. RobertK 19179 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 1:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Forest and Lone Dwelling Hi Frank, --- Frank Kuan wrote: > Thanks for the thoughts on seclusion Sarah, > We all have to choose our own path. The more I > practice, the more solitude I find to be necessary. In > the past, I would enjoy eating a meal in the company > of good friends. Now I find it incredibly distracting. > Totally interferes with mindfulness of eating. This > change in me happened over time, to my surprise > actually. Had someone tried to convince me of this > years ago, I would believe them, but still be a little > skeptical. :-) ..... I understand what you’re saying and thank you for sharing it. We do have a somewhat different perspective. Like you, I often prefer to be on my own and tend to avoid socialising when I’m not working (quite hard for sociable people like us;-)). I understand what you mean about ‘mindfulness of eating’ and conventionally agree with all your comments. Indeed we share much in common with regard to choice of lifestyle. However, I think that the great ‘power’ of sati and panna is that they really don’t depend at all on conventional/health/reasoned out ideas of time, place and suitability. Any attempts to ‘limit’ them or to view another occasion as more appropriate is to underestimate what is possible to be known at this very moment. It really will depend on conditions whether we’re eating the meal on our own or in company today. But ‘eating a meal’ is just a phrase representing numerous mental and physical phenomena. There can be a lot of lobha in company. There can be a lot of lobha in solitude too. Lobha is simply lobha whatever the object. Seeing, hearing and other sense door experiences occur regardless. It may seem there are less distractions on our own and more chance to pinpoint these realities, but we can see the lobha darting in again, wishing to have awareness and trying to focus. Like Herman said, this doesn’t mean we should take no action or not eat the right food under the right conditions, but we need to really be honest about the motives and to question whether this really is the way to have more sati. It’s so very easy for lobha to be disgusised at something nobler whatever the pretext. ..... > My theory is those who see the necessity of solitude > have a stronger sense of urgency and awareness of > dukkha and samvega than the average buddhist. For > example, by all accounts I live an extremely > privileged life, eat the finest foods, live in the > finest place, but even if this kind of lifestyle were > sustainable for this entire life, and lives to come, I > would still find it a tremendous burden and suffering. > The best of conditioned life has to offer still sucks. ..... We can say ‘life sucks’ and can reflect wisely about the unsatisfactoriness and dukkha of life. It is just thinking, however, at these times. The conditions for really understanding the imprmanence and unsatisfactoriness of life is by developing understanding of ultimate realities. There is no way around it. You read and reflect a lot, I know, on the suttas in SN under Salayatanavagga about the Six bases and so on. We read often here about the ‘unguarded’ senses, the unguarded objects, the unguarded kinds of consciousness which are the causes of suffering. Understanding these ayatanas (sense bases) or elements is the key rather than a particular lifestyle, as I understand, regardless of preferences or health considerations. Indeed I think we have to be careful about any ‘measures’ based on outer appearances such as physical solitude, don’t you? ..... > Driven by this kind of emotion, there is no > alternative to strenuous practice, and solitude > facilitates it, at least for good chunks of time, > varying for individual. > Think about how much of your life was spent going > to school, learning basic skills, working the rat race > to save some money, and then to encounter this > precious dhamma, realizing just how difficicult and > fortunate it is to encountger these teachings, with no > guarantee that you would encounter it again, does it > not strike a sense of urgency? ..... Perhaps I just have confidence that whenever there is any understanding of phenomena, at those moments there is a sense of urgency without any idea or need for what you would consider ‘strenuous practice’. I have felt differently in the past, as I indicated last time, but honestly speaking, I feel relief and joy when I reflect on how the burden of having to regulate a time, way, place and focus has been lifted for really a very long time now. I don’t wish to try to persuade you of anything -- we will all do as we think fit as you suggested -- but for myself, I don’t make any distinction in terms of ‘my practice’ whether I’m