20200 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 3:16pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Kom Hi Kimmy, > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > > Dear Kom, > > Today (Saturday), I went > to school to do my artwork. Luckily, yesterday when I > told my mother about this, we didn't have any quarrel. > I think it is because she knows I really need to do > the work in school. The Buddha taught us that if there is a cause, there must be results. There cannot be results without a cause. What this means is that in a similar situation, people can behave differently. For example, suppose a friend tease you today, but you have been in a good mood, so you found the teasing funny and laugh with your friend. On the other hand, if you have had a bad day today, you may find the teasing not so funny, and feel angry about what is said. Anger (and quarrelling) is like this: there can't be one without the cause for it. However, when there is still a cause for anger in us, then one day we will quarrel with somebody, sometimes in the most surprising and absurd situation!!! > Sometimes when I finish reading some ghost stories or > films about ghosts, I feel scared and always think the > ghosts are harmful to me. So what can I do to solve > these kinds of problems? I think the answer is similar to above. When we read a scary story (ghost story, etc.), we feel naturally scared. When we think about scary stuffs (about ghost story that you have read, or about other things that are scary), then again we are scared. This is natural. You can be sure that as long as you can still be scared, when you see, hear, smell, taste, touch, or think scary stuffs, you can still be scared. Everyone, except the enlightened ones, is like this. I am scared when I watch scary movies too. > > Lastly, what do you think of the coming war between > America and Iraq from a Buddhist point of view? Some > people say that this war would lead to the end of the > world. Is it true? > The Buddha teaches about non-violence. There is a Buddha's saying (paraphrased) that: Ill-will is not ended by ill-will, but ill-will is ended by its opposite (metta or kindness). We ultimately cannot stop violence by violence. This may be hard to agree to, because in our daily life, sometimes we see that violence (or anger) works the way we want. You may say something bad to people sometimes, or use bad-attitude to talk to people, in hoping that you will get what you want, and sometimes, this seems to work. On the other hand, we don't know *exactly* why that works, but the Buddha said that good results cannot come from bad causes. Hence, non-violence cannot come from violence. You can see it for yourself. How does anger feel? Does it feel pretty? Does it feel ugly? You can see its results. When you are angry, do you feel happy? Does one (you or other people who are angry) look good when one is angry? Do we do nice thing for people when we are angry? If anger is bad, why should we expect anything good to come from bad thing (anger)? kom 20201 From: Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 3:36pm Subject: Way 61, Comm, Clear Comprehension 1 "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, 1. Clear comprehension in going forwards and backwards, p. 78 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html [Tika] Since the nature of mind and mental characteristics [citta cetasika] is to cognize or to have objects, mind and mental characteristics arise cognizing [vibhaventa] according to their strength [yatha balam] the thing become a condition to mind and mental characteristics, in the form of an object or the thing become an object-condition to mind and mental characteristics [attano arammana paccayabhutamattam]. And immediately after the accomplishment or the effectuating of that which comprises the nature or quality of mind and mental characteristics, and that quality is just the process of cognizing, there occurs the ceasing of mind and mental characteristics [tesam sabhava nipphatti anantaram nirodho]. [T] Material phenomena, however, do not take objects, have no objects [anarammana]; they do no cognizing. Material phenomena have to be cognized [pakasetabba]. Cognizibility's fulfillment [pakasetabba bhava nipphatti] occurs with sixteen thought-units [solasehi cittehi hoti]. Hence the reduction of material phenomena to seventeen thought-units, together with the one thought-unit of the past, is acknowledged, by the commentator, it is said [tasma eka cittakkhanatitena saha sattarasa cittakkhanayukata rupadhammanam icchitati]. [T] The swift changeability of mind or consciousness [viññanassa lahuparivattita] takes place through the mere combination of the other three mental aggregates with variform consciousness [the protean mind] and through the mere combination of objects with the same consciousness that is replete with variegation [lahuparivattana viññana visesassa sangati matta paccayataya tinnam khandhanam visaya sangatimattataya ca]. [T] The state of slow change of material form [rupassa garu parivattita] occurs owing to the condition of sluggishness of the primaries, namely, of the processes of extension, cohesion, caloricity and oscillation symbolized by earth, water, fire and air, respectively [dandha maha bhuta paccayataya]. [T] Only the Tathagata, he who has arrived at the Truth by traversing the Ancient Road of the Buddhas, has knowledge of the different processes according to reality [yatha bhutam nana dhatu ñanam kho pana tathagatasseva]. And by means of that knowledge of the Tathagata, the condition of pre-nascence as just a material phenomenon is stated. Likewise, by that knowledge of the Tathagata, the condition of post-nascence, too, is stated. Because of the statement of the pre-nascent and post-nascent conditions (the idea of) the identity of moment of occurrence of mental and material phenomena is just not fit. Therefore it was said by the commentator, the elder Ananda thus: Just according to the method stated should the meaning be understood here [tena ca pure jata paccayo rupa dhammova vutto paccha jata paccaya ca tathevati ruparupa dhammanam samanakkhanata na yujjateva tasma vuttanayenevettha attho veditabboti acariyena vuttam]. [T] This matter was stated in this way because it is easy to understand the simultaneity of cessation of mind and bodily or vocal expression [tadetam cittanuparivattiya viññattiya eka nirodha bhavassa suviññeyyatta evam vuttam].[22] [T] The meaning should be understood thus: Quite another conscious state (i.e., thought-units) ceases with the ceasing of the material form arisen at the starting point of the seventeenth thought-unit which is earlier to the material form together with expression that is physical, in short, seventeen thought-units arise and pass away during the life-time of all material form except those connected with expression [tato saviññattikena puretaram sattarasama cittassa uppadakkhane uppannena rupena saddhim aññam cittam nirujjhatiti attho veditabbo]. [T] The passage should be constructed thus: One conscious state ceases and quite another arises -- i.e., the conscious states at the arising and the ceasing of material phenomena are different [aññam cittam nirujjhati aññam uppajjate cittanti yojetabbam]. Indeed one is the word explanation; another is the explanation of the sense [añño hi saddakkamo añño atthakkamo]. While the conscious state arisen earlier, in ceasing, it ceases in just the form of proximity-condition and so forth, to another conscious state arising after it [yam hi purimuppannam cittam tam nirujjhantam aññassa paccha uppajjamanassa anantaradi paccaya bhaveneva nirujjhati]. Then another conscious state which has just obtained a condition, arises [yathaladdha paccayameva aññampi uppajjate cittam]. And here (mind is) in a different state by reason of the difference of occasion [avattha visesato cettha aññatha]. 22. Material phenomena of bodily or social expression which arise and cease together with the thought that motivates expression are ignored as too plain to be misunderstood. Only other phenomena of matter not connected with vocal or bodily expression are mentioned. 20202 From: Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Advise Needed Hi Rahula, Tell your friend, whenever she thinks of her boyfriend who has died, to send him her love. If she can do this (it's an "energy" thing) the bottled up feelings will be released. This works with any loved one who has died. Certainly what you send, will be received. Larry 20203 From: Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 60, Comm, Clear Comprehension 1 Hi Nina, Thanks for all your comments. Unfortunately, my mind is blank. Cheerio! Larry 20204 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:26pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Rob M, Thanks for helping us Cooranites with our questions. You wrote: ----------- > I like the rose in front of me. This liking of the rose created a kammic seed that may eventually (when conditions are right) develop into a vipaka citta. In addition, the liking of the rose creates an impression, a habit, an accumulation, towards the liking of roses. This impression / habit / accumulation can condition the arising of attachment to roses as a mind-door citta process. > ----------- At the eye-door citta-vithi [including its javana cittas], there is no rose, just visible object. At that stage, do the javana cittas have strong cetana, lobha, etc., for that paramattha dhamma? Or is it only in subsequent mind-door vithis, with rose concept as object, that kammic seed is created? Is it the case that many of the subsequent mind-door cittas take as their object, not the concept rose, but the actual visible rupa that has just fallen away? ------------ > Visible object is ALWAYS accompanied by neutral feeling. When sanna links the current visible object with a long-term memory of the same object (i.e. when I name it as "flower"), then in the next set of mind-door citta processes, sanna grabs the "feeling" (pleasant / unpleasant / neutral) associated with the long-term memory. This feeling conditions the arising of craving, the next link in dependent origination. > -------------- (I have discussed this recently with you and Htoo Niang, but I'm not sure if I've made my questions clear.) Are you saying that the pleasantness (as distinct from pleasant feeling), of the object of eye-door vipaka citta, is not determined until a concept, rose, has been formed? How is the javana citta of the eye-door vithi to respond, if it has no way of knowing [as it were], whether the paramattha dhamma in front of it, is pleasant or unpleasant? Don't you find it unsettling that the pleasantness or unpleasantness of vipaka, seems to be decided by subsequent, concept-thinking citta-vithis? Where is the natural law in that? (Perhaps your point is that the way we think, is determined by accumulated tendencies and therefore, by our past kusala and akusala.) I find it more compelling that all sense-door objects should be inherently pleasant or unpleasant. Exactly which of the two types would arise in any given case, would depend purely on the kamma that conditioned the co- arising sense-door consciousness (on whether it was kusala or akusala respectively). Obviously, this is not your preferred interpretation of the Abhidhamma, but could it be a consistent one? Kind regards. Ken H 20205 From: Sarah Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:32pm Subject: Last conversations..... Dear Friends, I just talked to Jon’s mother in Adelaide, Australia after being told she probably has a few days to live at most. She’s comfortable in a hospice and Jon had a wonderful visit with her just a couple of weeks ago with many heart-to-heart chats. She was even able to join a family gathering for her birthday celebration. She’s decided not to continue with her medications, tests and transfusions and I can fully understand her decisions and didn’t try to persuade her otherwise. I just talked to her about the inspiration she’s given to all those around her with her kind intentions, wishes and acts and how we can rejoice when we’ve done our best, no matter what outcomes follow. When we’ve acted with kind thoughts, we can sleep well. She mentioned she had many faults, but we all do and in her case she can be happy that she’s never deliberately caused any trouble and led what conventionally we describe as a very good life and taken the best care possible of those around her. I told her that all of us who’ve known her have been touched and uplifted by her good example, kindness, modesty and lack of grudges or anger towards others. Even whilst in a lot of discomfort in hospital she didn't wish to turn any visitors away, thinking of them instead of herself. She’s fortunate that she has full mental capacity and just asked me in her final words to take good care of Jon of whom she’s very, very fond. Of course I will (in all regards I can) and I also said that we’d do what I could to help build harmony amongst other family members. Fortunately, her other sons are with her in Adelaide. We also talked about how this time (of being so close to death) comes to us all. Sooner or later the bodily functions give up but from our point of view, life continues on. It’s just one life in so many and we may all meet again in whatever form. At these times, one can only say as much as the other person is able to hear and sometimes, as with Rahula’s friend, perhaps just listening and showing support and compassion is often the kindest assistance. I feel fortunate in this instance that I was able to express some of my thoughts and feelings. It’s not always possible and one isn’t always given the warning. I’m also reminded of how these last hours or days come so much sooner than we think. All our possessions, our home, our family members, our cares and concerns get left behind. May it be a reminder to us all to really see the urgency in developing awareness and all wholesome states while we have the chance. Who knows when we too will be having our last conversations? With metta, Sarah ===== 20206 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:43pm Subject: Re: I don't underdstand --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Dear James, > > Thank you for your reply. I'm so sorry that you were > sick. > > Okay let's go onto something else.Now what do you mean > about compete against others to move to 'advanced' or > more 'wise' than them or if you brag about how special > you are because of your wisdom that will actually make > you fail a grade? Please write back to me. > > I'm 9 now, but still don't > understand some of these words. > > Please explain. Hope you get well soon! > > Janet Hi Star Kid Janet! Thank you for the wishes to get well. My cold is almost gone, but I still have it! It is really the pitts to be sick for so long, but that is life. First, I am really sorry about that letter where I used such big words. I have been kind of busy, sick, and I had so many Star Kids letters to respond to that I wrote that letter, and some others, too fast. For me, if I write a letter too fast I will use a lot of big words. Sometimes, I will use words so big I don't even know what they mean! ;-) just kidding. I will try to use more simple words and to not write so fast anymore. About your question, I meant that some people think that they are better than others because they are more `wise' than them. Let me explain from the beginning since I did such a bad job in that other letter. Janet, when you go to school you look at your classmates and you will think certain things about them. You will think, "That person is as smart as me," or "That person isn't as smart as me," or "That person is smarter than me." And all of these things may or may not be true. But if you look at other people and think "That person is not as good a human being as me," or "That person is a better human being than me," or "That person is the same kind of human being than me," than that is the wrong way of looking at things! Even though people are different in intelligence, or money, or looks, or talents, etc., that doesn't mean that the value of one person should be compared to the value of another. And this doesn't mean that we are all `worth' the same either; because that is another wrong way to look at things. Put simply, you cannot give a `value' to yourself or other people because what we think is a `person' isn't really that at all. It is just a bundle of conditions that appears to be a person but will be something else later on. In other words, if you were once a butterfly, then a snake, then a dolphin, then an ant eater, then a whale, then a human being, are you really a human being? No, not really. You are a lot of things…and none of them. So if you start to think that people are what they appear to be, you will get it all wrong. That is what I was trying to say. I hope this explains better. Take care and make sure you study hard in school. Metta, James 20207 From: Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Last conversations..... Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 3/12/2003 5:32:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > Dear Friends, > > I just talked to Jon’s mother in Adelaide, Australia after being told she > probably has a few days to live at most. She’s comfortable in a hospice > and Jon had a wonderful visit with her just a couple of weeks ago with > many heart-to-heart chats. She was even able to join a family gathering > for her birthday celebration. --------------------------------- Howard: It's a blessing that Jon has had this precious time with her. That's often not the case. -------------------------------- > > She’s decided not to continue with her medications, tests and transfusions > and I can fully understand her decisions and didn’t try to persuade her > otherwise. I just talked to her about the inspiration she’s given to all > those around her with her kind intentions, wishes and acts and how we can > rejoice when we’ve done our best, no matter what outcomes follow. When > we’ve acted with kind thoughts, we can sleep well. She mentioned she had > many faults, but we all do and in her case she can be happy that she’s > never deliberately caused any trouble and led what conventionally we > describe as a very good life and taken the best care possible of those > around her. I told her that all of us who’ve known her have been touched > and uplifted by her good example, kindness, modesty and lack of grudges or > anger towards others. Even whilst in a lot of discomfort in hospital she > didn't wish to turn any visitors away, thinking of them instead of > herself. > > She’s fortunate that she has full mental capacity and just asked me in her > final words to take good care of Jon of whom she’s very, very fond. Of > course I will (in all regards I can) and I also said that we’d do what I > could to help build harmony amongst other family members. Fortunately, her > other sons are with her in Adelaide. > > We also talked about how this time (of being so close to death) comes to > us all. Sooner or later the bodily functions give up but from our point of > view, life continues on. It’s just one life in so many and we may all meet > again in whatever form. At these times, one can only say as much as the > other person is able to hear and sometimes, as with Rahula’s friend, > perhaps just listening and showing support and compassion is often the > kindest assistance. > > I feel fortunate in this instance that I was able to express some of my > thoughts and feelings. It’s not always possible and one isn’t always given > the warning. > > I’m also reminded of how these last hours or days come so much sooner than > we think. All our possessions, our home, our family members, our cares and > concerns get left behind. May it be a reminder to us all to really see the > urgency in developing awareness and all wholesome states while we have the > chance. Who knows when we too will be having our last > conversations? > > With metta, > > Sarah > ===== ================================= Sarah, thank you for sharing this with us, the list members. My wife, Rita, and I send our loving wishes for peace to your mother, and to Jon and yourself. May you be well. With much metta, Howard 20208 From: robmoult Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 0:32am Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > ----------- > > At the eye-door citta-vithi [including its javana > cittas], there is no rose, just visible object. At that > stage, do the javana cittas have strong cetana, lobha, > etc., for that paramattha dhamma? Or is it only in > subsequent mind-door vithis, with rose concept as object, > that kammic seed is created? ===== A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about this in some detail in my blurb on sanna (message 15923). When we only have visible object, the javana cittas create very weak kamma. We may be attracted to the sense of sight (photon gratification principle), but nothing too weighty. In fact, lobha doesn't become weighty (full course) until we want something for our own. Kammic seeds are created with every citta-process, but they are quite weak until we get past the naming stage and we are well into working with concepts at that point. ===== > > > Is it the case that many of the subsequent mind-door > cittas take as their object, not the concept rose, but > the actual visible rupa that has just fallen away? > ====== The very first mind door citta process after the sense-door citta process "copies" the sense door object into a concept and from that point on, the mind door citta processes build and build the concept. ===== > > ------------ > > Visible object is ALWAYS accompanied by neutral > feeling. When sanna links the current visible object with > a long-term memory of the same object (i.e. when I name > it as "flower"), then in the next set of mind-door citta > processes, sanna grabs the "feeling" (pleasant / > unpleasant / neutral) associated with the long-term > memory. This feeling conditions the arising of craving, > the next link in dependent origination. > > -------------- > > (I have discussed this recently with you and Htoo Niang, > but I'm not sure if I've made my questions clear.) > > Are you saying that the pleasantness (as distinct from > pleasant feeling), of the object of eye-door vipaka > citta, is not determined until a concept, rose, has been > formed? How is the javana citta of the eye-door vithi to > respond, if it has no way of knowing [as it were], > whether the paramattha dhamma in front of it, is pleasant > or unpleasant? > > Don't you find it unsettling that the pleasantness or > unpleasantness of vipaka, seems to be decided by > subsequent, concept-thinking citta-vithis? Where is the > natural law in that? (Perhaps your point is that the way > we think, is determined by accumulated tendencies and > therefore, by our past kusala and akusala.) > > I find it more compelling that all sense-door objects > should be inherently pleasant or unpleasant. Exactly > which of the two types would arise in any given case, > would depend purely on the kamma that conditioned the co- > arising sense-door consciousness (on whether it was > kusala or akusala respectively). Obviously, this is not > your preferred interpretation of the Abhidhamma, but > could it be a consistent one? > ===== Ironically, I find it compelling that sense-door object must be inherently neutral with a feeling added later as a subjective process. Here are a few examples to explain why: - Sadam and Bush both see the same image (a US flag); feelings are different - My wife and I both smell seafood; feelings are different (I hate seafood, my wife loves it) - You and I both see the same person in a crowd (my wife); feelings are different To me that natural law is that positive or negative feeling must be attached to a concept, which is subjective. My understanding of the progression from visible object -> shape -> name -> feeling is discussed in my sanna post (15923) of two weeks ago. Hope that this helps and I hope to join one of your future discussions in person. Metta, Rob M :-) 20209 From: robmoult Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 0:35am Subject: Re: Last conversations..... Hi Sarah, One of the things that I like most about the Dhamma is the healthy way in which death is viewed. Metta to you, to Jon and to your mother-in-law, Rob M :-) 20210 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 1:29am Subject: Re: Last conversations..... Dear Jon and Sarah, Jon, I'm sorry to learn that your dear mother is experiencing her final illness, but thankful that you knew in advance of her deteriorating health and were able to go to Adelaide and spend time with her. Your presence then would have been a priceless, calming gift for her. Just to see you, touch you, and listen to you would have been her heart's delight. She will be peaceful and happy when she thinks over her long life and realises how her children have grown into wholesome, successful, loving adults due largely to her early guidance and influence. May I, when my dying day comes, also be able to look back on such a job well done, and such a life well lived. Sarah, your letter "Last Conversations ..." was so honest that in reading it, I had tears in my eyes. Every reminder you gave is absolutely true. Thank you. I'm glad you are there for Jon at this moment - he couldn't have a better, or more loving, companion. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I just talked to Jon's mother in Adelaide, Australia after being told she > probably has a few days to live at most. She's comfortable in a hospice > and Jon had a wonderful visit with her just a couple of weeks ago with > many heart-to-heart chats. She was even able to join a family gathering > for her birthday celebration. > > She's decided not to continue with her medications, tests and transfusions > and I can fully understand her decisions and didn't try to persuade her > otherwise. I just talked to her about the inspiration she's given to all > those around her with her kind intentions, wishes and acts and how we can > rejoice when we've done our best, no matter what outcomes follow. When > we've acted with kind thoughts, we can sleep well. She mentioned she had > many faults, but we all do and in her case she can be happy that she's > never deliberately caused any trouble and led what conventionally we > describe as a very good life and taken the best care possible of those > around her. I told her that all of us who've known her have been touched > and uplifted by her good example, kindness, modesty and lack of grudges or > anger towards others. Even whilst in a lot of discomfort in hospital she > didn't wish to turn any visitors away, thinking of them instead of > herself. > > She's fortunate that she has full mental capacity and just asked me in her > final words to take good care of Jon of whom she's very, very fond. Of > course I will (in all regards I can) and I also said that we'd do what I > could to help build harmony amongst other family members. Fortunately, her > other sons are with her in Adelaide. > > We also talked about how this time (of being so close to death) comes to > us all. Sooner or later the bodily functions give up but from our point of > view, life continues on. It's just one life in so many and we may all meet > again in whatever form. At these times, one can only say as much as the > other person is able to hear and sometimes, as with Rahula's friend, > perhaps just listening and showing support and compassion is often the > kindest assistance. > > I feel fortunate in this instance that I was able to express some of my > thoughts and feelings. It's not always possible and one isn't always given > the warning. > > I'm also reminded of how these last hours or days come so much sooner than > we think. All our possessions, our home, our family members, our cares and > concerns get left behind. May it be a reminder to us all to really see the > urgency in developing awareness and all wholesome states while we have the > chance. Who knows when we too will be having our last conversations? > > With metta, > > Sarah > ===== 20211 From: Star Kid Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 2:30am Subject: Philip: Reply to James Dear James, and everyone: I have received your letter. Thanks for using your time to write a letter to me. I think that my letter was more like a test about Buddhism rather than a letter. I don't quite agree with you about the "Buddhism is the most unique religion" thingy. What is wrong with Christianity? Did the Buddha die on a cross? Ha, got cha there! (Just joking). Well, what I am really trying to mean is, all religions have a special belief, and to me it doesn't occur that that makes a religion more unique than the others. Anyway, I have another load of questions waiting for you to answer: 1. Why do the people who believe in the Buddha shave their heads and use a lighted thingy to poke six holes on their head? What is the point of that? 2. How did you first come in touch with Buddhism? 3. Do you think that you have reached all the requirements that the Buddha required? 4. Why is Buddhism only popular in Asia, while Christianity is popular internationally? (Not to be offensive)? 5. Can you tell me the names of some of the Buddhas? (like the smiling one). 6. Well, you said that there are many Buddhas. Then why when I ask you when is the Buddha born, you didn't ask me which Buddha did I mean? OK, that is it. Thanks for the answers. If you have any questions about Christianity, do not hestitate to ask me. Yours sincerely Philip Chui 20212 From: Star Kid Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 2:32am Subject: Religion and non-self Hi, every body, I'm Tom Lee. I was born in Korea, and I go to Korean Internation School (KIS). I'm a 13years old school boy and I saw all of you guy's writing, talking, replying and discussing about Buddhism and I think I'm getting interested in Buddhism. Is there something special about Buddha? I mean if you see the statue in the temple they all look like they are made out of gold, are they really? I found the most interesting information that Buddhism is a religion and it's teaching of non-self. Then how did Buddhism became a religion if there is no self? I hope you guys get friendly with me. Bye. From Tom 20213 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 4:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 54, Comm, Clear Comprehension 1 Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I couldn't follow the tika either, so I ignored it. ..... ;-) Ah, smart.... ..... >The commentary makes > sense without it anyway. ..... and after all, it’s meant to clarify the commentary... .... >The gist of it seems to be a bunch of guys who > want release (self improvement) band together and vow to not take a step > if a defilement arises in their mind and they fail to restrain it. So > these guys are walking down the road single file and one of them has a > bad thought he can't restrain. So he stops and everyone behind him stops > also. If he is lucky, this guy is so ashamed because his friends see he > has an unrestrained bad thought, that he has a path moment and becomes a > sotapanna on the spot. If not, he somehow restrains the thought and > takes up the subject of meditation and everyone starts walking again. > > I think an unrestrained bad thought (defilement) is, in this case, any > wandering of attention from the meditation subject. So the idea is to > correct that immediately as they are walking down the road, but if they > space out for several minutes they have to stop. That was the discipline > they made up for themselves. ..... ;-) I like your summary. These guys remind me of the kids making everything (even letter and essay writing) into a kind of game. Now if I were walking down the road with ‘these guys’, it would be very slow progress indeed. Like Nina, I’ve been missing your comments and questions. I think the recent extracts have contained some excellent reminders - I’ll try to fish out some. I also like the crackling sesame seeds like Nina, reminding us of the impermanence of realities. Jon likes cooking popcorn and roasting various seeds, so I’m very used to the crackling.... Metta and thx, Sarah ==== 20214 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 4:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Last conversations..... Hi Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah - > Howard: > It's a blessing that Jon has had this precious time with her. That's > often not the case. > -------------------------------- Yes, both Jon and his mother greatly appreciate this. A few years ago he also had the good fortune to be able to do the same with his father who also lived til his late 80s, also with very little discomfort and also with full mental capacity til the end, seeming to ‘control’ his passing away as well, til everything was in order. As we know, kamma and so many other conditions are involved in these matters. I think this makes it easier to help us rejoice in others good fortune as in these examples and have acceptance and equanimity when there are not any opportunities for precious time together in other cases as there wasn't with my father. We’ve just decided Jon will go back down to Adelaide tomorrow nite and his mother says she’ll ‘hang on’ til he arrives. We’ll see.... at least she’s very happy now that there is the prospect of his being at her side or at least doing his best in this regard. > ================================= > Sarah, thank you for sharing this with us, the list members. My > wife, Rita, and I send our loving wishes for peace to your mother, and > to Jon and yourself. May you be well. ..... Actually I was rather emotional but wanted to quickly make notes from the discussion in case any of it might be helpful for Jon and the eulogy he’s making a few notes for. Meanwhile, thank you Howard and Rita for your very quick loving wishes as always and we hope you’re both enjoying your days with little Sarah, your new grandchild;-). At my mother-in-law’s recent birthday lunch, luckily her young great grandchild also attended, so it was very special for her. With metta, Sarah ===== 20215 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 4:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... Hi Rob M, --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > One of the things that I like most about the Dhamma is the healthy > way in which death is viewed. > > Metta to you, to Jon and to your mother-in-law, > Rob M :-) ..... Thx for this. There was a little shock at mid-day when I got a call with notice, but I think that now we're all doing very well and my mother-in-law is very realistic and accepting of her state and condition. I think we're all counting our blessings at this stage and yes, the Dhamma reminds us that any sadness, natural as it is, is just connected with ourselves, our own feelings and our own attachments. Metta and kindness for others is never sad. Meanwhile, appreciating all your Dhamma considerations and reflections, Rob. Metta, Sarah ==== 20216 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 5:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kamma and Conventional Events: A Brief Comment Howard, Sarah and Larry Thanks to Sarah for reminding me of Larry's post, and thanks to Larry for going to the trouble to find the right reference, and for setting out the sutta. (I did notice Larry's post at the time and meant to come back to it, but obviously forgot all about it later.) Here is a translation of the same passage by Bhikkhu Bodhi, together with a translation of the commentary on the meaning of the 4 terms in question, here translated as 'actuality', 'inerrancy', 'nototherwiseness' and 'specific conditionality': "Thus, monks, the actuality in this, the inerrancy, the nototherwiseness, specific conditionality: this is called dependent origination.[54]" [54], p742, from the commentary: "Actuality (tathataa) is said to indicate the occurrence of each particular phenomenon when its assemblage of appropriate conditions is present. Inerrancy (avitathataa) means that once its conditions have reached completeness there is no non occurrence, even for a moment, of the phenomenon due to be produced from those conditions. Nototherwiseness (ana~n~nathataa) means that there is no production of one phenomenon by another's conditions. The phrase specific conditionality [idappaccayataa] is used to refer to the (individual) conditions for ageing and death etc., or to the conditions taken as a group (paccayasamuuhato)." Just for information. Jon --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Jon & Howard, > > I think the extract from Larry's post pasted below should help. > Sarah > ***** ... > Larry wrote: ... > L:>Here is the sutta Kalupahana referenced: ... > Below is the relevant section. I inserted the pali. The translation > is slightly different: "Now what is dependent co-arising? From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death. ... From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands -- thisregularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/thatconditionality. The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, makes it plain, & says, 'Look.' From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. What's there in this way is a reality [TATHATAA], not an unreality [AVITATHATAA], not other than what it seems [ANA~N~NATHATAA], conditioned by this/that [IDAPPACCAYATAA]. This is called dependent co-arising." 20217 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 5:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... Hi Christine, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Sarah, your letter "Last Conversations ..." was so honest that in > reading it, I had tears in my eyes. Every reminder you gave is > absolutely true. Thank you. I'm glad you are there for Jon at this > moment - he couldn't have a better, or more loving, companion. ..... Many thanks for your kind words. I know that your mother has also been ill and in hospital and as we are all so aware of here (on DSG), old age, sickness and death are close by all the time. I’d like to add the Salla Sutta in full at the end of the post as it’s quite short. I can never read it enough. Metta, Sarah ==== http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp3-08a.html Sutta Nipata III.8 Salla Sutta The Arrow Translated from the Pali by John D. Ireland. For free distribution only. From The Discourse Collection: Selected Texts from the Sutta Nipata (WH 82), translated by John D. Ireland (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1983). Copyright ©1983 Buddhist Publication Society. Used with permission. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Unindicated and unknown is the length of life of those subject to death. Life is difficult and brief and bound up with suffering. There is no means by which those who are born will not die. Having reached old age, there is death. This is the natural course for a living being. With ripe fruits there is the constant danger that they will fall. In the same way, for those born and subject to death, there is always the fear of dying. Just as the pots made by a potter all end by being broken, so death is (the breaking up) of life. "The young and old, the foolish and the wise, all are stopped short by the power of death, all finally end in death. Of those overcome by death and passing to another world, a father cannot hold back his son, nor relatives a relation. See! While the relatives are looking on and weeping, one by one each mortal is led away like an ox to slaughter. "In this manner the world is afflicted by death and decay. But the wise do not grieve, having realized the nature of the world. You do not know the path by which they came or departed. Not seeing either end you lament in vain. If any benefit is gained by lamenting, the wise would do it. Only a fool would harm himself. Yet through weeping and sorrowing the mind does not become calm, but still more suffering is produced, the body is harmed and one becomes lean and pale, one merely hurts oneself. One cannot protect a departed one (peta) by that means. To grieve is in vain. "By not abandoning sorrow a being simply undergoes more suffering. Bewailing the dead he comes under the sway of sorrow. See other men faring according to their deeds! Hence beings tremble here with fear when they come into the power of death. Whatever they imagine, it (turns out) quite different from that. This is the sort of disappointment that exists. Look at the nature of the world! If a man lives for a hundred years, or even more, finally, he is separated from his circle of relatives and gives up his life in the end. Therefore, having listened to the Arahant,[1] one should give up lamenting. Seeing a dead body, one should know, "He will not be met by me again." As the fire in a burning house is extinguished with water, so a wise, discriminating, learned and sensible man should quickly drive away the sorrow that arises, as the wind (blows off) a piece of cotton. He who seeks happiness should withdraw the arrow: his own lamentations, longings and grief. "With the arrow withdrawn, unattached, he would attain to peace of mind; and when all sorrow has been transcended he is sorrow-free and has realized Nibbana. -- vv. 574-593 ================ 20218 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 5:13am Subject: Re: Religion and non-self Hi Tom, To your question "how did Buddhism became a religion if there is no self?", here is a reply that is worth considering: "Nowhere in the Pali Canon does Buddha categorically declare, without qualification, "There is no self".[1] Any question that begins along the lines of, "If there's no self..." is thus inherently misleading, dooming the questioner to a hopeless tangle of confusion -- "a thicket of [wrong] views" [MN 2]. Such questions are best put aside altogether in favor of more fruitful lines of questioning.[2]" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/bfaq.html#noself Take care, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Hi, every body, > > I'm Tom Lee. I was born in Korea, and I go to > Korean Internation School (KIS). I'm a 13years old > school boy and I saw all of you guy's writing, > talking, replying and discussing about Buddhism and I > think I'm getting interested in Buddhism. Is there > something special about Buddha? I mean if you see the > statue in the temple they all look like they are made > out of gold, are they really? > > I found the most interesting information that Buddhism > is a religion and it's teaching of non-self. Then how > did Buddhism became a religion if there is no self? > > I hope you guys get friendly with me. > Bye. > > From Tom 20219 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 5:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Contentment Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Jon, Victor, Dharam et al., > > 'Modesty' and 'contentment' are the first two of the 'eight > thoughts of a > great person' (sorry if this has been pointed out earlier): ... > It occurs to me that (1) these 'thoughts' are in the conventional > terms of > the suttas and as such maybe refer to ideas and concepts rather > than to > paramattha dhammas (?) and (2) the Buddha spoke this discourse to > Anuruddha > shortly before his total enlightenment so may refer to very > rarified states. > > Still an old favorite, though. > > mike No, this hadn't been pointed out before, so your post is most welcome. As to your points (1) and (2), in general I would agree. It seems to me that a (great) person having these thoughts would only do so based on developed understanding (panna), so they would reflect aspects of the development of the path (but expressed conventionally). Just my guess, though. There's nothing like commentaries for giving a better understanding of a sutta. Jon The Blessed One said, "Now, what are the eight thoughts of a great person? This Dhamma is for one who is modest, not for one who is self-aggrandizing. This Dhamma is for one who is content, not for one who is discontent. This Dhamma is for one who is reclusive, not for one who is entangled. This Dhamma is for one whose persistence is aroused, not for one who is lazy. This Dhamma is for one whose mindfulness is established, not for one whose mindfulness is confused. This Dhamma is for one whose mind is centered, not for one whose mind is uncentered. This Dhamma is for one endowed with discernment, not for one whose discernment is weak. This Dhamma is for one who enjoys non-complication, who delights in non-complication, not for one who enjoys & delights in complication." Anguttara Nikaya VIII.30 Anuruddha Sutta To Anuruddha 20220 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 5:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Seclusion Hi Victor, --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi all, > > I would be interested to have a conversation on seclusion with > anyone who is interested. To start the conversation, I will put > forth the questions: What does it mean by seclusion? What are the > benefits of seclusion? ..... I think seclusion is usually a translation of viveka. Here are two sets of definition. There may well be others in different contexts. If you have a particular sutta in mind or use in context, pls let us know. I look forward to your further comments. Metta, Sarah ========== 1.From Nyantiloka dictionary: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic3_v.htm * viveka 'detachment', seclusion, is according to Niddesa, of 3 kinds: * (1) bodily detachment (káya-viveka), i.e. abiding in solitude free from alluring sensuous objects; * (2) mental detachment (citta-viveka), i.e. the inner detachment from sensuous things; * (3) detachment from the substrata of existence (upadhi-viveka). In the description of the 1st absorption, * the words "detached from sensuous things" (vivicc' eva kámehi) refer, according to Vis.M. IV, to 'bodily detachment'; * the words "detached from karmically unwholesome things" (vivicca akusalehi dhammehi) refer to 'mental detachment'; * the words "born of detachment" (vivekaja), to the absence of the 5 hindrances. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * viveka-sukha 'happiness of detachment', or aloofness (s. prec). "Whoso is addicted to society and worldly bustle, he will not partake of the happiness of renunciation, detachment, peace and enlightenment" (A.VII.86). ========================================================================== 2. From Sammohavinodani, Comy to Dhammasangani, PTS, (1544): on seclusion as in “he develops the mindfulness awakening factor which is dependent on seclusion”: “Vivekanissita.m (“dependent on seclusion”) = viveke nissita.m. Seclusion is secludedness; it is fivefold, namely seclusion through substitution of opposites (tada”ngaviveka), through suppression (vikkhambhana), cutting off (samuccheda), tranquillisation (pa.tipasaddhi) and renunciation (nissara.na). “Herein, seclusion through substitution of opposites is insight; seclusion through suppression is the eight attainments; seclusion through cutting off is the path; seclusion through tranquillisation is fruition; seclusion through renunciation is nibbana, which has renounced all signs. Thus “dependent on seclusion” is dependent on this fivefold seclusion......” ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 20221 From: shakti Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 6:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... Dear Sarah, Thank you for sharing this sutta. It brough me comfort and understanding. Two good friends just lost loved ones. One friend her mother the other friend her husband. With metta, Shakti Sarah wrote:Hi Christine, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Sarah, your letter "Last Conversations ..." was so honest that in > reading it, I had tears in my eyes. Every reminder you gave is > absolutely true. Thank you. I'm glad you are there for Jon at this > moment - he couldn't have a better, or more loving, companion. ..... Many thanks for your kind words. I know that your mother has also been ill and in hospital and as we are all so aware of here (on DSG), old age, sickness and death are close by all the time. I’d like to add the Salla Sutta in full at the end of the post as it’s quite short. I can never read it enough. Metta, Sarah ==== http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp3-08a.html Sutta Nipata III.8 Salla Sutta The Arrow Translated from the Pali by John D. Ireland. For free distribution only. From The Discourse Collection: Selected Texts from the Sutta Nipata (WH 82), translated by John D. Ireland (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1983). Copyright ©1983 Buddhist Publication Society. Used with permission. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Unindicated and unknown is the length of life of those subject to death. Life is difficult and brief and bound up with suffering. There is no means by which those who are born will not die. Having reached old age, there is death. This is the natural course for a living being. With ripe fruits there is the constant danger that they will fall. In the same way, for those born and subject to death, there is always the fear of dying. Just as the pots made by a potter all end by being broken, so death is (the breaking up) of life. "The young and old, the foolish and the wise, all are stopped short by the power of death, all finally end in death. Of those overcome by death and passing to another world, a father cannot hold back his son, nor relatives a relation. See! While the relatives are looking on and weeping, one by one each mortal is led away like an ox to slaughter. "In this manner the world is afflicted by death and decay. But the wise do not grieve, having realized the nature of the world. You do not know the path by which they came or departed. Not seeing either end you lament in vain. If any benefit is gained by lamenting, the wise would do it. Only a fool would harm himself. Yet through weeping and sorrowing the mind does not become calm, but still more suffering is produced, the body is harmed and one becomes lean and pale, one merely hurts oneself. One cannot protect a departed one (peta) by that means. To grieve is in vain. "By not abandoning sorrow a being simply undergoes more suffering. Bewailing the dead he comes under the sway of sorrow. See other men faring according to their deeds! Hence beings tremble here with fear when they come into the power of death. Whatever they imagine, it (turns out) quite different from that. This is the sort of disappointment that exists. Look at the nature of the world! If a man lives for a hundred years, or even more, finally, he is separated from his circle of relatives and gives up his life in the end. Therefore, having listened to the Arahant,[1] one should give up lamenting. Seeing a dead body, one should know, "He will not be met by me again." As the fire in a burning house is extinguished with water, so a wise, discriminating, learned and sensible man should quickly drive away the sorrow that arises, as the wind (blows off) a piece of cotton. He who seeks happiness should withdraw the arrow: his own lamentations, longings and grief. "With the arrow withdrawn, unattached, he would attain to peace of mind; and when all sorrow has been transcended he is sorrow-free and has realized Nibbana. -- vv. 574-593 ================ 20222 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 10:11am Subject: FW: [Pali] Re: avijjaasava Dear friends, you may like to read about our discussion. ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:18:14 +0100 Aan: Onderwerp: Re: [Pali] Re: avijjaasava Dear Lars, all other newcomers and friends, Lars, I appreciate it that you really reflect on avijjaasava. and also this: < I became quite > curious about the real meaning behind all those translations (sometimes it > is really interesting how much more meaning it makes when you read the > Pali). > This is so true. op 11-03-2003 21:42 schreef Lars Siebold op khandha5@g...: . If you look at the PED it also suggests the translation as > outflows. It has: > 1. spirit, the intoxicating extract or secretion of a tree or flower > 2. discharge from a sore > So aasava, also in it's non-buddhist use, seems to have had the connotation > of outflow rather than inflow. And while I can still think of kaama and > bhaava as inflows I have a hard time seeing avijja as something coming from > outside. Nina: O.K. I shall quote part of what I wrote in my "Cetasikas", but not all, I do not want to make it too long on this list. This may answer some of your questions. L:> Buddha didn't use certain terms without a reason and that there is some > deeper psychological significance to them, so I generally prefer to > translate them rather literally where possible. N: Quite right. The aasavas keep on flowing, also now. All we learn, all we read in the suttas pertains to our life now, it is not theory at all. Avijjaa is so hard to detect, because it covers up the truth, it is darkness. Without the Buddha we would not know about it. It is the first link in the Dependent Origination, the conditions for the cycle of birth and death to go on and on. When the citta is not kusala, intent on daana, siila or bhaavanaa, all our actions and speech, even thinking, is akusala. Avijjaa accompanies each akusala citta, but we do not notice this, the truth is covered up. Ignorance, not knowing the four noble Truths: the five khandhas are dukkha, they are impermanent and thus unsatisfactory. We do not see their impermanence each moment. How to know this? Through vipassanaa, or in other woords satipa.t.thaana. Guarding the sense-doors. No need to first develop siila or samatha. We should not delay developing more understanding of our life, it is urgent. Hearing the Dhamma, considering it, creates conditions for awareness now. But first intellectual understanding, pariyatti, and considering what we hear in our life now, that is very important. (If you like to discuss this more, I want to refer to dsg yahoo list. In fact, I shall frwd this post to them.) Derek wrote: The sense I get is of aasava being a fundamental, underlying tendency in the mind that drives all other defiled mental activity. N: the underlying tendencies are the anusayas, another group of defilements. They are like microbes, lying dormant in each citta and can condition the arising of akusala citta. Nina. 20223 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 10:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] M 1: 120, 18-19, about different ways of eliminating unwholesome thoughts Dear Sarah Thank you for B.B. notes and additions. As I see it, sa.n.thhaana is not: stopping. Some people translate it with calming. I see it differently: Co: As to the analysis of sa.nkhaara: he should consider his "sa.n.thaana sa"nkhaara", that is, whatever reality (sabhaava, nature) conditions that cause (hetu), that reality is sa"nkhaara. It is explained that this is the condition (paccaya), kaarana, cause of action, root (muula). As to the analysis of sa.n.thaana: where it is well established , where it is located. The sa.n.thaana of vitakka sa"nkhaara is called "vitakka sa.nkhaara sa.n.thaana". The bhikkhu should consider that vitakka sa.nkhaara. The Buddha explained that the bhikkhu should consider what is the cause and what is not the cause of his thoughts: what is the cause, the condition of this thought, for which reason does it arise.> Thus, he is aware of his evil thoughts and realizes their conditions, but not by thinking. He does not try to stop them, but naturally, he sees them as only, only conditioned namas. We should remember that the second stage of tender insight is realizing nama and rupa as conditioned realities, not by thinking. The effect is that they are eliminated, but not by a self who tries. If we do not understand satipatthana we shall not know what is in this text, is that not the case, time and again? I want to go in more into this important text. Nina. op 10-03-2003 08:05 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > MA: “vitakka-sankhaara-sa.n.thaana”m. MA understands sankhaara here as > condition, cause, or root, and takes the compound to mean “stopping the > cause of the thought.” This is accomplished by inquiring, when an > unwholesome thought has arisen: “What is it cause? What is the cause of > its cause? etc. Such an inquiry, according to the MA, brings about a > slackening, and eventually the cessation, of the flow of unwholesome > thought. 20224 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 10:11am Subject: FW: Commentary Mahaarahulovaadasutta ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:26:05 +0100 Aan: Pali yahoo Onderwerp: Commentary Mahaarahulovaadasutta Commentary Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, no. 8. Relevant Sutta passages: Atha kho aayasmaa Raahulo saayanhasamaya.m pa.tisallaanaa vu.t.thito.... Then, at evening time, the venerable Rahula got up from solitude "Ya.m ki~nci, Raahula, ajjhatta.m paccatta.m kakkha.la.m kharigata.m upaadinna.m, seyyathida.m - kesaa lomaa nakhaa whatever internally, and individually, is solid, solidified, and clung to, namely: head hair, body hair, nails, teeth... Commentary: bhagavataa pana aacikkhitakamma.t.thaanameva purebhattampi pacchaabhattampi -- ``itipi ruupa.m anicca.m, itipi dukkha.m, itipi asubha.m, itipi anattaa''ti aggi.m abhimatthento viya nirantara.m manasikatvaa saayanhasamaye cintesi -- Rahula contemplated the meditation subject that was explained to him by the Blessed One before and after his meal thus: ³Materiality truly is impermanent, it truly is unsatisfactory, it truly is foul, it truly is non-self². After he had contemplated this continuously (nirantara.m), just as someone who desires to have light, the following thoughts occurred to him towards evening: ``aha.m upajjhaayena aanaapaanassati.m bhaavehiiti vutto , tassa vacana.m karissaami aacariyupajjhaayaana~nhi vacana.m akaronto dubbaco naama hoti. ³Since my preceptor has told me (aha.m vutto) to develop mindfulness of breathing I shall be obedient (vacana.m karissaami). If I don¹t follow what my teachers and preceptors say, I am indeed obstinate ( dubbaco, difficult to speak to). `dubbaco raahulo, upajjhaayassapi vacana.m na karotii'ti ca garahuppattito kakkha.lataraa pii.laa naama natthii''ti bhaavanaavidhaana.m pucchitukaamo bhagavato santika.m agamaasi. ta.m dassetu.m atha kho aayasmaa raahulotiaadi vutta.m. Nothing is more oppressive and harsh than receiving the reproach, Rahula who is obstinate does not follow up the words of his preceptor. ³ He visited the Blessed One personally because he was eager to ask about the ways of mental development. It was said (by Ananda ), atha kho aayasmaa raahulo, then, (at evening time,) the venerable Rahula (got up from solitude) etc. tattha pa.tisallaanaati ekiibhaavato. ya.mki~nci raahulaati kasmaa? bhagavaa aanaapaanassati.m pu.t.tho ruupakamma.t.thaana.m kathetiiti. ruupe chandaraagappahaanattha.m. Then, as to the word, pa.tisallaanaa, (having got up), this means, from solitude (ekiibhaava, being alone). As to the words, ya.mki~nci raahulaa, whatever, Rahula (is internal, etc.), why is this said? When he asked the Blessed One about Mindfulness of Breathing, The Blessed One spoke about the meditation subject of materiality, so that he (Rahula) would abandon his attachment to materiality (attha.m, with the aim). **** Remarks, questions: na karissaami: Burmese and Siamese manuscript omit : na. I shall follow the words, be obedient... I erased the na in my text, it makes more sense. As to: garahuppattito kakkha.lataraa pii.laa naama natthii''ti , not sure. I compared with my Thai text. This came out. A comparative. I like to be corrected, please. Nina. 20225 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 10:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine Dear Azita, see below op 11-03-2003 00:42 schreef azita gill op gazita2002@y...: > We read in the Dhammasangaùi (§1116): >> What is the Fetter of conceit? >> Conceit at the thought “I am the better man”; >> conceit at the thought >> “I am as good (as they)”; conceit at the thought “I >> am lowly”- all >> such sort of conceit, overweening conceitedness, >> loftiness, >> haughtiness, flaunting a flag, assumption, desire of >> the heart for >> self-advertisement— this is called conceit. >> >> The three ways of comparing oneself with others may >> occur in someone >> who is actually superior, in someone who is actually >> equal and in >> someone who is actually inferior. Under this aspect >> there are nine >> kinds of conceit. ... >> > Azita: I have a Q. how do you get nine out of this? > Is it something like accompanied by good feeling/bad > feeling/prompted/unpromted type of citta?? N: No. We read about Conceit at the thought “I am the better man >> conceit at the thought >> “I am as good (as they); conceit at the thought “I >> am lowly, now these three can occur: when comparing oneself with others >> occur in someone who is *actually* superior, etc. thus three times three makes nine. Nina. 20226 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 3:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Azita, > see below > op 11-03-2003 00:42 schreef azita gill op gazita2002@y...: > > > We read in the Dhammasangaùi (§1116): > >> What is the Fetter of conceit? > >> Conceit at the thought "I am the better man"; > >> conceit at the thought > >> "I am as good (as they)"; conceit at the thought "I > >> am lowly"- all > >> such sort of conceit, overweening conceitedness, > >> loftiness, > >> haughtiness, flaunting a flag, assumption, desire of > >> the heart for > >> self-advertisement— this is called conceit. > >> > >> The three ways of comparing oneself with others may > >> occur in someone > >> who is actually superior, in someone who is actually > >> equal and in > >> someone who is actually inferior. Under this aspect > >> there are nine > >> kinds of conceit. ... > >> > > Azita: I have a Q. how do you get nine out of this? > > Is it something like accompanied by good feeling/bad > > feeling/prompted/unpromted type of citta?? > N: No. We read about Conceit at the thought "I am the better man > >> conceit at the thought > >> "I am as good (as they); conceit at the thought "I > >> am lowly, > now these three can occur: when comparing oneself with others > >> occur in someone who is *actually* superior, etc. thus three times three > makes nine. > Nina. Dear Nina, I'm sorry, but this question begs to be asked: Who is *actually* superior, inferior, or the same as anyone else, as opposed to just *thinking* that they are those things? I don't believe the Lord Buddha taught any such categorization. What is the 'Dhammasangaùi (§1116)'? I have never heard of it. There aren't nine types of conceit in Buddhism, there are only three. Are these the categories of conceit you are proposing?: 1. Actually Inferior/Considers Himself Inferior 2. Actually Inferior/Considers Himself Superior 3. Actually Inferior/Considers Himself Equal 4. Actually Superior/Considers Himself Inferior 5. Actually Superior/Considers Himself Superior 6. Actually Superior/Considers Himself Equal 7. Actually Equal/Considers Himself Inferior 8. Actually Equal/Considers Himself Superior 9. Actually Equal/Considers Himself Equal It seems to me that these categories are hypocritical to the extreme and not what the Buddha taught. How do you respond? Metta, James 20227 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 10:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine Hi James, I think you ask a very good question and understand why it sounds hypocritical and contrary to the Buddha’s Teachings when just put in the form given in the Vibhanga (2nd text of Abhidhamma Pitaka) which is: “Therein what is ‘ninefold conceit’? In one who is better the conceit thus, “I am better”......”equal”......”inferior” .......” just as you categorise below. J;> I'm sorry, but this question begs to be asked: Who is *actually* > superior, inferior, or the same as anyone else, as opposed to just > *thinking* that they are those things? ..... I think that it’s easier to understand and accept if we consider the long list of factors on account of which mana (conceit) is said to arise. For example,The Vibhanga,(Ch 17, 832) gives this list of objects on account of which mana arises: "Pride of birth; pride of clan; pride of health; pride of youth; pride of life; pride of gain; pride of being honoured; pride of being respected; pride of prominence; pride of having adherents; pride of wealth; pride of appearance; pride of erudition; pride of intelligence; pride of being a knowledgeable authority; pride of being (a regular) alms collector; accomplishment; pride of popularity; pride of being moral; pride of jhana; pride of dexterity; pride of being tall; pride of (bodily) proportion; pride of form; pride of (bodily) perfection..." The list goes on. To take one simple, easy to accept example, “pride of being tall”. I don’t think it’s hard to accept that mana arises on account of height in any of the ways mentioned. We may *actually* be taller than someone else and compare, feeling superior, inferior or equal. Or we may *actually* be shorter or the same height and still compare in these ways. Hence, as I read the texts, the comparing is always on account of an attribute, state, belongings or other object pertaining to others and ourselves. ..... >I don't believe the Lord > Buddha taught any such categorization. What is the 'Dhammasangaùi > (§1116)'? I have never heard of it. There aren't nine types of > conceit in Buddhism, there are only three. ..... The Dhammasangani is the first text of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. I agree that in the suttas, as far as I know, only the three categories are given. I’m not sure if what I’ve added is of any help. Nina may add more and of course, if it isn’t of any assistance, that’s fine too. I find it quite useful just to reflect now. We may think the problem is really being short, poor, young, lacking in some knowledge, not flexible or strong enough and so on. With these categories, we see how mana arises regardless of whether we’re tall or short, rich or poor, old or young and so on with any of the permutations. ..... >Are these the categories > of conceit you are proposing?: > > 1. Actually Inferior/Considers Himself Inferior > 2. Actually Inferior/Considers Himself Superior > 3. Actually Inferior/Considers Himself Equal > 4. Actually Superior/Considers Himself Inferior > 5. Actually Superior/Considers Himself Superior > 6. Actually Superior/Considers Himself Equal > 7. Actually Equal/Considers Himself Inferior > 8. Actually Equal/Considers Himself Superior > 9. Actually Equal/Considers Himself Equal ..... I understand this to be exactly right, perhaps with the proviso of “actually inferior/superior/equal IN REGARD TO some object or characteristic” and so on. One quick example from the Comy to the Vibhanga for pride of youth, which I'm reminded of after being called 'old' by Starkid Philip yesterday;-): "The conceit that arises as intoxication thus: 'I am young; the person of other beings is like a tree growing on a cliff. but I am in the first stage (of life)' is called "vanity of youth" (yobbananamada). ..... Metta, Sarah p.s Thank you for adding the link to Mike Olds article on the Mulapariyaya Sutta and for your many nice posts to the children. Hope you get well soon. ================================================ 20228 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 10:49pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > >ROBM: Ironically, I find it compelling that sense-door object must be > inherently neutral with a feeling added later as a subjective > process. Here are a few examples to explain why: > - Sadam and Bush both see the same image (a US flag); feelings are > different > - My wife and I both smell seafood; feelings are different (I hate > seafood, my wife loves it) > - You and I both see the same person in a crowd (my wife); feelings > are different > > To me that natural law is that positive or negative feeling must be > attached to a concept, which is subjective. > > Dear RobM, Could you clarify this. Do you mean that at the moment of seeing the feeling is neutral but that the actual seeing consciousness is either the result of kusala or akusala kamma. Thus the objects are either pleasant or unpleasant? RobertK 20229 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 11:09pm Subject: Re: Religion and non-self Dear Star Kid Tom, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: Hi, every body, I'm Tom Lee. I was born in Korea, and I go to Korean Internation School (KIS). I'm a 13years old school boy and I saw all of you guy's writing, talking, replying and discussing about Buddhism and I think I'm getting interested in Buddhism. Is there something special about Buddha? I mean if you see the statue in the temple they all look like they are made out of gold, are they really? I found the most interesting information that Buddhism is a religion and it's teaching of non-self. Then how did Buddhism became a religion if there is no self? I hope you guys get friendly with me. Bye. From Tom KKT: It's great! You begin to probe into the question of self at the age of 13! It's fantastic! (and incredible :-)) I remember the first time I really looked into this question is when I was 23. (and I continue to do until now :-)) Best wishes for your search. KKT PS. About the statues of Buddha made out of gold you mentioned, I have a question for you (a puzzle :-)) The Buddha in wood could not avoid being destroyed by metal. The Buddha in clay could not avoid being destroyed by water. The Buddha in gold could not avoid being destroyed by fire. So what kind of Buddha could not be destroyed by whatever thing? 20230 From: Seylan Bank - DBD (Sumane Rathnasuriya) Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 3:44am Subject: RE: [dsg] Last conversations..... Dear Sarah (& Jon), Thank you for making an exemplary occasion of a common bereavement (we're so much used to this explanation) for many Dhamma friends to understand realities that we've been discussing of on more than one instance. I've no doubt that you've spent most of this dedication meaningfully, true to the teachings of the Buddha. How fortunate Jon's Mom has been! Any doubt of her decision to do away with medication etc. is cleared with your description in "Last Conversations". May she be blessed with continued peaceful presence of mind throughout! Sumane 20231 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 4:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong view/Ditthi vs. Conceit/Mana (was, Dukkha as Medicine?) Hi Azita (& Jon), --- azita gill wrote: > BTW, I have just a this moment, read in 'A Manual > of Abhidhamma' by Narada '.......where there is > Ditthi there is no Mana. Commentaries compare them to > two fearless lions that cannot live in one den' ..... I don't remember seeing this reference to the fearless lions - do you know where it is? You may find it useful to review the quotes from Nina and K.Sujin given in this old post too (on mana, ditthi and lobha): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/11868 Metta, Sarah ======= Metta, Sarah ======= 20232 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 5:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James, > > I think you ask a very good question and understand why it sounds > hypocritical and contrary to the Buddha's Teachings when just put in the > form given in the Vibhanga (2nd text of Abhidhamma Pitaka) which is: > > "Therein what is `ninefold conceit'? In one who is better the conceit > thus, "I am better"......"equal"......"inferior" ......." just as you > categorise below. < Hi Sarah, Thank you for this explanation. Now I see that this further categorization of conceit of the Abhidhamma doesn't necessarily contradict the suttas. However, frankly, I don't see the benefit of it and it appears to be complicating an issue that doesn't need to be complicated. When a person believes himself/herself superior, inferior, or equal to anyone else, of course they are going to base that comparison on either actual differences or perceived differences; I don't see what difference it makes which they base it on. Actually, I would even go as far as to say that these nine categories are somewhat false because they assume that people can accurately and honestly *know* where they are superior, inferior, or equal to anyone else. For example, Napoleon the Great was very short in stature, but he perceived himself as being taller than everyone else. Consequently, he commissioned several portraits of himself which made him appear to be tall and majestic. He was not able to accurately know his *actual* height as compared to his *perceived* height. Regardless of the facts, he was going to believe what he wanted to believe. I don't think it is what is *actual* that is all that important, but what is *perceived* that is the deciding factor…and this is what I believe the Buddha taught in the suttas. Thank you for your well wishes and kind words. Star Kid Philip sounds like a real handful! ;-) (He sounds more and more like me all the time…:-). Metta, James 20233 From: Lars Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 6:19am Subject: FW: [Pali] Re: avijjaasava --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > N: ...Through vipassanaa, or in other woords satipa.t.thaana. > Guarding the sense-doors. No need to first develop siila or samatha. This is interesting. Can you tell me how you get to this conclusion, since it seems to contradict about everything I know about the Buddhas teaching. E.g. (D.16): "iti siila"m, iti samaadhi, iti pa~n~naa. Siilaparibhaavito samaadhi mahapphalo hoti mahaanisa"mso. Samadhiparibhaavitaa pa~n~naa mahapphalaa hoti mahaanisa"msaa. Pa~n~naaparibhaavita"m citta"m sammadeva aasavehi vimuccati, seyyathida"m – kaamaasavaa, bhavaasavaa, avijjaasavaa"ti. Lars 20234 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 7:25am Subject: RE: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine Dear James, > -----Original Message----- > From: buddhatrue [mailto:buddhatrue@y...] > contradict the suttas. However, frankly, I don't > see the benefit of > it and it appears to be complicating an issue > that doesn't need to be > complicated. When a person believes > himself/herself superior, The Buddha's teachings do not benefit everybody, depending on one's accumulations. For example, for someone who is not willing to listen, it is not beneficial at all. On the other hand, for someone with the right accumulation, even a teaching that we wouldn't think would be beneficial to anybody, is beneficial to that person. If you remember the story of the Buddha's father becoming a sotapanna, the Buddha's teaching was on giving alms, and he became enlightened. Enumerating the kinds of conceits, I think, give us the opportunity to recognize it when it arises. Prior to listening to the Buddha teaching, I certainly didn't think thinking of myself as lower than other people is a kind of conceit (just humility ;-) ). In these