teaching kids, doing accounts and office chores which I dislike, doing my yoga practice or reading dhamma. Jon and I have both worked hard in the ‘rat race’ for a long time. Would more sati and wisdom have accumulated if we’d spent more time in solitude and so on? I never think about it because I’m sure that what is of prime importance is the understanding and eradication of wrong view, rather than a particular lifestyle. (that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t trade with you for a year of surf , yoga and relax in Hawaii mind you...;-)) As Erik wrote after moving to Koh Samui, it’s very apparent that the kilesa (defilements) follow us round and are no different in Paradise to the Rat Race as I see it. ..... > Yesterday, I was evaluating and lamenting the state > of my mindfulness, which should be focused on only 4 > themes for 24/7. Not only is it not within the 4 > themes for half of the time, but even when it is, it > has a tendency to spend too much on "mindfulness of > dhamma". I've been actively trying to shift more of > the percentage to mindfulness of body and feeling, and > less on dhamma. ..... I know you probably won’t care for my comments here, Frank, and you’re most welcome to ignore them. In brief, though we talk a lot about anatta and appreciate the suttas about ‘bare phenomena rolling on’, the tendency to cling to a self that can ‘shift’, ‘focus’ and so on is very deep-rooted and misguided as I see it. The path of understanding has to be the path of detachment from what is conditioned to arise without expectation or minding. Such concern is bound to bring frustration and lament when indeed it’s impossible to control what arises or is experienced at the next moment. ..... >Not that there isn't a time and place > for mindfulness of dhamma, but the percentage > of effort just seems out of whack. I won't go into the > details of my reasoning, I'll just say it has to do > with my working theory of what types of mindfulness > are conducive to faith, views, reasoned thinking, and > direct realization. ..... I wonder what you mean by ‘mindfulness of dhamma’? I’m not sure if we’re speaking the same language here. I’d be glad if you’d care to share more on these last comments. perhaps they relate to a recent interesting (but difficult) discussion in the Way corner. As I understand, the ‘practice’ should make life easier, not more complicated. It should fit into and relate to our daily life as it is. If it entails extra rules, restrictions and limitations, perhaps the path needs to be re-examined? I’d be glad to keep this dialogue open, but I know that my comments may seem off-track to you, in which case, I’ll still be glad to hear;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 19180 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 1:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Forest and Lone Dwelling Frank & All, P.s. I had meant to add a link to a recent post of Rob K's on this theme too. Below is an extract. When I quoted the Thera sutta recently I hadn't remembered that Rob also quoted from it here as well: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/18496 Rob K: "There seems to be so many different lifestyles and circumstances that the followers of the Buddha lived. And I think if we try to estimate what is right for us while still within the clutch of concepts it may be misleading. If there is insight into khandhas here and now, without concern for whether we are in our imagined right situation or right job, then wisdom is developing regardless and it is wisdom – a conditioned phenomena – that will come to know what is best." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn21-010.html the Blessed One said to him, "Is it true, Elder, that you live alone and extol the virtues of living alone?" ... "Yes, lord." ... "But how do you live alone and extol the virtues of living alone?" ... "Lord, alone I enter the village for alms, alone I return, alone I sit withdrawn, alone I do walking meditation. That is how I live alone and extol the virtues of living alone." ... "There is that way of living alone, Elder. I don't say that there isn't. Still, listen well to you how your living alone is perfected in its details, and pay close attention. I will speak." ... "As you say, lord," Ven. Elder responded. ... The Blessed One said: "And how is living alone perfected in its details? There is the case where whatever is past is abandoned, whatever is future is relinquished, and any passion & desire with regard to states of being attained in the present is well subdued. That is how living alone is perfected in its details." Sarah ===== 19181 From: Egberdina Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 3:10am Subject: Momentous occasion Hi all, I would like to share a momentous occasion with you. It