enumerations, it reminds me that both false and true conceit are just that: conceit. Furthermore, it is later mentioned that a sekkha that is not an Arahant has eliminated all false conceit. So, even if one doesn't benefit from the earlier enumeration, then at least one will get the story straight that out of the 9, how many a sotapanna has eliminated. True conceit has a degree of subtlety that false conceit doesn't have. For example, suppose I compare my wisdom to my respected teacher. Is that a conceit, or is that giving respect to the teacher? When we are saying, the Buddha's wisdom is great, is that with conceit or with respect? > accurately and honestly *know* where they are superior, inferior, or > equal to anyone else. You are right that just thinking about it can't give you an accurate picture. However, it is said there are people (at least, all the 80 maha-savaka) who know the minds of others accurately. The power of mind reading is not limited to just Ariyans, but to an accomplished tranquil mediator as well. Moreover, (take this with a grain of salt), some people may retain remnants of such power from their previous lives, giving them uncanny ability to accurately know how other people feel. As for me, knowing how other people feel are all based on observations, which are indirect evidence at best. But you can tell accurately (sometimes) when a person is angry, can you not? Given the subtleties of the Buddha teachings, I have no doubt that there is no way I personally would understand all of these subtleties. Are we a samma-sambuddha? Even V. Sariputta, the most eminent of all disciples with wisdom, had to ask the Buddha on subtle points. Great is the Buddha's wisdom. Metta, kom Weight Age Gender Female Male 20235 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 7:29am Subject: RE: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine Hi Sarah & James, > -----Original Message----- > > "The conceit that arises as intoxication thus: > 'I am young; the person > of other beings is like a tree growing on a > cliff. but I am in the first > stage (of life)' is called "vanity of youth" > (yobbananamada). could be said substituting middle age or old age> > ..... Yes indeed, since I am older, I must be wiser, since I have learned and seen more ;-). Wise is the young samana, the one who is free from all taints. kom 20236 From: m. nease Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 8:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine Hi Kom, ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit To: Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 7:25 AM Subject: RE: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine > Enumerating the kinds of conceits, I think, give us the > opportunity to recognize it when it arises. I agree. I also think this is one of the great benefits of abhidhamma, that is, the enumeration and elucidation of the great breadth, depth and subtlety of akusala, so much of which I used to take for kusala (and still do in unguarded moments). mike 20237 From: bodhi342 Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 8:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine Friends, There appear to be many forms of conceit, obvious and subtle, classified etc. Is not the main purpose of the Buddha's teaching of Anatta to enable ridding of personality belief (sakkâyadiööhi)and the conceit of `I am' (asmimâna)? Is not 'I am' the ultimate conceit? Compared to that, all the others seem trivial to me. u.w. dharam 20238 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:47am Subject: Issues of Dhamma 4, lakkhana rupas, no 2. Issue of Analysis : what is the meaning of lakkhana rúpas, rúpas as characteristics, as explained when we take into account the groups, kalåpas, of rúpa? [3] Conclusion regarding the analysis of this issue: 1. Explanation according to the method of the groups of rúpa: the sabhåva rúpas (rúpas with their own distinct nature) of each group must have all four characteristics of origination of rúpa, upacaya rúpa, continuity of rúpa, santati rúpa, decay of rúpa, jårata rúpa, and impermanence of rúpa, aniccatå rúpa. 2. There is also an explanation of the meaning of these four characteristics in a general way or in conventional sense, vohåra, such as in the ³Atthasåliní². The sources which support the conclusion of the analysis: 1. The Atthasåliní, the Commentary to the Dhammasangani, in the section on rúpa. 2. Abhidhammattha Sangaha (Manual of Abhihamma), Ch 6. 3. The Abhidhammatthavibhåviní, the Commentary to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha 4. The Paramattha Mañjuså, Commentary to the Visuddhimagga, in the explanation ³by rúpakkhandha². 5. Sacca-sankhepa, ³Outlines of Truths² [4] . The sources that explain the reasons for this conclusion: 1. Explanation according to the method of the groups of rúpa. If we take into account that each moment of citta can be subdivided into three infinitesimal moments, each group, kalåpa, of rúpas lasts as long as fiftyone sub-moments of citta. If we compare the duration of rúpa with the duration of the fiftyone sub-moments of citta, the arising moment of rúpa, upacaya rúpa, is reckoned as equal to the first sub-moment of citta. The impermanence of rúpa, aniccatå rúpa, is reckoned as equal to the last sub-moment of citta, the fiftyfirst sub-moment of citta. Continuity, santati rúpa, and decay, jaratå rúpa, are reckoned to come in between these moments, thus, from the second sub-moment until the fiftieth sub-moment of citta. Each group of rúpas must have all four characteristics of rúpa. As is stated in the ³Dhammasangani²(643), ³What is subsistence of rúpa? That which is upacaya rúpa (integration or the arising moment of rúpa) is santati rúpa (subsistence or continuation of rúpa) This is subsistence of rúpa². When there is upacaya rúpa, the origination of rúpa, there must also be santati rúpa, the continuation after the origination, because that rúpa has not fallen away yet. Footnotes: 3. Rúpas arise in different groups, kalåpas. 4.This work is ascribed to Dhammapåla of India, author of the Visuddhimagga Tíka, the subcommentary to the Visuddhimagga. It is classified in Burmese bibliography, together with the Abhidhammata Sangaha, as a group of nine ³little finger manuals² a group of classical summaries. 20239 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Last conversations..... Dear Sarah I really sympathize with Jon and you. And just this morning we listened to a tape, another sutta passage: This always strikes me so much. Just in and out of one life, in a wink. We had an opportunity to think of death today, visiting my father who goes slowly, very slowly, but every day more. You said: other person is able to hear and sometimes, as with Rahula’s friend, > perhaps just listening and showing support and compassion is often the > kindest assistance.> Exactly. We have to develop all the perfections, also metta, even when we are short of time and have lots of things to do. I cling to the "lots of things I have to do", and may neglect metta. He is so depressed, and we would not try even to mention Dhamma. But he said a few times that he appreciates it when we come by. We tried to cheer him up, mentioning to play music for him next Sunday. Difficult such a depression. This is an excellent reminder you gave: Nina. op 12-03-2003 07:32 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > We also talked about how this time (of being so close to death) comes to > us all. Sooner or later the bodily functions give up but from our point of > view, life continues on. It’s just one life in so many and we may all meet > again in whatever form. At these times, one can only say as much as the > other person is able to hear and sometimes, as with Rahula’s friend, > perhaps just listening and showing support and compassion is often the > kindest assistance. > > I feel fortunate in this instance that I was able to express some of my > thoughts and feelings. It’s not always possible and one isn’t always given > the warning. > > I’m also reminded of how these last hours or days come so much sooner than > we think. All our possessions, our home, our family members, our cares and > concerns get left behind. May it be a reminder to us all to really see the > urgency in developing awareness and all wholesome states while we have the > chance. Who knows when we too will be having our last conversations? 20240 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visible object in the mind-door process. Dear Rob M, op 12-03-2003 09:32 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > The very first mind door citta process after the sense-door citta > process "copies" the sense door object into a concept and from that > point on, the mind door citta processes build and build the concept. N: I do not think so. It is not a concept but visible object that has just fallen away. Later on, we do not count, there can be concepts as objects. In the Atth this is explained:I, Part II, Analysis of Terms, 74:"...Thus the apperception (javanacittas) of a visible object arises at the eye-door and also at the mind-door."And 72: "Of the six objects each comes into the avenues of two doors... In the purely representative process through the mind-door, however, there is no function of striking the sensitive orgen. These objects present themselves naturally by virtue of having been seen, heard, smelt, tasted and touched." The whole ch is worth studying. Now we have doubts about the mind-door, but through insight, when the first stage is reached, it is understood what the mind-door is. The difference between nama and rupa is realized through the mind-door. If rupa could not be experienced also through the mind-door how could the stages of insight arise? Can there not be awareness of just heat when it presents itself? No need to think: this is only relevant when citta experiences it. It has a characteristic. If there can be awareness it will be known more clearly what rupa is, different from nama. This is difficult for all of us. Realities and Conceptts, by A. Sujin: Nina. 20241 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:47am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 4 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 4 The Buddha had finally passed away and the arahats who were present at the first Council for the rehearsal of the teachings had heard these words before. However, even though the words they heard were spoken in the past and they would not hear them any more in the presence of the Blessed One, there was yet an opportunity to hear the Dhamma again. This fact can be recollected with reverence to the Triple Gem by all listeners today. Although these events occurred a long time ago, each time we hear the Dhamma we can see its benefit and we can understand that the accumulation of kusala in the past is the condition for the kusala vipåka which is hearing the Dhamma again in this life. Ånanda consoled people who were disappointed at not seeing the Blessed One, assuring them that this was not a teaching of a defunct teacher, but that the very Dhamma Vinaya was their teacher. By the words, evam me suttam, thus have I heard, the venerable Ånanda wanted to console the Buddhists in times to come, who may feel dismay that they cannot see the Buddha in person. However, we should remember that what we hear is not the teaching of a defunct teacher, but that the Dhamma Vinaya is now our teacher. We shall know whether the Buddha is our real teacher if we listen, consider and follow the right practice. When the venerable Ånanda spoke the word, evaÿ, meaning: thus, he demonstrated the excellence of the teaching, because there should be a person who teaches and also a person who listens. There cannot be a listener without a teacher. Just by the word evam, thus, he demonstrated the excellence of the teaching. When he said, me suttam, I have heard, he demonstrated the excellence of the discipleship. This disciple was the venerable Ånanda, not someone else. The venerable Ånanda, the disciple who was five times signalized as the Foremost-in-Discourse, said, evam me suttam, thus have I heard. When he said, ekam samayam, on one occasion, he demonstrated the excellence of the time, the time when he heard the teaching of the Dhamma. We should remember that now is the excellence of the time to hear the Dhamma. It is not easy to find the opportunity to hear the Dhamma. When people have important tasks to fulfill they cannot listen to the Dhamma, but they hear other things. With the words, ekam samayam, on one occasion, the venerable Ånanda demonstrated the excellence of the occasion to hear the teaching of the Dhamma. 20242 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 60, blank mind. Hi Larry, op 12-03-2003 01:03 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > Thanks for all your comments. Unfortunately, my mind is blank. Cheerio! N: This is only one moment, Larry. It does not last. Cheerio, Nina. 20243 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:47am Subject: letters to star kids Dear Kom and James, I admire the way both of you explain difficult points in a simple way. You understand so well the world of the child. The way James explained conceit was so clear. And the touching story about the three year old, I enjoyed that very much. Her accumulations of a past life. With appreciation, Nina. 20244 From: Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 3:47pm Subject: Way 62, Comm, Clear Comprehension 2 "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, 2. Clear comprehension in looking straight on and in looking away from the front, p. 80 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html 2. Clear comprehension in looking straight on and in looking away from the front Alokite = "In looking straight on." Vilokite = "In looking away from the front." Here, looking straight on [alokitam] = seeing in the direction in front of oneself [purato pekkhanam]. Looking away from the front [vilokitam] = Looking out in all other directions [anudisa pekkhanam]. And other kinds of seeing, by way of turning the eye in the direction above, in the direction beneath and in the direction behind are called looking upwards, looking downwards and looking backwards. Here those are not taken. But just these two -- looking straight on and looking away from the front -- are taken, by way of what is befitting. Or, by this method, it is said, all those are also taken. [Tika] By way of what is fitting = In the form of that which is suitable to a recluse. [T] Since looking downwards could happen in such actions as sweeping and plastering the floor with clay and cow-dung, looking upwards in removing cob-webs and other similar actions, and looking backwards in such actions as the avoiding of danger coming from behind, it is said, that the commentator uttered the passage beginning with the words: Or, by this method. By that the commentator points out that the statement is also one of the kind that implies what is not expressed -- an elliptical statement. Here, the comprehending of purpose (in looking straight on), without having just looked by the force of the thought, when the thought "I shall look straight on" arises, is clear comprehension of purpose. That should be understood by making the venerable elder Nanda the example of a person who perceives through experience by the body [kaya sakkhi].[23] The following is stated in this connection: "Should looking straight on in the eastern direction become a thing that must be done, by Nanda, he looks straight on in the eastern direction, having reflected with all his mind thus: 'May no covetous, grief-producing, mean, unskillful mental phenomena flow upon (overcome) me while I am looking in the eastern direction.' There, he becomes mindful, thus." Further, purposefulness and suitability, here, too, should be understood just according to the manner in which they are explained in connection with the worshipping of a relic shrine and so forth. [T] When the venerable elder Nanda was working for insight he slid into an unfavorable state of mind beginning with boredom in regard to the holy life and on becoming aware of that state of mind of his, he stirred himself, saying, "I shall restrain myself well." Then having become energetic and very conscientious regarding guardedness at the doors of the controlling faculties of sense, he reached the state of one of great perfection in self-restraint, through the fulfillment of all duties. By reason of that perfection the Master placed him in the position of pre-eminence in regard to the controlling faculty of restraint, with the words: "This one, namely, Nanda, O bhikkhus, is the chief among my disciples endowed with the controlling faculty of restraint." 23. One who realizes that which one experiences. The person who experiences absorption first, realizes Nibbana afterward. That person should be understood as of sixfold character counting from the state of the fruition of stream-winning to the state of the path of arahantship. Therefore the commentator said: Here a certain person, having experienced by the body the eight emancipations, lives; in that person the cankers become destroyed owing to his having seen the emancipations with wisdom. Digha Atthakatha, Part III, pages 889-890. See P.T.S. Edition. 20245 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 7:04pm Subject: Re: Last conversations..... Dear Sarah And Jon, Thankyou Sarah for this post. It is both inspiring and contains good reminders. Most of us have to face such a situation in our lives, for some, many times. The last time I faced such a situation it was almost with total ignorance, the next time I am certain it would not be so. I really would like my own parents to study the Buddha's teachings and I have tried. And I would like to think that it is all in vain since they have not been very responsive. However I think the truth is that they do gain some inspiration just by seeing my own saddha and how the Teachings have affected me. In this way I think Jon must have had a positive influence on his mother in the past, and being with her now must be the best thing a son can do for a parent. As you have concluded, such situations should remind us about the importance of developing all kinds of kusala. We may have felt the same way toward our parents of a previous life, but in this lifetime those persons may pass us and we did not even notice it. How many of us on dsg have been related to one another in this way? I would like to think (I know..), that many of us here, are doing just what we wished we could do when the relationship was different! I would like to think that more is being achieved without the factor of clinging, (to a parent or child etc) by such persons as you both and several others on this list. I hope I can do the same for others as well. I would like to relay an incident which happened just very recently. Six weeks ago a friend (Manoj, you know him) informed me that one of his cousins was dying of cancer. Having met this cousin of his once many years ago and still having a good memory of her, I offered to get a set of K. Sujin's tapes for her to listen to. So that weekend I asked K. Sujin to recommend me a set and I got them. A week later the tape was given to her, but only when she left the hospital for home did she start to listen to them. She hadn't known about K. Sujin before this. She listened to the tapes for two weeks before she had to be readmitted to hospital where she finally passed away. I was told however, that at the hospital she told her mother that she looked forward to going back home and continuing to listen to those tapes. I can't know what her last thought were, and we can't know what Jon's mother's last thought will be, but we do our best. Courage and good cheer. May this often used reminder of Azita work in this situation as it should in any other. Metta, Sukin. ps. I had written a long post yesterday, but it was deleted.. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I just talked to Jon's mother in Adelaide, Australia after being told she > probably has a few days to live at most. She's comfortable in a hospice > and Jon had a wonderful visit with her just a couple of weeks ago with > many heart-to-heart chats. She was even able to join a family gathering > for her birthday celebration. > > She's decided not to continue with her medications, tests and transfusions > and I can fully understand her decisions and didn't try to persuade her > otherwise. I just talked to her about the inspiration she's given to all > those around her with her kind intentions, wishes and acts and how we can > rejoice when we've done our best, no matter what outcomes follow. When > we've acted with kind thoughts, we can sleep well. She mentioned she had > many faults, but we all do and in her case she can be happy that she's > never deliberately caused any trouble and led what conventionally we > describe as a very good life and taken the best care possible of those > around her. I told her that all of us who've known her have been touched > and uplifted by her good example, kindness, modesty and lack of grudges or > anger towards others. Even whilst in a lot of discomfort in hospital she > didn't wish to turn any visitors away, thinking of them instead of > herself. > > She's fortunate that she has full mental capacity and just asked me in her > final words to take good care of Jon of whom she's very, very fond. Of > course I will (in all regards I can) and I also said that we'd do what I > could to help build harmony amongst other family members. Fortunately, her > other sons are with her in Adelaide. > > We also talked about how this time (of being so close to death) comes to > us all. Sooner or later the bodily functions give up but from our point of > view, life continues on. It's just one life in so many and we may all meet > again in whatever form. At these times, one can only say as much as the > other person is able to hear and sometimes, as with Rahula's friend, > perhaps just listening and showing support and compassion is often the > kindest assistance. > > I feel fortunate in this instance that I was able to express some of my > thoughts and feelings. It's not always possible and one isn't always given > the warning. > > I'm also reminded of how these last hours or days come so much sooner than > we think. All our possessions, our home, our family members, our cares and > concerns get left behind. May it be a reminder to us all to really see the > urgency in developing awareness and all wholesome states while we have the > chance. Who knows when we too will be having our last conversations? > > With metta, > > Sarah > ===== 20246 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 8:44pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Rob M, You wrote: ------------- > When we only have visible object, the javana cittas create very weak kamma. We may be attracted to the sense of sight (photon gratification principle), but nothing too weighty. In fact, lobha doesn't become weighty (full course) until we want something for our own. Kammic seeds are created with every citta-process, but they are quite weak until we get past the naming stage and we are well into working with concepts at that point. > ------------ This is an important area that I'd like to understand better. The above explanation gives the impression that a single visible object is quite meaningless -- an insignificant dot. Other explanations put it very differently; they remind us that our entire world is bound up in this one present moment of, e.g., seeing consciousness. In this way, a single visible object might be regarded as our entire external world. On the subject of natural law, you wrote: -------------- > To me that natural law is that positive or negative feeling must be attached to a concept, which is subjective. > --------------- Here again, I am interested in the relative importance of concept and reality in daily life. Does the cognition of paramatta dhammas play a minor role compared to the cognition of illusory, conceptual realities? You give some good examples of how it does. I was reading about sannavipallasa in the useful posts file; it seems to be an example of important activity, purely at the level of paramattha dhammas. Message 14142, from Larry, quotes the guide to CMA par. 17 ch. IV: "The Sammohavinodani, the commentary to the Vibhanga, contends that when a person considers a desirable object to be undesirable, or an undesirable object to be desirable, he does so due to a perversion of perception (sannavipallasa). The object itself, however, remains inherently desirable or undesirable independently of the person's personal preferences." For me, this brings vague memories of a sutta which employed the simile of a swarm of gad flies. They were racing towards a heap of manure shouting, "This we shall eat! This we shall eat!" At first reading, I thought, 'that's perfectly understandable; for a fly, manure is wholesome.' But maybe I was wrong; possibly the sutta was saying that, figuratively speaking, it was the flies' perversion of perception that made them mistake the undesirable for the desirable. What are your thoughts on this? ------------------ > Hope that this helps and I hope to join one of your future discussions in person. > ------------------ Thanks Rob, it does help, even though I have only mentioned the bits I disagree with. It will be excellent if we can welcome you to Cooran one day. (There'd be a lot of swatting-up for that meeting :-) Kind regards, Ken H 20247 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 9:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine Dear James, At first sight, I can understand that you find this hypocritical. But when considering more texts it becomes clearer. Isn't that often the case? What Sarah says I find very clear. I like these examples of the Vibhanga. (Second Book of abhidhamma), they are rather crude reminders. Like a shake up. It does not have to complicate matters, I like what Kom says. I am happy you brought this up. It is possible that someone really has learnt more languages than others, and he/she can have conceit about this. How deeply rooted conceit is. And as Mike writes: I assure you that I have countless unguarded moments. You may find all those classifications and enumerations of the abhidhamma complicated, but when we go into it, or even partly, it occurs to us: O, I had not thought of that. Not everybody has to study all of the details of the abhidhamma. Nina. op 13-03-2003 00:06 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > >>> We read in the Dhammasangaùi (§1116): >>>> What is the Fetter of conceit? >>>> Conceit at the thought "I am the better man"; 20248 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 9:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: sila, samadhi, panna. Daer Lars, op 13-03-2003 15:19 schreef Lars op khandha5@g...: ...Through vipassanaa, or in other woords satipa.t.thaana. >> Guarding the sense-doors. No need to first develop siila or samatha. > This is interesting. Can you tell me how you get to this conclusion, > since it seems to contradict about everything I know about the > Buddhas teaching. E.g. (D.16): It is an important question. People think when reading texts, including the Visuddhimagga, that there is a rule: first sila, then samadhi, then panna. But here it is a method of teaching, desana naya. Buddhaghosa made the tripartition to teach in a systematic way. But when we look carefully, we see: under sila are many degrees of sila, there is also the hihest sila, the eradication of defilements by magga-citta. When we see sutta texts we have to carefully consider under what heading they teach: when it is the eightfold Path, there are sila and samadhi and panna altogether. Or it may be lokuttara magga. When we consider sila: if there is awareness of a dhamma appearing through one of the six doorways, there is already sila, no lobha, dosa or moha. Through panna sila becomes fulfilled. When there is understanding of a dhamma, there is also kusala samadhi with the kusala citta, there is a degree of calm. It is all very detailed and subtle, and we have to look very carefully at the texts from all angles. We read about adhi- sila, adhi-citta, adhi-panna: higher sila, citta (concentration) and panna. These arise together when there is mindfulness and understanding of a reality. But there is no adhi, higher, if it is not accompanied by vipassana panna. We read about sila visuddhi, but there is no visuddhi without vipassana panna. The conditions for the arising of right mindfulness and right understanding are: listening to the dhamma and considering it in one's own life. It is not so that we first have to keep the precepts perfectly, and anyway, only the sotapanna can. No rule that everybody should develop concentration. People who have accumulations for jhana can develop it and then they can have jhana as base for vipassana, being aware also of jhanacitta. But, there is no rule that we should do certain things before we can begin to be aware of dhammas appearing in our life at this moment. We have to check: did the Buddha set any rule about the development of right understanding? Any time is the time for the development of right understanding, we should not delay this. I am glad you brought up this important point, and a great deal more could be said about it. I found the Pali commentary to the text you quoted, and I will bring this up later on. Ich brauche ein wenig mehr Zeit dieses zu studieren. Nina. 20249 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 9:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] M 1: 120, 18-19, about different ways of eliminating unwholesome thoughts Dear Nina & All, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah > Thank you for B.B. notes and additions. As I see it, sa.n.thhaana is > not: > stopping. Some people translate it with calming. I see it differently: > Co: As to the analysis of sa.nkhaara: he should consider his > "sa.n.thaana > sa"nkhaara", that is, whatever reality (sabhaava, nature) conditions > that > cause (hetu), that reality is sa"nkhaara. ..... Of course, I agree with your comments as I understand them. PTS dict (Stede/Rhys Davids) gives these meanings for sa.n.thaana, inc, this passage in MNi-120: configuration, position, composition, nature, shape, form. Shape seems the most common meaning in other contexts and yesterday when I was considering more about mana (conceit) on account of various attributes, I came across a good example that neatly combines sa.n.thaana and mado (vanity). I also find it helpful to consider conceit as an intoxicant, so I’ll give the definition of mado first: Sammohavinodani 17,2317: “mado (vanity) is an intoxicant (madanaka); majjana (intoxication) is a mode of intoxication (majjanaakaara); majjitatta.m (intoxicatedness) is the intoxicated state (majjitabhaava).” (You just explained in another post (to Lars) about intoxicants: "the asavas (intoxicants) are like liquor which has fermented for a long time, the Atthasalini explains" - so apt.) now from the above text,2326: “The conceit that arises as intoxication thus: ‘The bodies of the rest of beings are unshapely, misshapen, but mine is agreeable and pleasing’ is called “vanity of shape” (sa.n.thaanamada)......” > It is explained that this is the condition (paccaya), kaarana, cause of > action, root (muula). > As to the analysis of sa.n.thaana: where it is well established , where > it > is located. The sa.n.thaana of vitakka sa"nkhaara is called "vitakka > sa.nkhaara sa.n.thaana". The bhikkhu should consider that vitakka > sa.nkhaara. The Buddha explained that the bhikkhu should consider what > is > the cause and what is not the cause of his thoughts: what is the cause, > the > condition of this thought, for which reason does it arise.> ..... Where it is well-established, located or how it is ‘configured’ (first meaning given??) ..... > Thus, he is aware of his evil thoughts and realizes their conditions, > but > not by thinking. He does not try to stop them, but naturally, he sees > them > as only, only conditioned namas. ..... I’m thinking of Rahula’s friend. Who can stop the thinking and dwelling on different subjects? Most helpful of all is to understand the thinking as conditioned namas, regardless of the concepts. They are ‘formed up’ just as they are and understanding the conditioned nature, no self involved and knowing what is wholesome and unwholesome will be the way that more wholesome states develop in future, rather than by any trying or wishing. ..... >We should remember that the second > stage of > tender insight is realizing nama and rupa as conditioned realities, not > by > thinking. The effect is that they are eliminated, but not by a self who > tries. > If we do not understand satipatthana we shall not know what is in this > text, ..... To put it another way, while we cling to an idea of self, it will appear that phenomena can be controlled or stopped at will, but with more understanding of namas and rupas, the conditioned nature of these phenomena will also become more apparent. By considering the details more carefully, as Kom said, it can be a condition to see the danger of the more subtle kilesa (defilements) also, so that gradually they can be ‘overcome’. One moment mana, one moment ditthi taking a self or being to exist, following each other in succession. I've been appreciating Jon's example of metta and patience but one moment there's appreciation and joy in the kusala, the next moment, (not even in words) an idea of 'he has more metta or patience than I do.' The self-importance and waving of the banner comes in so quickly and then more appreciation or perhaps the wrong idea of Jon as being a kind person. The sotapanna will have the flashes or perhaps even trains of thought comparing, but no idea of it actually being a person who is kind. Kindness is just a conditioned reality just as conceit is - just for a moment and then gone. ..... > is that not the case, time and again? > I want to go in more into this important text. ..... Thanks, Nina. I've rambled into a few other topics, but I know you won't mind;-) Metta, Sarah ========= 20250 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... Dear Sukin, Sumane, Shakti and Nina, Thank you all for your kind wishes and helpful reflections too. As you all remind us, this is part of daily life. I’ll make sure Jon sees your messages too. A little more ramble, which I know you’ll understand - When I last wrote we decided we’d get Jon on the Wednesday nite flight to Adelaide (changing in Melbourne) - the earliest he could get permission at work and so on. On Wednesday morning we were told that there had been a serious deterioration overnight in her condition and that she could ‘go’ at any minute. The doctor was there holding her hand and one of Jon’s brothers had been there most the night. I suggested to Jon he’d better just speak to her briefly and send his love and so on to help put her mind at rest. He agreed, but when he got spoke, by conditions, he told her that she wasn’t to go anywhere yet, that he was on his way that nite (this was the first she knew of it) and to wait for him!!! We dreaded getting a call before he set off, but wait, she did! She now has all her sons at her bedside, is very happy and peaceful as she slips in and out of consciousness, a little confused but mostly lucid in her thoughts and awareness of those around. So we’re really feeling very fortunate that it’s all working out so well. ..... --- Sukinderpal Singh Narula wrote: > Thankyou Sarah for this post. It is both inspiring and contains good > reminders. Most of us have to face such a situation in our lives, for > some, many times. The last time I faced such a situation it was > almost with total ignorance, the next time I am certain it would not > be so. .... ....Or we may be a little wiser, but still not have these opportunities. ..... > I really would like my own parents to study the Buddha's teachings > and I have tried. And I would like to think that it is all in vain > since they have not been very responsive. However I think the truth > is that they do gain some inspiration just by seeing my own saddha > and how the Teachings have affected me. ..... I think so. Sometimes it’s the example that has most effect. I think we also have to present the best opportunities but then be detached about the outcome. I remember when K. Sujin stayed in my family home in England and I arranged discussions. Some people travelled long distances to attend, but my parents were very polite and helpful but made sure they were otherwise occupied at discussion time! I just felt happy that I’d given them this chance and I was able to chat to them a little more afterwards. Jon’s parents also went on a short trip with K.Sujin and friends in Bangkok and at least have greatly appreciated Jon’s encouragement and example of wholesome states according to their own understanding. ..... >In this way I think Jon must > have had a positive influence on his mother in the past, and being > with her now must be the best thing a son can do for a parent. ..... I think so too. Thank you also for telling us about your friend - your quick generosity is always inspiring, Sukin. Sometimes we may feel lazy to make the effort, but your prompt energy in this regard is a great example. (oops, some mana and comparing creeping in so quickly, “Sukin is more generous....”, thanks to the reminders;-)) ..... > I can't know what her last thought were, and we can't know what Jon's > mother's last thought will be, but we do our best. .... That’s it...we just do our best and as Nina always reminds us, no need even at these times to feel stressed about it or to cling to the outcome. ..... > Courage and good cheer. May this often used reminder of Azita work in > this situation as it should in any other. .... Thanks, this is just how we’re feeling at this time.....very fortunate indeed and definitely smiling. Metta, Sarah p.s I appreciate the trouble you went to re-writing your message....I’m familiar with the patience this involves;-) ===== 20251 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: avijjaasava Hi Lars, Just a quick welcome to DSG. I hope you find some of the discussions useful/interesting and I greatly look forward to more of your well-informed comments as in your post below. I know Nina has already replied and there will be a lot of interest in this theme and encouragement from the side-lines for you to pursue it. There will be some past posts saved on the same topic at this link, but like Larry's brain, mine has suddenly gone blank (for just this moment, hopefully;-)) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Best wishes, Metta, Sarah p.s if you are inclined to add any more comments anytime about yourself or your interest in Buddhism, of course we'd all be glad to hear. ====== --- Lars wrote: . > This is interesting. Can you tell me how you get to this conclusion, > since it seems to contradict about everything I know about the > Buddhas teaching. E.g. (D.16): > > "iti siila"m, iti samaadhi, iti pa~n~naa. 20252 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 11:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > Thank you for this explanation. Now I see that this further > categorization of conceit of the Abhidhamma doesn't necessarily > contradict the suttas. However, frankly, I don't see the benefit of > it and it appears to be complicating an issue that doesn't need to be > complicated. When a person believes himself/herself superior, > inferior, or equal to anyone else, of course they are going to base > that comparison on either actual differences or perceived > differences; I don't see what difference it makes which they base it > on. Actually, I would even go as far as to say that these nine > categories are somewhat false because they assume that people can > accurately and honestly *know* where they are superior, inferior, or > equal to anyone else. ..... These are good points and I liked your example of Napoleon to show that even my example of heights is not quite so simple;-) I think this is just the point as you say, really it doesn’t matter what the actual differences are - whether one really is taller/shorter, older/younger, more knowledgable/less, more or less generous and so on. Conceit can arise regadless in any of the 9 ways for us.... ..... > I > don't think it is what is *actual* that is all that important, but > what is *perceived* that is the deciding factor…and this is what I > believe the Buddha taught in the suttas. ..... I agree.....like Kom says, it just depends on whether what we read gives any helpful reminders at the time or not. I’m very glad you picked up this point because it’s been a condition for some useful consideration for us all, I think. ..... > > Thank you for your well wishes and kind words. Star Kid Philip > sounds like a real handful! ;-) (He sounds more and more like me all > the time…:-). .... Hmmm...he certainly enjoys ‘talking’ to you. Ok, I’ll tell you a little more about him. (Anyone else may wish to ignore this veering off-topic part of the post). Philip came late to class on Tuesday and the other kids were complaining about how quiet it was without him (I thought it was nice and peaceful!). Then he arrived like an erupting volcano as usual and the next thing was that all the other kids were complaining to me about how annoying he was and couldn’t I control him better...... Other kids read the letters carefully, write drafts for their letters in slow motion, take them home and sometimes send a final version for posting, but often lose the draft in the meantime. Starkid Philip took a quick glance at your reply to his ‘test’ questions, put it aside, marched into my computer room and belted out his last letter in less than 5 mins, complaining as he did so about how my computer is too slow and out-of-date. We had to have a little ‘negotiation’ to remove an extra question referring to how come Jimbo (you) says Buddhism is a religion and Silly Old Mrs Abbott says it is a philosophy (of life). That was the best deal I could get from this 12 year old boy;-) This year is fine and mostly we get on pretty well. Last year there were two ‘Philips’ in the class and that was too much of a handful for me, even though I’ve been working with teenagers referred by schools at their wits’ end for a very long (maybe too long) time.... Metta, Sarah ====== 20253 From: Star Kid Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 11:15pm Subject: Euthanasia Hi, James I am Ki Yong. I am glad that you are not mad at me. Now I am not sad anymore about the subway accident, but I still hate the man who caused it. I just can't forgive him. Our English teacher told me that you may write a book! I am so proud because many people will get to know Asians more and they will read the poem. This time for my English lesson, I wrote about Euthanasia. I wrote the essay 'for' and 'against' the topic. I think Euthanasia should be legal because I don't want to see people dying painfully. I learned that Euthanasia was illegal in US, and I read about a man called Jack Kevorkian. I heard that he ended a lot of people's lives. He is also known as Dr.Death. He was against the laws of US. I think you heard of him. Is Euthanasia legal in US now? What do you think about Euthanasia? Do you think Dr.Death is doing the right thing? Do you think Euthanasia should be legal or illegal? Are the Buddhists against Euthanasia? If so, why do they think mercy killing is wrong? No more questions. Thank you for reading my letter. Bye. From Ki Yong 20254 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 11:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Rob M, I know you already have many posts waiting for you. Let me add one more, with a few more questions as they relate back to our discussions on freewill;-): I have quite a few questions about this passage you quote and I assume agree with: --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Howard, > These habits are the results of javana cittas. Here is a paragraph > summarized from Bikhu Bodhi's "Questions on Kamma": > > http://www.buddhistinformation.com/questions_on_kamma.htm > > When a willed action is performed it leaves a track in the mind, an > imprint which can mark the beginning of a new mental tendency. It > has a tendency to repeat itself and reproduce itself. As these > actions multiply, they form our character. Our personality is a sum > of all our willed actions, a cross-section of all our accumulated > kamma. By yielding first in simple ways to the unwholesome impulses > of the mind, we slowly build up a greedy character, an aggressive > character or a deluded character. By resisting these unwholesome > desires, we replace them with their opposites, the wholesome > qualities. We develop a generous character, a loving and a > compassionate personality, or we can become wise and enlightened > beings. As we change our habits gradually, we change our character, > and as we change our character we change our total being. That is > why the Buddha emphasizes the need to be mindful of every action, of > every choice. Every choice has a tremendous potential for the future. ..... Qus: 1. Is a ‘willed action’ referring to conascent kamma condition (cetana which arises with every citta, directing or coordinating other mental factors) or asynchronous kamma condition (cetana which is kusala or akusala an which can produce results)? 2. Accepting that the passage is using conventional language, does it not give the impression that there is a self or a ‘me’ that can ‘yield’ or ‘resist’ unwholesome desires with some kind of intervention? 3. Can ‘we’ change anything? Can anything change anything that is conditioned already? 4. Is there really any choice? I know that B.Bodhi might well say that this is conventional language being used for the general reader and not for those who like abhidhamma details. However, isn’t it more important, not less, to be accurate when writing for the general reader. I’d be glad to hear your comments. I forget if this is the same article that Chris and others discussed at Cooran. If so, I’d be glad to hear any comments from the Cooranites as well;-) Metta, Sarah p.s Ken H, glad to hear your comments and reflections from the weekend of course. Hope you can prompt the others as well;-) ==================================== 20255 From: robmoult Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 0:58am Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Rob K, Sorry for the delay. I have been in Mumbai for the past few days and wasn't close to a network connection. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear RobM, > Could you clarify this. Do you mean that at the moment of seeing the > feeling is neutral but that the actual seeing consciousness is either > the result of kusala or akusala kamma. Thus the objects are either > pleasant or unpleasant? I agree 100% with your sentence, "Do you mean that... kamma." The moment of seeing (cakkhu-vinnana citta) is always accompanied by neutral feeling. There are two types of cakkhu-vinnana citta; the only difference between them is that one is the result of a past akusala javana citta and the other is the result of a past kusala javana citta. The two types of cakkhu-vinnana citta are both rootless; this means that they are not inherently "good" or "bad". I do not understand your sentence, "Thus the objects... unpleasant?" A visible object presents itself. The cakkhu-vinnana citta is accompanied by neutral feeling. For the sake of argument, let us imagine that this visible object is the kammic result of a past akusala javana citta. At the determining citta, conditioned by accumulations, a set of javana cittas arise. If (because of acumulations) we dislike the object, then dosa-mula javana cittas arise accompanied by unpleasant feeling. If (because of acumulations) we like the object, lobha-mula javana cittas arise accompanied by either pleasant or neutral feeling. If (because of acumulations) we ignore the object, moha-mula javana cittas arise accompanied by neutral feeling. If (because of acumulations) we see the object as it truly is, with wise attention, kusala javana cittas arise accompanied by either pleasant or neutral feeling. If, for the sake of argument, we imagine that the visible object is the kammic result of of a past kusala citta, then all of the above still holds. In other words, the nature of the original javana citta that conditions the vipaka does not correlate with the nature of the javana citta that arises, conditioned by the vipaka. Does this make sense to you? Metta, Rob M :-) 20256 From: Sarah Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 1:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... Dear Friends, Jon just called to say his mother passed away a little time ago. He had been at her side, holding her hand for the last few hours, stroking her and gently talking to her. His brothers and the Priest were also at her side at the end. Apparently it was a very special occasion. I can't say more as I have students. Jon will add his own comments in due course, I'm sure. Metta, Sarah ====== 20257 From: robmoult Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 1:18am Subject: [dsg] Re: Visible object in the mind-door process. Hi Nina, I think (and hope) that we are saying the same thing (perhaps my phrasing and use of the word, "concept" was not clear). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob M, > op 12-03-2003 09:32 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > > > The very first mind door citta process after the sense-door citta > > process "copies" the sense door object into a concept and from that > > point on, the mind door citta processes build and build the concept. > N: I do not think so. It is not a concept but visible object that has just > fallen away. Later on, we do not count, there can be concepts as objects. My understanding is that the object of a sense-door citta process is a rupa (i.e. visible object). This rupa lasts only for the duration of 17 cittas. The first mind door citta process after the rupa has fallen away has, as its object a mental image (a copy) of the rupa that has just fallen away. Subsequent mind-door citta processes build upon this mental image. I have called this mental image (the copy of the rupa) a "concept" as it is the object of a mind-door citta process. What we normally think of as a "concept" is something much bigger and more complex than this simple "mental image" of a rupa, but I see concepts of varying complexity. The simplest, most elemental concept is this "mental image", which forms the basis of larger, more complex concepts which are built by later mind-door citta processes. Nina, is my understanding correct? Metta, Rob M :-) Thanks for the Atth quotes. My understanding came after reading Khun Sujin's "Reality and Concepts", and it is good to know the original source. 20258 From: robmoult Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 2:12am Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Rob M, > ------------ > This is an important area that I'd like to understand > better. The above explanation gives the impression that > a single visible object is quite meaningless -- an > insignificant dot. Other explanations put it very > differently; they remind us that our entire world is > bound up in this one present moment of, e.g., seeing > consciousness. In this way, a single visible object > might be regarded as our entire external world. ===== Visual "reality" is a single dot. You call that dot "meaningless" and "insignificant"; if by this you mean "devoid of meaning and significance originating from our own accumulations", then you are 100% correct. Seeing things as they truly are means being able to separate the objective "reality" from the subjective "meaning and significance". I agree that our entire world is bound up in the present moment; it is only in the present moment that reality exists. I am not sure of the conflict with the fact that visual reality is a single dot. Sorry for "twisting your own words around"; does it clarify anything? ===== > > On the subject of natural law, you wrote: > -------------- > > To me that natural law is that positive or negative > feeling must be attached to a concept, which is > subjective. > > --------------- > > Here again, I am interested in the relative importance of > concept and reality in daily life. Does the cognition of > paramatta dhammas play a minor role compared to the > cognition of illusory, conceptual realities? You give some good > examples of how it does. ===== I highly recommend Khun Sujin's "Reality and Concepts - The Buddha's Explanation of the World". http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm This book has excellent explanations to the questions you are asking (and probably some that you haven't thought of asking yet). What do you mean by "minor role"? The number and kammic impact of sense-door citta processes is far smaller than the number and kammic impact of mind door citta processes. Does this mean that sense-door citta processes (taking paramattha dhammas as object) take a "minor role" when compared with mind-door citta processes (taking concepts as object)? Does a seed play a "minor role" in the creation of a tree, even though the seed is very small when compared with the tree? ===== > > I was reading about sannavipallasa in the useful posts > file; it seems to be an example of important activity, purely > at the level of paramattha dhammas. Message 14142, from > Larry, quotes the guide to CMA par. 17 ch. IV: > > "The Sammohavinodani, the commentary to the Vibhanga, > contends that when a person considers a desirable object > to be undesirable, or an undesirable object to be > desirable, he does so due to a perversion of perception > (sannavipallasa). The object itself, however, > remains inherently desirable or undesirable independently > of the person's personal preferences." ===== Thanks for raising this. I am going to study further and get back to you. ===== > > For me, this brings vague memories of a sutta which employed > the simile of a swarm of gad flies. They were racing > towards a heap of manure shouting, "This we shall eat! > This we shall eat!" At first reading, I thought, 'that's > perfectly understandable; for a fly, manure is > wholesome.' But maybe I was wrong; possibly the sutta was > saying that, figuratively speaking, it was the flies' > perversion of perception that made them mistake the > undesirable for the desirable. > > What are your thoughts on this? I tend to agree with your second analysis. I think of perversion of perception being like a deer mistaking a scarecrow to be a man; this is because sanna is inherently superficial. Metta, Rob M :-) 20259 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 2:14am Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" > wrote: > > Dear RobM, > > Could you clarify this. Do you mean that at the moment of seeing > the > > feeling is neutral but that the actual seeing consciousness is > either > > the result of kusala or akusala kamma. Thus the objects are either > > pleasant or unpleasant? > ____________________________________________________ > RobMI agree 100% with your sentence, "Do you mean that... kamma." > > The moment of seeing (cakkhu-vinnana citta) is always accompanied by > neutral feeling. There are two types of cakkhu-vinnana citta; the > only difference between them is that one is the result of a past > akusala javana citta and the other is the result of a past kusala > javana citta. The two types of cakkhu-vinnana citta are both > rootless; this means that they are not inherently "good" or "bad". _______________ Yes they are the jati of vipaka > > _________________________________ > RobM:I do not understand your sentence, "Thus the objects are either pleasant or unpleasant?" ______________________ Take the case of seeing the Buddha. . Vedana accompanying all cakkhu-vinanna is always neutral. However,at the actual moment of seeing (before the javana)this visible object is inherently pleasant (or good, agreeable ). Of course following javana processes- which are of an entirely different jati- may be with aversion( in the case of those who dislike the Buddha) or with lobha (attachment) or they could be kusala. RobertK > > A visible object presents itself. The cakkhu-vinnana citta is > accompanied by neutral feeling. For the sake of argument, let us > imagine that this visible object is the kammic result of a past > akusala javana citta. At the determining citta, conditioned by > accumulations, a set of javana cittas arise. If (because of > acumulations) we dislike the object, then dosa-mula javana cittas > arise accompanied by unpleasant feeling. If (because of > acumulations) we like the object, lobha-mula javana cittas arise > accompanied by either pleasant or neutral feeling. If (because of > acumulations) we ignore the object, moha-mula javana cittas arise > accompanied by neutral feeling. If (because of acumulations) we see > the object as it truly is, with wise attention, kusala javana cittas > arise accompanied by either pleasant or neutral feeling. > > If, for the sake of argument, we imagine that the visible object is > the kammic result of of a past kusala citta, then all of the above > still holds. > > In other words, the nature of the original javana citta that > conditions the vipaka does not correlate with the nature of the > javana citta that arises, conditioned by the vipaka. > > Does this make sense to you? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 20260 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 2:21am Subject: Candlelight Vigil for Peace Dear Group, You are welcome to join the Global Candlelight Vigil for Peace: Sunday, March 16 -- 7:00 PM Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Reverend Robert Edgar, and other religious leaders call for candlelight vigils around the world on march 16th to say yes to peace -- and no to war with Iraq. So far, 2874 vigils have been scheduled in 103 countries. http://www.moveon.org/vigil/ [For any interested Aussies - you have approx. 185 Silent Vigils to choose from. (Remember to buy candles - I hear paper plates with a hole in the centre make good protectors against hot candle wax on the hands.)] metta, Christine 20261 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 2:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... Dear Friends First of all, my thanks and appreciation to everyone who has posted on this thread, for your encouragement and support, and my apologies for not having been able to respond to you individually. I hope you will excuse me in this instance. As Sarah has mentioned, my mother passed away earlier this evening. Happily, I was able to be at her side, together with my 2 brothers, for the few hours leading up to her passing away. Although it was a little distressing to see her labouring physically (trouble with breathing, etc), we were comforted by the knowledge that she was at peace with herself and the world and that there was no apparent mental anguish about the prospect of leaving this life. My mother had the good fortune to be accepting about the inevitability of death, and I think this made it easier for her to approach the recent rapid deterioration in her condition with equanimity. I am grateful to Sarah for her support for my making this second trip to Australia so soon after the last one. I will be staying on here for the funeral next week, and I hope to have some time over the next few days to catch up with posts again. Jon --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Friends, > > Jon just called to say his mother passed away a little time ago. He > had > been at her side, holding her hand for the last few hours, stroking > her > and gently talking to her. His brothers and the Priest were also at > her > side at the end. Apparently it was a very special occasion. > > I can't say more as I have students. Jon will add his own comments > in due > course, I'm sure. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== 20262 From: azita gill Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 2:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Friends, > > Jon just called to say his mother passed away a > little time ago. He had > been at her side, holding her hand for the last few > hours, stroking her > and gently talking to her. His brothers and the > Priest were also at her > side at the end. Apparently it was a very special > occasion. ...... > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== > > dear Sarah, when I read this, I stared at the screen for several moments with rather watery eyes, but also with the thought that this event is sooooo inevitable for all of us, an event that no-one escapes, and that we never know when that event will arise and fall away. Cuti citta followed by Patisandhicitta - already for Jon's mum there is rebirth consciousness. I think about life and death quite a lot bec. of my work. Sometimes when I see a newborn baby, I think about death and that a condition for death is birth. Endings can sometimes be very sad occasions, and part of those tears in my eyes was for an ending of my own. Our family home has finally been cleaned out and sold - the house where my daughters grew up - that my ex partner and I build and .... well, I'm sure you all relate to endings and that you all know how inevitabe they are. It's how we deal with those events that is the important issue, I believe. Is there kusala or akusala citta at this moment? IN the end that's all that matters, in the end it is only the good or the evil that I've done that I will inherit. I shall quote Howard's 'logo' 'this is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: a star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightening in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom and a dream' Patience to not run away from this moment, Courage to stay here and good cheer to make life a little easier. Azita 20263 From: azita gill Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong view/Ditthi vs. Conceit/Mana (was, Dukkha as Medicine?) --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Azita (& Jon), > > --- azita gill wrote: > > > BTW, I have just a this moment, read in 'A > Manual > > of Abhidhamma' by Narada '.......where there is > > Ditthi there is no Mana. Commentaries compare them > to > > two fearless lions that cannot live in one den' > ..... > I don't remember seeing this reference to the > fearless lions - do you know > where it is? > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= > dear Sarah, as mentioned, this came from Narada's 'A Manual of Abhidhamma', it is in footnote form at the bottom of p124, and gives no other detail about which commentary. Sorry, can't give any more details. thanks for the message no. It is much clearer now to me why Mana and Ditthi do not arise together. cheers, Azita > 20264 From: Lars Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 3:40am Subject: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: sila, samadhi, panna. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > The conditions for the arising of right mindfulness and right > understanding are: listening to the dhamma and considering it in > one's own life. O.K. I think our views are not so far appart after all :-) > It is not so that we first have to keep the precepts perfectly, > and anyway, only the sotapanna can. And there seem to be indications that even a sotapanna can transgress some precepts. (S 55.24) > We have to check: did the Buddha set any rule about the > development of right understanding? Any time is the time for the > development of right understanding, we should not delay this. In fact right view is the first factor of the path, and according to M 117 all other factors are based on it. However in the very same sutta it is also stated that the right view that is a factor of the path is a right view that is ariyacittassa. So to say that having right view, to have entered the path, already means to have attained at least to sotapanna stage. (Correct me if I misunderstand this.) And the conditions for the arising of right view are as you said: another ones utterance and yoniso manasikara. So no mention of sila here. But then when the Buddha used the gradual teaching to lead people the the understanding of the four noble truths (which is right view - S. 45.8) he would very well speak of sila first. And also in the course of practice for monks (e.g. M 125) the Buddha would first let the monk perfect sila before he would teach him sense restraint, let alone satipatthana. So even if it may not be essential for the arising of right view, it is certainly a supporting condition. Then as M 43 points out after the arising of right view five things are needed to arrive at the liberation of mind: sila, hearing (the dhamma), discussing it, samatha and vipassana. (This also about samatha not being necessairy.) > I am glad you brought up this important point, and a great deal > more could be said about it. I hope we will have some more insightfull discussion about this. Lars 20265 From: Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 6:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... Dear Jon (and Sarah) - Jon, may the loss of your mother's presence be eased by the recollection of your love for each other and the good "fortune" of your being able to be with her at the time of her passing. It is wonderful that your mother wasn't fearful of death and that she was in a state of relative calm and peace with things. I'm sure that your being with her was an important factor in that. A number of years back I was with my mother at the time of her passing. Near the end, she was comatose or semicomatose, and I can't be certain that she was aware of my bedside presence and my talking to her, but still I held her hand, I told her that my wife and I, and our sons, and others that she loved were all well and would continue to be, and I assured her that all would be well for her, and that things would be "getting better". Maybe she heard me, maybe not. I do put great stock in the importance of a calm, peaceful mind at the time of death, and I think that the loving presence of you and your brothers with your mom at this time was surely a great help to her. May you be well. With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/14/2003 9:23:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Dear Friends > > First of all, my thanks and appreciation to everyone who has posted > on this thread, for your encouragement and support, and my apologies > for not having been able to respond to you individually. I hope you > will excuse me in this instance. > > As Sarah has mentioned, my mother passed away earlier this evening. > Happily, I was able to be at her side, together with my 2 brothers, > for the few hours leading up to her passing away. Although it was a > little distressing to see her labouring physically (trouble with > breathing, etc), we were comforted by the knowledge that she was at > peace with herself and the world and that there was no apparent > mental anguish about the prospect of leaving this life. > > My mother had the good fortune to be accepting about the > inevitability of death, and I think this made it easier for her to > approach the recent rapid deterioration in her condition with > equanimity. > > I am grateful to Sarah for her support for my making this second trip > to Australia so soon after the last one. > > I will be staying on here for the funeral next week, and I hope to > have some time over the next few days to catch up with posts again. > > Jon 20266 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 10:26am Subject: FW: [Pali] Re: aasava ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:22:46 +0100 Aan: Onderwerp: Re: [Pali] Re: aasava Dear Lars op 13-03-2003 15:01 schreef Lars op khandha5@g...: > But what rendering would follow from those texts? Inflow or Outflow? > The descriptions of the aasavas flowing into the faculties is quite > good, but I shall discuss that on the other list. N: I just followed the tr of the Atthasalini 48: they flow or arise from the senses and the mind. The aa is explained: keeping within, like madira wines, a long fermentation. Savanti: they flow. Dhammasanga.ni: a long footnote: flowing in, upon, over. They flow onto, circulate about the senses and the mind. Now, these are similes to explain realities. It does not matter whether we see it as in- or outflow. An image is an image, nothing more or less than that. What is important: to see that there are aasavas now, in daily life. They are so persistent, keep on trickling, are like intoxicants. They are dangerous. The same akusala dhammas are also classified as oghas, floods (keep us submerged in the cycle), and yoghas, yokes. This in order to show us different aspects. but they are very real. Buddhist Dictionary, Ven. Nyanatiloka: aasava: lit. influxes. The Commentary to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, the Abhidhammattha Vibhaavinii (A recent Tr. as Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma and Exposition of the Topics of Abhidhamma, PTS) gives: "They are the taints (aasavas) in the sense of standing [fermenting] (paarivaasiya) for so long that the beginning cannot be known, or because, like pus flowing from a wound, they flow (visandana) from the eye, etc. towards the objects (of consciousness). Alternatively, they are taints in that they flow (savati)-they ocur- up to (aa) the summit of existence as far as existence is concerned, and up to the point of change-of-lineage (gotrabhuu) as far as dhamma is concerned. Here the prefix aa has the sense of limit, and a limit is twofold as exclusive and inclusive." Here we have to remember that they occur up to the highest plane of existence. And also that they are eradicated with enlightenment (occurring after gotrabhuu), but only all of them are eradicated at the stage of arahatship. Again, I do not fall over different translations. We also have to remember that the aim of the commentators was not linguistics or etymology, but they used word associations in order to explain about dhammas, realities. Nina. 20267 From: robmoult Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 4:48pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Robert K, Ken H (and others), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Take the case of seeing the Buddha. . > Vedana accompanying all cakkhu-vinanna is always neutral. However,at > the actual moment of seeing (before the javana)this visible object is > inherently pleasant (or good, agreeable ). > Of course following javana processes- which are of an entirely > different jati- may be with aversion( in the case of those who > dislike the Buddha) or with lobha (attachment) or they could be > kusala. I know that CMA (IV, 17) clearly states that sense objects are intrinsicly undesirable, moderately desirable or extremely desirable. I have a hard time understanding or accepting this. The computer that I am typing on; is it "intrinsicly" good because it can be used for sharing dhamma or "intrinsicly" bad because it can be used for sharing pornography? Bhikkhu Bodhi writes, "The Sammohavinodani states that the distinction between the intrinsically desirable and undesirable obtains by way of the average being (majjhima-satta): 'It is distinguishable according to what is found desirable at one time and undesirable at another time by average (men such as) accountants, government officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants.' " In these post-Enron days, I have a problem accepting "accountants, government officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants" as the determining factor for moral qualities. Robert K (and others), please help me. I am stuck; - I don't want to say that the Abhidhamma is WRONG; it was written by people much smarter than I am - I can't understand how this "intrinsic quality of sense objects" can be true Ken H brought up the same issue in a recent post, and I said that I would revert to him. Metta, Rob M :-) 20268 From: robmoult Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 5:45pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > > These habits are the results of javana cittas. Here is a paragraph > > summarized from Bikhu Bodhi's "Questions on Kamma": > > > > http://www.buddhistinformation.com/questions_on_kamma.htm > > > > When a willed action is performed it leaves a track in the mind, an > > imprint which can mark the beginning of a new mental tendency. It > > has a tendency to repeat itself and reproduce itself. As these > > actions multiply, they form our character. Our personality is a sum > > of all our willed actions, a cross-section of all our accumulated > > kamma. By yielding first in simple ways to the unwholesome impulses > > of the mind, we slowly build up a greedy character, an aggressive > > character or a deluded character. By resisting these unwholesome > > desires, we replace them with their opposites, the wholesome > > qualities. We develop a generous character, a loving and a > > compassionate personality, or we can become wise and enlightened > > beings. As we change our habits gradually, we change our character, > > and as we change our character we change our total being. That is > > why the Buddha emphasizes the need to be mindful of every action, of > > every choice. Every choice has a tremendous potential for the future. > ..... > Qus: > 1. Is a `willed action' referring to conascent kamma condition (cetana > which arises with every citta, directing or coordinating other mental > factors) or asynchronous kamma condition (cetana which is kusala or > akusala an which can produce results)? ===== Interesting question. My first reaction is that 'willed action' refers to a javana citta. All cittas (including javana cittas), must have conascent kamma condition as one of the conditions to coordinate the citta and cetasikas. My understanding of asynchronous kamma condition is that this is the way in which a result is conditioned. In other words, a vipaka citta arises conditioned by asynchronous kamma condition or a kamma-produced rupa such as the six sense bases is conditioned by asynchronous kamma condition. I don't think that javana cittas are conditoned by asynchronous kamma condition. I think that javana cittas are the conditioning factors for asynchronous kamma condition to arise. ===== > 2. Accepting that the passage is using conventional language, does it not > give the impression that there is a self or a `me' that can `yield' or > `resist' unwholesome desires with some kind of intervention? ===== Yes, this passage does seem to give an impression of an "I" who is in control (so do most of the Suttas). I found a quote (not sure of the Sutta) attributed to the Buddha, "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect One (Tathagata) uses, without misapprehending them." If I tried to teach my Abhidhamma class without once using an "I" concept, it would be so awkward that the class would be completely lost and miss the point of the Dhamma being taught. As "uninstructed worldlings" we still use the "I" concept to communicate and understand the Dhamma. When our understanding has matured, we can go back and say to ourselves, "the Dhamma that I have learned is still valid, but now I can go back and see how it works without an 'I' concept at the centre." Early man personified nature (weather gods, tree spirits, etc.). Imagine trying to explain lightning to a cave man using science (assuming that you could communicate using the same language). Initially, you have have to communicate using terms / concepts that were familiar to him and then you could gradually progress to a higher level of understanding. (also see my comment at the end.) ===== > 3. Can `we' change anything? Can anything change anything that is > conditioned already? ===== It is a natural law (anicca) that things change. Things change because appropriate conditions (noun) arise which condition (verb) this change. From our limited point of view, from our narrow perspective, we cannot see the big picture of how all these conditioning factors arise and interact (only a Buddha can see this). You have the illusion that you had free will to choose to write this message to me. In reality, there was no free-will, no choice involved. Conditions arose which might have included: - An eye-door sense process arose in the mental stream now known as Sarah, which (after many mind door citta processes) built words and concepts (then stored in short term memory) - The concepts from the earlier message conditioned the arising of other (questioning) concepts in the mental stream now known as Sarah - An eye-door sense process arose in the mental stream now known as Sarah, which (after many mind door citta processes) was named as "my computer" - The earlier (question) concept and the current (computer) concept together conditioned, together with accumulations conditioned the arising of the "will to type" cittas. << Is it ever tough to try and communicate concepts without inserting an 'I'!!