may not end up being a momentous occasion for you, and that's ok. It is momentous for me , because it is probably a first. I am going to post a link to a sutta!!!! Here it is http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn018.html It is called the Madhupindika Sutta. I read it as saying that the cause of all conflict is one's own mind. And that all conflict ceases with the dissolution of that mind. Pretty heavy stuff. But when I read the vinaya the major source of problems seems to be sexuality. Which I extrapolate to mean, if one doesn't reproduce, problem solved. So is the problem the mind or the body? (It is not deliberately a leading question, answer how you will) All the best Herman 19182 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 5:10am Subject: Re: Abandoning Victor --- "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Jon, ... > I am not sure what you mean by "directed" abandoning and would be > interested to know what you mean by that. If I remember correctly, this comment was made in the context of a statement to the effect that: <> To my reading of the teachings, abandoning is the outcome of the development of insight. As insight is developed, wrong view is overcome or abandoned. Some people might think that a wrong view can be successfully abandoned by kind of 'training' oneself to think in the 'right' way. To me, such an idea is mistaken. Any form of 'practice' that is not the development of insight can do nothing to address the root cause of our wrong view, namely, ignorance. Such ideas also seem to imply that we can choose what it is we would like to abandon, but this too cannot be the case if abandoning is a matter of developing insight. The expression "directed abandoning" was just my way of referring to these kinds of ideas. I probably should have spelt it out more fully. Thanks for the opportunity to explain. Jon 19183 From: Star Kid Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 5:21am Subject: Chinese New Year!~ Hi James, Thanks...hehe of course Im not related to J.Lo, I sure wish I was! Haha...Thats nice, sounds really interesting to me! Orange! I love oranges!!! =) Yes, Im sure its a reminder to eat healthy..hehe I am a horse and it does fit me too. Because I run really fast..I just had a basketball game this morning and my school won the other school 30-8. Our basketball teams is very aggresive. My Astrological sign is Virgo, Im not quite sure if it fits me or not. =P Buddhist idea is sure really complicated to understand but I still understand it. I have heard alot of reincarnation stories from my teacher at school these couple of weeks because we are learning about India. Sounds scary to me but Its very interesting. Do you have any stories of reincarnation or the Buddhist idea of rebirth? What else does a Buddhist do to celebrate Chinese New Year?? Well, Happy New Year to you too! Take care, thanks. OrAnGeS!!! I love eating oranges! I'll eat really healthy during Chinese New Year!~ [if i can!] Love, JoJo 19184 From: Htoo Naing Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 5:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi,Ekagatta,Jhana & Concentration Dear Larry, Simply No.A decisive role is the matter of Adhimokkha.Sorry for my reply late but I will try to keep the pace. Yours, Htoo Naing LBIDD@w... wrote:Hi Htoo Naing, Thanks for your comments. Does ekagatta cetasika play a decisive role in clinging (upadana)? What clings? Larry 19185 From: Star Kid Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 5:25am Subject: Adults and kids.... Dear James, Hello James! Happy EARLY chinese new year! (from Hong Kong) I was wondering if do you have any siblings? and are they as annoying as mine(heehee) well my THREE brothers are VERY annoying... I really enjoyed the tale called"The Great Monkey King" and how long did it take you to type the whole thing out? Well it must have taken you at least 15 mins. I read this REALLY good book called "The Little Prince". When you told me that some adults are just like kids, it just reminded me of this book. Well if you didn't read it (im sure you did) then I recommended. And also since you mentioned that some adults are as childish as kids, then do you know who is Pdiddy or Usher? I also wanted to ask you what got you into Buddhism??? Plz reply asap! Thx from Jan! 19186 From: Star Kid Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 5:29am Subject: About Christmas Dear James, How are you? I've got a toy from my teacher, a doll. That doll dosen't work too much for me. You are lucky that you got a wallet from your parents. I've got nothing from my parents because I don't celebrate Christmas. What is a Buddhist temple? I've never been in one.. Why do you like to go to the Buddhist temple? Good luck. Love, Janet 19187 From: Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 0:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abandoning Hi, Jon (and Victor) - In a message dated 1/27/03 8:10:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Victor > > --- "yu_zhonghao " > wrote: >Jon, > ... > >I am not sure what you mean by "directed" abandoning and would be > >interested to know what you mean by that. > > If I remember correctly, this comment was made in the context of a > statement to the effect that: > > < abandon the view "the aggregates are self.">> > > To my reading of the teachings, abandoning is the outcome of the > development of insight. As insight is developed, wrong view is > overcome or abandoned. > > Some people might think that a wrong view can be successfully > abandoned by kind of 'training' oneself to think in the 'right' way. > To me, such an idea is mistaken. Any form of 'practice' that is not > the development of insight can do nothing to address the root cause > of our wrong view, namely, ignorance. Such ideas also seem to imply > that we can choose what it is we would like to abandon, but this too > cannot be the case if abandoning is a matter of developing insight. > > The expression "directed abandoning" was just my way of referring to > these kinds of ideas. I probably should have spelt it out more > fully. Thanks for the opportunity to explain. > > Jon > > > =============================== I somewhat agree with what you say here, Jon. Ultimate abandoning arises only as the fruit of wisdom. However, penultimate abandoning can arise as a result of mindfulness accompanied by intention and energy. What I am referring to in this respect is what the Buddha called guarding the senses, by which one fosters kusala states and avoids akusala ones, as per the following translation by Michael Olds. (Note: He renders 'bhikkhu' by the literal 'beggar'): ************************************************** [ 4.2 ] [RD] Four Consummate Efforts[ 4.2 ] Here friends a beggar generates intention, sets his thinking on, rouses energy, and makes an effort to prevent the arising of bad, unskillful states not yet present in the here and now, generates intention, sets his thinking on, rouses energy, and makes an effort to let go of bad, unskillful states that are present in the here and now, generates intention, sets his thinking on, rouses energy and makes an effort to get skillful states not yet present in the here and now, generates intention, sets his thinking on, rouses energy and makes an effort to retain, establish, rid of confusion, complete, develop, increase, and add to skillful states that are present in the here and now ********************************************** 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) 19188 From: Frank Kuan Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 5:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Forest and Lone Dwelling Hi Sarah, I appreciate your thoughts on aloneness. When I was going to school, there were students who could work 20 hours a week, juggle relationships and all kinds of committments, and still excel in their studies. My hat off to them and off to you if you find your lifestyle affords you as much progress in the dhamma as the more typical success stories in the suttas. As far as I'm concerned, the vast majority of people who have made major strides in their field, whether worldly or unworldly, benefit from large chunks of seclusion. seclusion doesn't guarantee success, and has it's difficulties as you pointed out. Just like dedicating two hours to doing homework doesn't guarantee the homework is going to get done or get done well. But all else being equal, I'd say the best opportunity to do the homework well is in seclusion than in the company of television, friends, kids, pets, and other distractions. And this is regardless of whether I'm a layperson, married, ordained, whatever. I'm switching dsg to non-email mode, so I may not respond or respond very late to followups. -fk 19189 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 6:17am Subject: Dhamma,Perceiving it & Realisation Dear Dhamma Friends, Dhamma is Dhamma.All the dhamma can be perceptible. All the dhamma means all the possible things perceptible through the watching windows of Six,including Pancadavara and Manodavara(mind- eye). The perceptible things are 1.Rupa-arammana(senses perceptible only through the eyes and visual sense organs) All sights,visions,shapes,forms,colours and light of a range of brightness. 2.Saddha-arammana(senses perceptible only through the ears and hearing organs) All sounds perceptible_tone,quality,volume,frequency. 3.Gandha-arammana(senses perceptible only through nose and organs of smell) All perceptible smell_from the least conspicuous to the strongest (pungent). 4.Rasa-arammana(senses perceptible only through taste buds,tongue and organs of taste) All perceptible taste_sweet,sour,salty,spicy and bitter. 5.Phutthabba-arammana(senses perceptible onlt through bodily touch) Pathavi,Tajo,Vayo(Apo cannot be sensed even though water can be sensed as Pathavi,Tajo and Vayo)(Apo is a sense for Manodavara). 6.Dhamma-arammana(senses perceptible only through mind) 1) 5 Pasadarupa (Pancadavara/Pancavatthu) 2) 89 states of mind (89 Citta) 3) 52 Cetasikas(52 mental factors work together with Citta) 4) Nibbana (Asankhatadhatu_not affected by Kamma,Citta,Utu or Ahara (Absolute peace). 5. Pannatta (Names of all things). 6) 16 Sukhumarupa(Rupa not readily perceptible through Pancadavara,so must pass through mind). 1.Apo(attraction,looseness or tightness of matters). 2.Itthisattabhavarupa(Absence of Y-Chromosome and presence of feminine characteristics). 3.Purisattabhavarupa(Y-Chromosome and musculine characteristics). 4.Hadayavatthu(The seat of Citta). 5.Jivitarupa(Active life of Rupa). 6.Ahararupa(Oja/Nutrition). 7.Paricchedarupa(Akasadhatu/space). 8.Kaayavinattirupa(Gesture/Body language/Body message). 9.Vacivinattirupa(Speech/Voice language/voice message). 10.Rupalahuta(Lightness,Easiness,readiness of matters). 11.Rupamuduta(Tenderness,gentleness,flexibility of matters). 12.Rupakammannata(Steadiness,stability,unity of matters). 13.Upacayarupa(Early/initial formation of all matters/Rupa at the outset). 14.Santatirupa(Developping state of rupa to full maturity). 15.Jarata(Wearing away of rupa/Things that are getting older). 16.Aniccatarupa(Disappearance of Rupa/Void of rupa). There are no other extra-dhammas apart from things cited above. May you all perceive Dhamma consciously all the time. With Metta, Htoo Naing 19190 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 6:44am Subject: Anicca and Dhamma Dear Dhamma Friends, ''Sabbe Sankharaa Aniccaa''.Anicca is the characteristic of all Dhammas.All the Dhammas are subjected to happening(Arising and wearing away) with the exception of Nibbana(Where there is no rupadhamma,namadhamma and no happening_Asankhatadhatu/Absolute peace) and Pannatta which is not a real existance and does not happen. '' Sabbe sankhara Aniccaa''.Only Anicca is Nicca-Dhamma.When all the things are not permanent,then the things are subjected to Dukkha (Suffering).As all the things are Anicca,they cannot be managed with chosen directions;so they will go on their own ways.So all the things are Anatta(Non-self). If one can always contemplate all the dhammas as Anicca or Dukkha or Anatta firmly in his mind,there will be no more attachment to them.If there is no more attachment,he will not commit new Kamma good or bad.If there is no more Kamma-Patha-Dhamma(Kamma generating potentials that may give rise to re-birth and other effects from doing bodily actions,oral actions and mental actions),there will be no more Patisandhi(Birth).If no Patisandhi,then no rebirth.The only things left will be Vipaka-namakkhandha and rupakkhandha.In the end,just before Cuticitta,Maranaasanna-javanacitta will contemplate and take the arammana of Anicca or Dukkha or Anatta and with the disappearence of Cuticitta,the whole Sansara-long journey will end up with disappearence of all namakkhandha.What left will be Just Utuja- rupa.No Citt no cittajarupa,no Kamma no Kammajarupa and no Ahara no Aharajarupa as the body is dead.Utujarupa can still happens as long as their nuclears lives and as long as the earth exists. All Dhammas are Anicca.Fix firmly in mind.''Anicca'' ''Anicca'' Anicca'' .Anicca is Dhamma.Dhamma is Anicca.Vipassana Panna sees all Arammana including Dhamma-arammana as Anicca.It is needed to see as Anicca at all time and at any moment.Dhamma is nowhere but just around you.Dhamma is Anicca.Anicca is Dhamma. May you all stay with Dhamma all the time. With Metta, Htoo Naing 19191 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 7:17am Subject: (1) Citta As A Leader Dear Dhamma Friends, The universe would have been full of only Utuja-kalapa(Congregations of matters subjected to weather),if there had not been any Cittas (ones that can perceive).But there do have been Cittas for unmeasurable,countless,infinitive time.In that case,The Buddha never support contemplating the beginning of lives which would add nothing to seekers in terms of liberation.If there had been no Satta(lives in any planes of existance)it would be no use to explore the Rupa (matters and elements) world. There are two types of Kalapas(Congregation of matters) that exist independent of Cittas.Both of them are Utuja-Kalapas.The first is Suddattha-Kalapa(purely 8 matters-congregation)comprising pathavi (earth property),tejo(fire property),vayo(wind property),apo(water property),vanna(sight),gandha(smell),rasa(taste) and oja(nutrition). Another type consists of these eight rupas along with Saddha(sounds) and that Kalapa is called Saddha-nava-Kalapa(9 including sound).As Cittas have long been there for innumerable Kappas(Millions of years),there have been a lot of rupas mixing up in the Universe,including Kammajarupas(matters caused by Kamma),Cittajarupas (caused by Citta),Aharajarupas(generated by nutrion) and Utujarupas (created by weather). These rupas again interact with Cittas and Cetasikas.How they interact and support each other can be studied in the Dhamma of the Great(So Great that The Buddha Himself Pujemi(worship) Dhamma_see the Image of The Buddha in Dhamma-Puja-Mudara),Paticcasamuppada(causes and effects and their relationships) and Pathana(Cause-effect relationships along with properties of causations) Dhamma. Among the Paramatthadhamma(Ultimate truth) of Citta,Cetasika and Rupa,Citta is one and the only one leader of all.It leads all other dhammas.Everything that has been happening at the present is the result of the actions of Cittas(in the past-in this life or in previous ones). To cease sufferings and extinguish all the fire(Kilesas and Sanyojanas),Citta needs to be trained diligently until the Highest Panna is attained.As it is a leader,it can train itself and its allied cetasikas as well.One can sense the existance of one's Citta.So why not possible to lead oneself to a better living and life.One should never be led by bad things and bad thought.Lead yourselves.Behave yourselves.Citta is a leader and Citta is the Leader. May you all lead your lives yourselves to a better living and lives. Htoo Naing 19192 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 8:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] rupas and insight --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Nina, The view from Abhidhamma and one from Science are quite different as science has no insight into Namadhamma.Scientists think mental processes all go through chemical reactions in the brain. Abhidhamma has a clearer view on perception like this. Requirements to have an appreciation of senses are 1.Sight 1)Cakkkhupasadha(Cakkhuvatthu-retina or visual receptors),2)Rupa- arammana(sights,visions,shapes,forms),3)Aaloka(light),all these three things are considered from both views.Abhidhamma has an extra requirement 4)Manasikara(Directing of mind to a particular arammana).This is quite needed.In front of us there are a lot of sights when we open our eyes in day light but we cannot see(perceive) all sight at the same time but just a particular objects or objects only when our mind directs to it or them. 2.Sound 1)Sotapasada 2)sound 3)air 4)Manasikara 3.Smell 1)Ghanapasada 2)smell 3)air 4)Manasikara 4.Taste 1)Jinvapasada 2)taste 3)saliva 4)Manasikara 5.Touch 1)Kaayapasada 2)Putthabba_pathvi,tejo,vayo 3)Thadda-Pathavi or nerves 4)Manasikara. For mental phenomena 6.Mental senses 1)Manodavara( 19 Bhavanghacitta just immediately before Manodavara- aavijjanacitta) 2) Dhamma-arammana(thought) 3)Manodavara- aavijjanacitta(investigating/examining/checking mind)4)Manasikara If the mind is not delibrately directed to a particular arammana,it cannot appreciate the senses even though there are senses there. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dear Htoo, > I like best to discuss with you on dsg, because others are also interested > to listen. > I think rupa is very practical, it is with us all the time. >when > our eyes are open it seems that it is light all the time. In reality there > is light only when seeing, and not at all the other moments. Seeing is > interrupted by many cittas arising in different processes. > I enjoy talking to you, > Nina. > op 24-01-2003 19:46 schreef Htoo Naing op htootintnaing@y...: > > How are you?Rupa is a wide subject.Focus on practical matters.Study to up > the practice.I think you have a clear view on Rupa.I look forward to hearing > from you. 19193 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 8:37am Subject: Re: Intimation through body and speech. no 2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, >nina van gorkom wrote: > Intimation through body and speech. no 2 > We are inclined to take intimation as belonging to self, but bodily > intimation is only a kind of rúpa, originated by citta. >about citta > and rúpas which are conditioned by citta can remind us to be aware of > whatever reality appears, also while gesticulating. Then there is at such a > moment no opportunity for akusala citta. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Nina, Gesture is just Cittajarupa. To do Akusala or Kusala or Abyakata actions,there are 3 Windows(Kamma- Davaras) namely Kaaya(bodily actions),Vaci(oral actions) and Mano (mental actions). All action have sources.All are based on cittas. So,if citta is Akusala it will cause Akusala Kamma.If Kusala,Kusala Kamma.If Abyakata there will be no more Kamma.Kiriyacittas(Abyakata) are Javanacittas of Arahats and they won't give rise to any Kamma. If we wave people we know well with cheerful mind,the javanacittas happening at that time will be ''Somanassa sahagatan ditthigata- sampayottakanan asankharika cittas'' that is The Mind State that has cheerfulness(Piti),misbelieving(ditthi)(actual dhamma are thought as people,man,woman)along with Moha,Lobha,Ahirika,Anuttappa,Udicca and 13 other Cetasikas. The gestures depend on Cittas.I hope it will clerify your queries. May you use innocent gestures. With Metta, Htoo Naing 19194 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 10:04am Subject: intimation through body and speech, no. 4 intimation through body and speech, no. 4 Bodily intimation and speech intimation are rúpas conditioned by citta, but these two kinds of rúpa are not rúpas with their own distinct nature and characteristic. Rúpas can be classified as sabhåva rúpas, rúpas with their own distinct nature (sa meaning: with, bhåva meaning: nature) and asabhåva rúpas, rúpas without their own distinct nature. The eight inseparable rúpas are sabhåva rúpas, they each have their own distinct nature and characteristic. As we have seen, bodily intimation and speech intimation are a ³certain, unique change² in the great elements, they are a quality of rúpa, namely: changeability of rúpa. Thus, they are asabhåva rúpas. The eight inseparable rúpas on which the two kinds of intimation depend are produced by citta, according to the ³Atthasåliní² (II, Book II, Part I, Ch 3, 337). In the case of bodily intimation the element of wind and in the case of speech intimation the element of earth plays its specific role. Do we realize whether speech intimation is conditioned by kusala citta or by akusala citta? We may know in theory that we speak with akusala citta when our objective is not wholesomeness, such as generosity, kindness or the development of understanding of the Buddha¹s teachings, but do we realize this at the moments we speak? Even when akusala kamma through speech, such as lying or slandering, is not committed, we may still speak with akusala citta. We may find out that often our speech is motivated by akusala citta. We speak with cittas rooted in attachment when we want to gain something, when we want to be liked or admired by others. With this objective we may even tell ³tales² about others, ridicule or denigrate them. We are attached to speech and we often chatter just in order to keep the conversation going. We tend to feel lonely when there is silence. Usually we do not consider whether what we say is beneficial or not. We have to speak to others when we organize our work in the office or at home. Do we realize whether there are at such moments kusala cittas or akusala cittas? When we lie there is the committing of akusala kamma through speech. Speech intimation is produced by kusala citta when we, for example, with generosity and kindness try to help and encourage others in speaking to them. When we speak about the Buddha¹s teachings there may be kusala cittas, but at times there also tend to be akusala cittas, for example, when we are conceited about our knowledge, or when we are attached to the people we are speaking to. Many different types of citta arise and fall away very rapidly and we may not know when the citta is kusala citta and when akusala citta. There can be mindfulness while speaking, but we may believe that this is too difficult since we have to think of what we are going to say. Thinking is a reality and it can be object of mindfulness. There are sound and hearing and they can be object of mindfulness when they appear. We are usually absorbed in the subject we want to speak about and we attach great importance to our speech. We live most of the time in the world of ³conventional truth², and we are forgetful of ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas). In the ultimate sense there is no speaker, only empty phenomena, conditioned nåmas and rúpas. When we gesticulate and speak there are only nåma and rúpa. Hardness, pressure, sound or hearing may present themselves, they can be experienced one at a time. If there is mindfulness at such moments understanding of the reality that appears can be developed. 19195 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 10:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 41, Comm, Breathing, contemplation and insight Hi Larry, see below. op 25-01-2003 21:56 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: I think you are making a distinction between > realization and practice, and saying practice doesn't make a difference. > By "practice" I mean thinking in a discursive, contemplative way, as > suggested by the commentary. I agree this isn't realization, but I think > it makes a difference in accumulating right view, even if not on a deep > level. Nina: I quote something from what I am writing now about Thailand, maybe it helps: I agree that it is useful to reflect on the teachings, we need considering again and again what we heard. It is the level of pariyatti. It is a condition for direct awareness, for sati sampajanna, so that we come to understand that there is dhamma now. That means, a dhamma appearing through one of the six doorways. The Co speaks about insight time and again. Remember the verse in Way 33: Becauise of the English we can overlook the meaning: Pali has: vipassako. It is vipassana. He attains enlightenment (fruition). Then Way 41:< there is no person... >This is insight, not mere reflection or contemplation. Another example: The Buddha explains to Rahula about rupakkhandha, and the Co states that he said to him: apply vipassana panna. Certainly, there are conditions for reflection, but if there is no awareness of thinking we take it for self. Also thinking has to be known and realized as it is. A. Sujin stresses that the four noble truths are very subtle, difficult to see. Such as the second one: clinging. She points out time and again how very subtle clinging can be, difficult to notice. The first three stages of insight are called , panna of thinking. This does not mean that insight is thinking. It means, that thinking about realities still arises, not enough detachment yet. Thinking can be an object of insight. A. Sujin said: She also said: Yes, detachment in the development is stressed all the time by A. Sujin. Usually when we think of there is so much clinging involved. Nina. 19196 From: Htoo Naing Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 11:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi,Ekagatta,Jhana & Concentrationn Dear Herman, In some circumstances it is right to realise only when there is and there is not for some matters. Regarding Cetasikas,Apart from 7 Cetasikas(including Ekagatta) ,other 45 Cetasikas do not arise always and their appearing usually depends on Cittas. Ekagatta is always there but shifting here and there along with Citta. Let's see a man trying to have Jhana. Before he goes into Jhana,Ekagatta still wandering here and there even though it fixes at an arammana at any moment. When he is in Jhana,all Cittas are Jhanacittas before he release Jhanacittas.Jhana take mostly Pannatta-arammana.Pannatta does not happen,it is not a real existance,it has no lifespan.That is arammana.Cittas are jhanacittas.Even though they have lifespan of just a moment,all the cittas in Jhana are the same(in terms of Bhumi,Jati,Sankhara,Sampayotta and Arammana) and there is no interruption.So some may think it is permanent(Nicca-someone like Bhaka-Brahma). I hope it is clear now.Robert or U Maung Lwin or someone may add more. May you all have Samma-samadhi built up. Htoo Naing "Egberdina " wrote:Hi Htoo Naing, >I am a little confused the issue. >we can tell the difference between it >being there and not being there, same with sati etc etcAll the best >Herman 19197 From: Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 5:14pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Way 41, Comm, Breathing Hi Kom, Thanks for your reply. I forgot that volition is a universal cetasika, arising with every citta. I see that its function is to accumulate. Does that mean that every citta is accumulated and becomes part of the repository of accumulations that condition javana cittas? Larry 19198 From: Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 5:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samadhi,Ekagatta,Jhana & Concentration Hi Htoo Naing, Thanks for your answer. I didn't know about adhimokkha so I looked it up. It is an ethically variable occasional: "Decision (adhimokkha): The word "adhimokkha" means literally the releasing of the mind onto the object. Hence it has been rendered decision or resolution. It has the characteristic of conviction, the function of not groping, and manifestation as decisiveness. its proximate cause is a thing to be convinced about. It is compared to a stone pillar owing to its unshakable resolve regarding the object." CMA p. 82 Larry 19199 From: Date: Mon Jan 27, 2003 5:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 41, Comm, Breathing, contemplation and insight Hi Nina, Thinking about this some more, I agree vipassana isn't discursive. When the commentary says, "his mindfulness is established with the thought 'The body exists.'", this isn't a thought with words but rather an understanding/experience. Similarly in Way 42 there is a comparison of the awareness of deportment in animals and the awareness of sati sampajanna. Sati sampajanna isn't contemplative or philosophical but mindfulness with understanding, conditioned by careful noticing and perhaps contemplative reflection. Larry