>> ===== > 4. Is there really any choice? ===== The accumulation of personality belief (sakkaya-ditthi) conditions the arising of the concept of "I chose to type the message". Actually, there was no choice involved; it was the natural unfolding of things that "you" should type that message. If, in an effort to disprove this, you had stopped typing the message half way through, then this stopping of typing was also a natural event. The event that helped this all fit into place for me occured when we were together in Hong Kong. Jon was trying to explain something to me and I was confused. I recognized the mental state of confusion and a "light bulb went on". I thought to myself, "Was there an 'I' who chose to be confused at this moment? No! Confusion arose naturally. Is there an 'I' who chooses to have wrong view? No! Wrong view arises naturally. Is there an 'I' who choses to be restless? No! Restlessness arises naturally." I realized that I had gone through the moha-mula javana cittas and come to the conclusion that it made perfect sense that moha-mula javana cittas arose because of conditions and accumulations, not because of an 'I'. I realized that it could not be any other way. The idea that there was a 'part-time I' that only got involved with lobha-mula and dosa-mula cittas, but did not get involved with moha-mula cittas did not make sense. Lobha- mula and dosa-mula cittas are more "active" than moha-mula cittas, so it not difficult to understand that we all have an accumulation that tries to attribute a "doer" to this action; just as cave-men attributed a doer to lightning. ===== > > I know that B.Bodhi might well say that this is conventional language > being used for the general reader and not for those who like abhidhamma > details. However, isn't it more important, not less, to be accurate when > writing for the general reader. I'd be glad to hear your comments. ===== Another quote (not by the Buddha), "Words are one kind of bridge to one level of understanding. On the Path, when you reach each such level, you leave each bridge behind. But you can't leave your bridge behind until you are beyond it." Metta, Rob M :-) 20269 From: Andrew Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 5:55pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Robert K, Ken H (and others), > > Robert K (and others), please help me. I am stuck; > - I don't want to say that the Abhidhamma is WRONG; it was written > by people much smarter than I am > - I can't understand how this "intrinsic quality of sense objects" > can be true > > Ken H brought up the same issue in a recent post, and I said that I > would revert to him. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Hi Rob M & others Ken H is nagging me to flaunt my ignorance online again so that he doesn't get in trouble from Sarah (joke!). I don't feel that I know enough yet to be of much help, however I will contribute a thought on this topic. I too tend to think of "pleasant" and "unpleasant" as subjective and conceptual rather than intrinsic. My thought is this: could Rob M and I being falling into a language trap here? Rather than thinking of ice cream pleasant and snake bite painful, should we be more thinking of attraction and repulsion along the lines of magnets attracting or repelling according to their poles? I looked up SUBHA-NIMITTA in my Pali dictionary and found a quotation of the Buddha talking about "attractive" objects to be wisely considered lest sense-desire arises. To sum up, are we talking about an intrinsic quality of attractiveness or repulsion that exists even if there is no flowing on to the mind-door and its engaging concepts? Thinking of Jon and Sarah, metta to all Andrew PS we would love to see RobM at Cooran sometime. PPS Smokey Joe hasn't lost any weight! 20270 From: Dan D. Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 7:08pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Robert, you write: "Take the case of seeing the Buddha. . Vedana accompanying all cakkhu- vinanna is always neutral. However,at the actual moment of seeing (before the javana)this visible object is inherently pleasant (or good, agreeable )." I have a couple of questions: 1. What visible object are you referring to here? The Buddha? My understanding is that "visual object" is rupa, but I just can't see how "Buddha" can be construed as a visual object in the paramattha sense. The yellow of his robes is just yellow. The brown of his skin is just brown. Don't you agree? 2. When you say "this visible object is inherently pleasant", I don't understand what you mean. I thought of "pleasant" as a flavor of vedana, not of rupa. I've read somewhere in the commentaries (was it second hand in Narada's "Manual of Abhidhamma"?) that visual object can be inherently "pleasant" or "unpleasant", but how can "pleasant" be an attribute of a rupa. To me BB's rendering of ittha as "desirable" (CMA, p. 42) hits closer to the mark. It is so critical to understand clearly the distinction between rupa and nama, Robert, yet at the same time it is very difficult, so it might useful to split hairs here. Can you see any difference between "pleasant" and "desirable" as applied to visible object? Dan 20271 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 7:39pm Subject: Kom Dear Kom, Thanks for your helpful letter, I have heard of the cycle of the result and cause before, I agree with it, so everytime after I had a quarrel with others, I think we were too silly. Tomorrow I will have my project presentation, it's held by my school every year. Many parents will see our presentation, I hope I could get a good result because I think we put a lot of efford into it. ( And I think it is a good cause!) I am glad that someone is similar to me, and I'm surprised that you are scared when watching scary movies~ After reading your letter, I feel better already, thanks. Lastly, I will have my house basketball competition next week, I already know I will lose because the others are very strong, so I would like to ask, how can I enjoy the matches better even I know I will lose from a Buddhist point of view? Kimmy 20272 From: azita gill Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 8:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran --- "Dan D." wrote: > Robert, you write: > "Take the case of seeing the Buddha. . Vedana > accompanying all cakkhu- > vinanna is always neutral. However,at the actual > moment of seeing > (before the javana)this visible object is inherently > pleasant (or > good, agreeable )." > > I have a couple of questions: > 1. What visible object are you referring to here? > The Buddha? My > understanding is that "visual object" is rupa, but I > just can't see > how "Buddha" can be construed as a visual object in > the paramattha > sense. The yellow of his robes is just yellow. The > brown of his skin > is just brown. Don't you agree? > > 2. When you say "this visible object is inherently > pleasant", I don't > understand what you mean. I thought of "pleasant" as > a flavor of > vedana, not of rupa. > > I've read somewhere in the commentaries (was it > second hand in > Narada's "Manual of Abhidhamma"?) that visual object > can be > inherently "pleasant" or "unpleasant", but how can > "pleasant" be an > attribute of a rupa. To me BB's rendering of ittha > as "desirable" > (CMA, p. 42) hits closer to the mark. > Azita: I find this very interesting. I had thought that the object was inherently 'pleasant/unpleasant' no matter how we perceived it. To me, it makes sense because when we experience kusala vipaka thro. eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body surely the object must be pleasant, otherwise how could we receive good result. What is kusala vipaka if not the experience of something pleasant? > It is so critical to understand clearly the > distinction between rupa > and nama, Robert, yet at the same time it is very > difficult, so it > might useful to split hairs here. > > Can you see any difference between "pleasant" and > "desirable" as > applied to visible object? > Azita: "pleasant" seems to be more objective, dissociated from 'me', whereas "desirable" involves 'me'.... the object is pleasant whether I'm experiencing it or not, the desirable object is something that I've experienced and want. What do others think about this? Dan 20273 From: robmoult Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 9:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Azita and others, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, azita gill wrote: > Azita: I find this very interesting. I had thought > that the object was inherently 'pleasant/unpleasant' > no matter how we perceived it. To me, it makes sense > because when we experience kusala vipaka thro. eyes, > ears, nose, tongue and body surely the object must be > pleasant, otherwise how could we receive good result. > What is kusala vipaka if not the experience of > something pleasant? I have a problem accepting your last sentence. Seeing consciousness is vipaka; it is rootless. It does not have any of the immoral roots (lobha, dosa, moha), nor does it have any of the moral roots (alobha, adosa, panna). When we define seeing consciousness as being "akusala vipaka" or "kusala vipaka", we are only referring to the nature of the javana which conditioned it ("good" or "bad"). Seeing consciousness cannot be intrinsicly "good" or "bad". If we look at the menal factors (cetasikas) which accompany "kusala vipaka seeing consciousness" and "aksuala vipaka seeing consciousness" we can see that they are identical. When we do something akusala (action A); a "kammic seed" is created. Do we interpret the Sammohavinodani as saying that this kammic seed can only condition seeing consciousness of an object that is inherently undesireable (anittha)? Then the seeing consciousness citta is neutral, but the object is inherently undesireable. I am confused. I am hoping that somebody can straighten me out on the intrinsic nature of rupa (undesirable / moderately desirable / extremely desirable). Metta, Rob M :-) 20274 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 0:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Contentment Larry (and all) Thanks for this interesting extract from the commentary. What do you make of the 3rd of the 3 types of contentment. Are the comments regarding disposal of surplus 'luxury' items to be read in the context of the monk's life, or do they apply generally, in your view? Jon --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Here is the sutta on the ariya vamsa: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-028.html > > Notice there is contentment with the requisites of life and also > delight > in bhavana (mental development). The commentary to Kassapasamyutta > in SN 16.1, p. 662 Wisdom edition says the following: > > Spk [SN Commentary] discusses a threefold typology of contentment: > (i) > contentment that accords with one's gains, i.e., remaining content > with > any gains, whether fine or course; (ii) content that accords with > one's > ability, i.e., remaining content with whatever one needs to sustain > one's health; and (iii) contentment that accords with suitability, > i.e., > disposing with any luxury items received and retaining only the > most > basic requisites. 20275 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 1:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Dharam D: I appreciate your thoughtful response, which actually addresses parts of the paradox I was trying to get at, by using the issue of concepts. We probably can manage various learning methods simultaneously, [alright, sequentially ;-) ]. IMO the main thing is avoiding premature closure on 'other' methods and constructs, e.g. concepts, until understanding the present dhammas becomes natural and continous. Again IMO there is no need to reject concepts while trying to make some point, and then blithely utilizing them, sometimes in the next sentence! This apparently schizophrenic approach can be unsettling to u.w. such as me. J: There is no question of the dhamma ‘rejecting’ concepts, as I understand the teachings. Concepts are expounded upon at length in (for example) certain parts of the Abhidhamma. They are a necessary part of the life of everyone living in the sensuous planes. Even the fully enlightened being thinks conceptually of persons and objects, time and distance, life and death, and of course no speech of any kind is possible without massive conceptualising. What the teachings do is to explain the difference between concepts and dhammas. Dhammas such as heat and hardness (experienced through the body-sense), sound (experienced through he ear-sense) and so on are universal and unchangeable phenomena that are experienced by everyone. The teachings explain to us how those dhammas can be known more truly for what they truly are (instead of being taken for something that they aren’t). They each have their own individual characteristic, and also share certain characteristics in common, and it is these characteristics that gradually become known as understanding is developed. D: There have been some interesting observations on science and Buddha's teachings. The only way to explore this exciting area (either of convergence or divergence) is to use concepts. Sound, its effect on the ear and mind-doors etc. can be fruitfully explored using both constructs. I believe it cannot be done by being fanatically averse to 'lowly' concepts. J: The object of the study of the dhamma as urged by the Buddha, to my understanding, is the seeing of any presently arising dhamma as it truly is (i.e., rather than the study of a specific, chosen dhamma). In order for this to occur there needs to be the discrimination between dhammas and concepts. This discrimination is neither a rejection of nor an aversion to concepts. Concepts are a necessary and unavoidable part of functioning in this world and developing understanding. D: I hope this is not just my clinging to concepts, but rather an appreciation for their limited value. I (being an u.w. interested in the rising and falling of theories in the span of recent history) cannot intelligently comment on 'correct answers', and suspect that in many cases, correctness is just another delusion. J: I forget the exact context of my reference to correctness was, but I would assume it was in the sense of being in accordance with what is found in the texts, that being one of our 'quests' here, as I see it. Jon 20276 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 1:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong view/Ditthi vs. Conceit/Mana (was, Dukkha as Medicine?) Azita --- azita gill wrote: > BTW, I have just a this moment, read in 'A Manual > of Abhidhamma' by Narada '.......where there is > Ditthi there is no Mana. Commentaries compare them to > two fearless lions that cannot live in one den' A great analogy, Azita. While looking for this in the updated translation (CMA) I came across another good one. The mental factor of sati (mindfulness) is said to have the characteristic or function of allowing the citta to be fixed firmly and unwaveringly on the object, and gives the simile of being like a stone in water rather than like a pumpkin bobbing about in the water (from memory). Interesting to think of mind without sati as being like a pumpkin bobbing about in the water. Jon 20277 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 2:22am Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > Robert, you write: > "Take the case of seeing the Buddha. . Vedana accompanying all cakkhu- > vinanna is always neutral. However,at the actual moment of seeing > (before the javana)this visible object is inherently pleasant (or > good, agreeable )." > > I have a couple of questions: > 1. What visible object are you referring to here? The Buddha? My > understanding is that "visual object" is rupa, but I just can't see > how "Buddha" can be construed as a visual object in the paramattha > sense. The yellow of his robes is just yellow. The brown of his skin > is just brown. Don't you agree? ____________ Dear Dan, Good to see you around, hope we could see more of you. It is sometimes confusing to talk about paramattha (visible object) and samutti (the Buddha) in the same sentence. Nevertheless the texts do it so if we understand that the purpose is to elucidate and not cloud then it should be OK. The questions about this are very helpful though. Take the brown of the Buddhas skin: This brown would be, I believe,be of a different shade from say the brown of a piece of shit. Seeing one is the result of kusala kamma and the other is not. But it is not always obvious which is which in daily life. > > 2. When you say "this visible object is inherently pleasant", I don't > understand what you mean. I thought of "pleasant" as a flavor of > vedana, not of rupa. > > I've read somewhere in the commentaries (was it second hand in > Narada's "Manual of Abhidhamma"?) that visual object can be > inherently "pleasant" or "unpleasant", but how can "pleasant" be an > attribute of a rupa. To me BB's rendering of ittha as "desirable" > (CMA, p. 42) hits closer to the mark. > > It is so critical to understand clearly the distinction between rupa > and nama, Robert, yet at the same time it is very difficult, so it > might useful to split hairs here. > > Can you see any difference between "pleasant" and "desirable" as > applied to visible object? > ________________ In my post I said "inherently pleasant (or > good, agreeable ).". Perhaps agreeable is better than pleasant. The pali gives a list of synonyms which make it clearer. Last year I wrote a letter to you which I repeat as RobM would probably like to read it too: From the Dispeller of Delusion(Sammohavinodani) p9-11: Rupa sadda (visible data, sounds)..there are none which are disagreeable that are born of profitable kamma; all are agreeable only....But a disputatious speaker (vitandavadin) said 'There is no intrinsic agreeable and disagreeable'It is according to the likings of these or those 9individuals)[and the vitandavadin goes on to give an example of how to people in some distant place worms are considered a delicacy whereas most people find them repulsive , he also says the same about peacocks flesh]. He should be asked 'But how? Do you say that there is no distinguishing an object as intrinsically agreeable or disagreeable?' 'Yes: I say there is not?..[it continues a little more and then refutes the vitantavadin (sectarian of another school)] ''It is through perversion of perception that the same object is agreeable for one and disagreeable for another. But there is the distinguishing of an object as intrinsically agreeable or disagreeable'.......the elder Tipitaka Cula-Abhaya said: 'The agreeable and disagreeable are distinguishable according to vipaka (kamma result) only, not according to javana (impulsion that follows the vipaka). But it is impulsion through perversion of perception (sannavipallasa)only that lusts for the agreeable and hates the same agreeable; that lusts for the disagreeable and hates the same agreeable. Only by way of vipaka however is it rightly distinguishable. For resultant consciousness (vipaka citta) cannot be mistaken. If the object is agreeable it is profitable result that has arisen; if disagreeable, it is unprofitable result that has arisen. Although those of wrong view on seeing such exalted objects as the enlightened one(buddha) shut their eyes and feel domanassa (unpleasant feeling)[arising during the javana stage]and on hearing the Dhamma they stop their ears nevertheless their eye-consciouness, ear-consciousness , etc are only profitable kamma result (vipaka). Although dung eating pigs on smelling the odour of dung become joyful, thinking;'we shall get something to eat' nevertheless their eye-consciousness (a vipaka) in the seeing of the dung, nose consciousness (a vipaka) in smelling its odour and tongue consciousness (a vipaka)in tasting its flavour is only unprofitable result."" ENDQUOTE ------ It is true that often we cannot be sure whether the present vipaka is the result of kusala kamma or akusala kamma. And it is not so important to know - that is why all vipaka is classified as only one jati whereas akusala kamma and kusala kamma have a jati each: We must learn to distinguish kusala citta from akusala citta. Sarah pointed out recently that even when we read a dhamma book there could be many moments when the visible object is a slight stain on the page or something else (and at that moment akusala vipaka). And if we still think in wholes and situation we cannot understand vipaka either: For instance, I mentioned a while back the case of holding a soft dogshit in the hand and how most people think this is entirely akusala. However, the commentary (see sammohavinodani p11 )notes that in such a case that the vipaka through body sense is actually kusala (because soft) while through the eyesense and nose sense, akusala- for obvious reasons. In a short moment these different vipakas alternate many times, but one might not be aware of how it is changing. Even in the above example someone might object and say 'what if there were little hard bits in the shit; wouldn't it be akusala through the bodysense then?' And, yes maybe it would in that case. But the examples are given to help us see these matters so we can study dhammas directly and see for ourselves, not to cover every possible hypothetical case. RobertK > > Dan 20278 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 5:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Seclusion It is a joy to live in solitude, alone, secluded from sensuality and unwholesome. Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi all, > > > > I would be interested to have a conversation on seclusion with > > anyone who is interested. To start the conversation, I will put > > forth the questions: What does it mean by seclusion? What are the > > benefits of seclusion? > ..... > > I think seclusion is usually a translation of viveka. Here are two sets of > definition. There may well be others in different contexts. If you have a > particular sutta in mind or use in context, pls let us know. I look > forward to your further comments. > > Metta, Sarah > ========== > > > 1.From Nyantiloka dictionary: > http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic3_v.htm > > * > viveka > > 'detachment', seclusion, is according to Niddesa, of 3 kinds: > > * > (1) bodily detachment (káya-viveka), i.e. abiding in solitude free from > alluring sensuous objects; > > * > (2) mental detachment (citta-viveka), i.e. the inner detachment from > sensuous things; > > * > (3) detachment from the substrata of existence (upadhi-viveka). > > In the description of the 1st absorption, > > * > the words "detached from sensuous things" (vivicc' eva kámehi) refer, > according to Vis.M. IV, to 'bodily detachment'; > > * > the words "detached from karmically unwholesome things" (vivicca akusalehi > dhammehi) refer to 'mental detachment'; > > * > the words "born of detachment" (vivekaja), to the absence of the 5 > hindrances. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- > * > viveka-sukha > > 'happiness of detachment', or aloofness (s. prec). > > "Whoso is addicted to society and worldly bustle, he will not partake of > the happiness of renunciation, detachment, peace and enlightenment" > (A.VII.86). > ===================================================================== ===== > 2. From Sammohavinodani, Comy to Dhammasangani, PTS, (1544): > on seclusion as in "he develops the mindfulness awakening factor which is > dependent on seclusion": > > "Vivekanissita.m ("dependent on seclusion") = viveke nissita.m. Seclusion > is secludedness; it is fivefold, namely seclusion through substitution of > opposites (tada"ngaviveka), through suppression (vikkhambhana), cutting > off (samuccheda), tranquillisation (pa.tipasaddhi) and renunciation > (nissara.na). > > "Herein, seclusion through substitution of opposites is insight; > seclusion through suppression is the eight attainments; seclusion through > cutting off is the path; seclusion through tranquillisation is fruition; > seclusion through renunciation is nibbana, which has renounced all signs. > Thus "dependent on seclusion" is dependent on this fivefold > seclusion......" 20279 From: Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 7:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong view/Ditthi vs. Conceit/Mana (was, Dukkha as Medicine?) Hi, Jon (and Azita) - In a message dated 3/15/2003 8:23:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Azita > > --- azita gill wrote: > > BTW, I have just a this moment, read in 'A Manual > > of Abhidhamma' by Narada '.......where there is > > Ditthi there is no Mana. Commentaries compare them to > > two fearless lions that cannot live in one den' > > A great analogy, Azita. While looking for this in the updated > translation (CMA) I came across another good one. The mental factor > of sati (mindfulness) is said to have the characteristic or function > of allowing the citta to be fixed firmly and unwaveringly on the > object, and gives the simile of being like a stone in water rather > than like a pumpkin bobbing about in the water (from memory). > > Interesting to think of mind without sati as being like a > pumpkin > bobbing about in the water. > > Jon ============================ It seems to me that "the citta fixed firmly and unwaveringly on the object" sounds like one-pointed mind, like a mindstate with (significant) concentration. I take "The mental factor of sati (mindfulness) is said to have the characteristic or function of allowing the citta to be fixed firmly and unwaveringly on the object" to mean not that mindfulness is the same as concentration but that mindfulness is a condition for the arising of concentration, that it has "the characteristic or function" of fostering concentration. Do you think I am interpreting this correctly? With metta, Howard 20280 From: Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 10:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Contentment Hi Jon, You asked what I thought about: "...contentment that accords with suitability, i.e., disposing with any luxury items received and retaining only the most basic requisites." I suppose there are differences of suitability for monastics and lay people. On the other hand, I don't see any _ultimate_ problem with heaping up mountains of riches. One could also apply this as a remedy. If a person has gotten into the habit of constantly complaining about the quality and amount of his possessions and all the agravation involved in acquiring and protecting those possessions, perhaps a simpler life would be in order. Larry 20281 From: Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 10:39am Subject: jhana Hi all, This is a note of encouragement for anyone who is interested in jhana. I think I have developed a counterpart sign for breathing. In my case it is the sign of air. My concentration is still weak, but I have managed to move it around and apply it to various parts of my body and mind. This sign is a bit on the subtle side but it is informed by the experiences of breathing and common knowledge of air. It is definitely a pleasant experience and something one would want to concentrate on, but it isn't extravagantly blissful. If you are interested in pursuing this, I suggest you read the "Concentration" section of the Visuddhimagga from the beginning as there are many aspects of "sign" (nimitta) scattered throughout. The Vimuttimagga and Vajira~nana Mahathera's "Buddhist Meditation in Theory and Practice" answered some questions the Visuddhimagga raised for me. Also, I think the regular practice of the Brahma Vihara would give you an experiential idea of what a sign is. Good luck! Larry 20282 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 10:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: sila, samadhi, panna. Dear Lars, I like your points very much and I shall try to find time next week to react more and go over the Co, but now the weekend I am busy. At times there is too much work for me, Nina. op 14-03-2003 12:40 schreef Lars op khandha5@g...: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom > wrote: >> The conditions for the arising of right mindfulness and right >> understanding are: listening to the dhamma and considering it in >> one's own life. 20284 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 9:45pm Subject: Re: jhana --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi all, > > This is a note of encouragement for anyone who is interested in jhana. I > think I have developed a counterpart sign for breathing. Hi Larry, Congratulations on your meditation success! I am glad that you have a firm grasp on the tactile sensation of the breath as it enters and exits the body. More than likely, you have a good understanding of signs and counter-signs and what constitutes one and what doesn't; however, some others on this list may be a bit confused about this matter. And, unfortunately, the various commentaries are contradictory because they sometimes confuse visual signs with tactile signs…which shouldn't be done. Allow me to offer a link to an excellent article on this issue which explains signs, counter- signs, and what can be confused as such: http://www.baynet.net/~arcc/dhamma/nimitta.html Metta, James 20285 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 0:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Rob M, Thankyou for replying in detail to the questions I raised on the extract from: > > > summarized from Bikhu Bodhi's "Questions on Kamma": > > > > > > http://www.buddhistinformation.com/questions_on_kamma.htm ..... I found most of the rest of the article to be very clear and helpful I should perhaps add, that you happened to reproduce the one paragraph I personally find to be misleading, especially the part about “...as we change our character we change our total being, our whole world”. Granted we need to use conventional terms and “I” and so on, still the aim of the Teachings right from the start is to lead to more, not less, detachment from the idea of self and acceptance of conditioned realities, rather than attempts to “change” character or being. These ideas are unsupported by the texts as I read them. I am very relieved and delighted to read all your detailed comments in response to my questions, however. By the ‘choice’ of quote, I wasn’t sure if there was a little old “free-willing” slipping back in, but from what you say, it’s clear this isn’t so;-) I agree with everything you say in reply. As you emphasise, we all use terms and concepts. It just depends on the understanding while we use them and what is really meant. That’s why we need to question and clarify often, I think. On your comments in other posts about seeing and visible object, as I’ve said before, I think it is essential to get these points clear. The visible object that is seen is just as it appears now - if we say dot or even snapshot or colour, there’s so often an idea of something special, not just that which is seen and can be the object of awareness. We know convenitionally that some visible objects or sounds or tastes are pleasant and some unpleasant and in truth this is how it is, but no need to try and pinpoint. They are just as they appear. I know these comments are frustrating to read. I think the paragraph you wrote in a note to Azita is exactly how it is. You said that when an unwholesome deed is performed, the “kammic seed can only condition seeing consciousness of an object that is inherently undesirable....then the seeing consciousness citta is neutral , but the object is inherently undesirable.” As we know it is the result of very good kamma to see the Buddha and very bad kamma to see particular visible objects in the hell planes, even though they are only visible objects that are seen;-) I doubt this has helped but I hope the passages from Sammohavinodani which RobK quoted have helped more. If visible objects were only dots, I’m sure they would all be very neutral and life would not appear as it does now with all the stories and attachments on account of the visible objects. Metta, Sarah ===== 20286 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 0:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... Howard Many thanks for these words of comfort and encouragement at this time of sadness for me, and for sharing your own experiences. I do agree with you about the importance of calm and peace to one about to depart this life, as I’m sure it gives the best opportunity for any accumulated kusala kamma to condition rebirth in a pleasant plane. Others present at my mother’s bedside placed importance on reassuring her that she would be entering the promised land, be reunited with my late father, and so on. While this was said with the best of intentions, I’m not sure that it conduces to calm and peace of the kusala kind. However, there was little I could do about this (being outnumbered several to one!). It was a time for equanimity on my part. Thanks again for your comments and thoughts, Howard. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Dear Jon (and Sarah) - > > Jon, may the loss of your mother's presence be eased by the > recollection of your love for each other and the good "fortune" of > your being able to be with her at the time of her passing. It is > wonderful that your mother wasn't fearful of death and that she was > in a state of relative calm and peace with things. I'm sure that > your being with her was an important factor in that. > A number of years back I was with my mother at the time of her > passing. Near the end, she was comatose or semicomatose, and I > can't be certain that she was aware of my bedside presence and my > talking to her, but still I held her hand, I told her that my wife > and I, and our sons, and others that she loved were all well and > would continue to be, and I assured her that all would be well for > her, and that things would be "getting better". Maybe she heard me, > maybe not. I do put great stock in the importance of a calm, > peaceful mind at the time of death, and I think that the loving > presence of you and your brothers with your mom at this time was > surely a great help to her. > May you be well. > > With metta, > Howard 20287 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 1:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pleasant and unpleasant objects (was, Questions from March weekend at Cooran) Dan It might be easier to consider this issue in the context of a doorway other than the eye-door first. It’s perhaps easier to see that in the case of the body-door some objects are inherently unpleasant (for example, the hardness or heat that is experienced as the result of a sharp blow), and some are inherently pleasant (the softness of, say, pillow against face). Likewise, through the ear-door, some sounds are inherently unpleasant (too loud, for example), even if they form part of music we like (the audible object is not ‘the music’). Similar considerations apply in the case of the visible object, but this is difficult to see unless we put aside thoughts of conventional objects (so when Rob K mentioned the Buddha, he was referring to the VO that we take for being the Buddha). Jon --- "Dan D." wrote: > Robert, you write: > "Take the case of seeing the Buddha. . Vedana accompanying all > cakkhu- > vinanna is always neutral. However,at the actual moment of seeing > (before the javana)this visible object is inherently pleasant (or > good, agreeable )." > > I have a couple of questions: > 1. What visible object are you referring to here? The Buddha? My > understanding is that "visual object" is rupa, but I just can't see > how "Buddha" can be construed as a visual object in the paramattha > sense. The yellow of his robes is just yellow. The brown of his > skin is just brown. Don't you agree? > > 2. When you say "this visible object is inherently pleasant", I > don't understand what you mean. I thought of "pleasant" as a > flavor of vedana, not of rupa. > > I've read somewhere in the commentaries (was it second hand in > Narada's "Manual of Abhidhamma"?) that visual object can be > inherently "pleasant" or "unpleasant", but how can "pleasant" be an > attribute of a rupa. To me BB's rendering of ittha as "desirable" > (CMA, p. 42) hits closer to the mark. > > It is so critical to understand clearly the distinction between > rupa > and nama, Robert, yet at the same time it is very difficult, so it > might useful to split hairs here. > > Can you see any difference between "pleasant" and "desirable" as > applied to visible object? > > > Dan 20288 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Dan, Always great to see you around and with such pertinent qus. Not sure if I can add more to what RobertK has written, but I think these are such good points, I’d like to try: --- "Dan D." wrote > 1. What visible object are you referring to here? The Buddha? My > understanding is that "visual object" is rupa, but I just can't see > how "Buddha" can be construed as a visual object in the paramattha > sense. The yellow of his robes is just yellow. The brown of his skin > is just brown. Don't you agree? ..... When we look at the Buddha, the visible object seen is not just a blank shade of yellow/brown. It’s exactly what appears to the seeing at the moment of looking just for an instant, just as it is. ..... > > 2. When you say "this visible object is inherently pleasant", I don't > understand what you mean. I thought of "pleasant" as a flavor of > vedana, not of rupa. ..... All rupas experienced through the senses are inherently pleasant or unpleasant, regardless of how they are later perceived . I particularly like this short quote from Sammohavinodani, Classification of the Aggregates, which follows the extract RobK gave: “Furthermore, agreeablesness and disagreeableness should also be understood by way of the doors (dvaara). For dung-mud which is pleasant to touch is disagreeable in the eye-door and nose-door, and is agreeable in the body-door. For one who is struck by the Wheel-Turning Monarch’s (cakkavatti) Gem Treasure (ma.niratana) and impaled on a golden spike, the golden spikes of the Gem Treasure are agreeable in the eye-door and disagreeable in the body-door? Why? Because of the arousing of great pain. Thus it should be understood that the agreeable and disagreeable are rightly distinguishable by way of (kamma) result.” I find it helpful because it can remind us how kusala and akusala vipaka cittas follow each other all the time through the different senses, expereiencing pleasant and unpleasant objects. ..... > I've read somewhere in the commentaries (was it second hand in > Narada's "Manual of Abhidhamma"?) that visual object can be > inherently "pleasant" or "unpleasant", but how can "pleasant" be an > attribute of a rupa. To me BB's rendering of ittha as "desirable" > (CMA, p. 42) hits closer to the mark. ..... In the PTS Stede/Rhys Davids dictionary for ‘i.t.tha’ (adj), it gives: “(p.p. of icchati) pleasing, welcome, agreeable, pleasant....” In Sammohavinbodani we read for ‘ani.t.tham’ “(disagreeable): disliked; or unsought for the purpose of obtaining; and if anyone should seek it let him do so; but this is a name for this kind of object (aarammana).” Another word, ‘akanta.m’ follows with the meaning of “undesired”. (For Rob M: the reference to average being (majjhimaka-satta) such as all those officials you have trouble trusting;-), is to indicate that what is intrinsically agreeable or disagreeable is for most people and not what is taken as so by ‘great emperors’ for whom ‘even a divine object appears unpleasing’ or for ‘extreme unfortunates who find it hard to get food and drink. For to them lumps of broken rice-porridge and the taste of rotten meat seem as exceedingly sweet as ambrosia.” All this on account of sanna vipallassa (perverted perception) as discussed.) You ask about the attributes of rupas as pleasant and unpleasant. When there is the hearing of the sound that we take for a waterfall, it’s not the same as that of thunder. Different tastes are not the same, regardless of the feelings and perceptions that follow. ..... > It is so critical to understand clearly the distinction between rupa > and nama, Robert, yet at the same time it is very difficult, so it > might useful to split hairs here. ..... I agree. Please continue to split hairs. ..... > Can you see any difference between "pleasant" and "desirable" as > applied to visible object? ..... For most of us, what is pleasant is desirable. For the ariyans who have eradicated attachment to pleasant sense objects (anagamis and arahants), what is pleasant is not desirable. So there were still conditions to see pleasant and unpleasant objects even for the Buddha. How does that sound? Very glad you chipped in here Dan and I hope you’ll excuse me doing the same. Best wishes to Lisa and the kids, Metta, Sarah ===== 20289 From: azita gill Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 2:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Dan, Dear RobM, you stated you had a problem with a comment of mine: 'what is kusala vipaka if not the experience of a pleasant object?' > I feel Sarah has elaborated upon this point in the following..... > All rupas experienced through the senses are > inherently pleasant or > unpleasant, regardless of how they are later > perceived . I particularly > like this short quote from Sammohavinodani, > Classification of the > Aggregates, which follows the extract RobK gave: > > “Furthermore, agreeablesness and disagreeableness > should also be > understood by way of the doors (dvaara). For > dung-mud which is pleasant > to touch is disagreeable in the eye-door and > nose-door, and is agreeable > in the body-door. For one who is struck by the > Wheel-Turning Monarch’s > (cakkavatti) Gem Treasure (ma.niratana) and impaled > on a golden spike, the > golden spikes of the Gem Treasure are agreeable in > the eye-door and > disagreeable in the body-door? Why? Because of the > arousing of great > pain. Thus it should be understood that the > agreeable and disagreeable > are rightly distinguishable by way of (kamma) > result.” > [snip] > I find it helpful because it can remind us how > kusala and akusala vipaka > cittas follow each other all the time through the > different senses, > expereiencing pleasant and unpleasant objects. > ..... > For most of us, what is pleasant is desirable. For > the ariyans who have > eradicated attachment to pleasant sense objects > (anagamis and arahants), > what is pleasant is not desirable. So there were > still conditions to see > pleasant and unpleasant objects even for the Buddha. > > How does that sound? > > Metta, > > Sarah > ===== > have deleted some of this, but you have probably read her message anyway, Rob. cheers Azita > 20290 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 4:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... Hi Azita, --- azita gill wrote: > > > dear Sarah, > when I read this, I stared at the screen for > several moments with rather watery eyes, but also with > the thought that this event is sooooo inevitable for > all of us, an event that no-one escapes, and that we > never know when that event will arise and fall away. > Cuti citta followed by Patisandhicitta - already for > Jon's mum there is rebirth consciousness. ..... Just so and it’s amazing that I was able to talk to Jon’s mum about just these points just a few days ago and she was able to respond so well. While we grieve, the new life is well underway;-) ..... > I think about life and death quite a lot bec. > of my work. Sometimes when I see a newborn baby, I > think about death and that a condition for death is > birth. .... I know. I just went out for my evening walk and passed a very sweet new baby and was reflecting in a similar way, even as I smiled at the proud mum. Starkid Charles amazed us all last year by coming out with this point, quite unprompted, after visiting a baby in hospital. ..... > Endings can sometimes be very sad occasions, > and part of those tears in my eyes was for an ending > of my own. Our family home has finally been cleaned > out and sold - the house where my daughters grew up - > that my ex partner and I build and .... well, I'm sure > you all relate to endings and that you all know how > inevitabe they are. It's how we deal with those > events that is the important issue, I believe. Is > there kusala or akusala citta at this moment? ..... I found it such a good reminder when some of us met last year in Queensland after an interval of 25years. The appearances had changed almost beyond recognition and we had all faced various losses and all had tales to tell, but instead we just talked about present moment realities and Dhamma. We all had the confidence that the world only exists at the present moment...just this moment of seeing visible object, hearing sound, thinking and so forth. I have a lot of admiration and respect for the way you have handled your loss with such dignity and that, as for others here, it is a condition to reflect wisely on the dhamma. The only real security is in the development of panna and detachment from all that is conditioned. There is no other way out than by learning to ‘live alone’ with the six worlds appearing now, one at a time. ..... >IN the > end that's all that matters, in the end it is only the > good or the evil that I've done that I will inherit. > I shall quote Howard's 'logo' > 'this is how ye shall see all this fleeting > world: a star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash > of lightening in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a > phantom and a dream' > Patience to not run away from this moment, > Courage to stay here and good cheer to make > life a little easier. ..... These are such good reminders. Thanks Azita. I greatly appreciate the patience, courage and good cheer you always share with us and yes, life is not easy, but with good cheer it can be a little easier as you say. Metta, Sarah p.s keep us posted with your travel plans. ======= 20291 From: m. nease Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 6:27am Subject: VIRUS ALERT: PLEASE DON'T VIEW OR OPEN ANY ATTACHMENTS Sorry to say I've apparently been transmitting a virus as yet undetermined. If you've received an email with an attachment from me recently, please DELETE IT WITHOUT OPENING IT OR VIEWING IT IN YOUR 'PREVIEW PANE', THEN 'EMPTY' YOUR 'RECYCLE BIN'. My apologies for the inconvenience. If anyone has received this bug from me and identified it, please advise--thanks. mike 20292 From: m. nease Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 6:39am Subject: The Promised Land Hi Jon, ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 12:53 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... > Others present at my mother's bedside placed importance on reassuring > her that she would be entering the promised land, be reunited with my > late father, and so on. Is this reminiscent to you of the idea of rebirth in deva realms, etc? Do you tend to take the latter (or former, for that matter) literally, or as myth or metaphor, or...? A new can of worms? mike 20293 From: m. nease Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 7:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love Hi Christine, Catching up on some old 'flagged' messages: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 12:09 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Love > When I first read the Piyajatika sutta, I was unhappy at the > Buddha's 'treatment' of a bereaved father. Nothing, I thought, could > be more noble than the 'sacrificial' love a parent bears for their > child. Even the grief (I thought) was noble. It was not 'natural' > to expect people not to be attached to their children. But the > Buddha (who named his son 'fetter') spoke the truth then and now - > "The truth of the Truth-speaker's words doesn't change." > > 'Discourse on Love as the Origin of Unhappiness' - Piyajatika Sutta > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Tipitaka/message/86 > "Thus it is, householder! Thus it is, householder! Grief, > lamentation, pain, distress and despair spring indeed from love; > their source is love." "Venerable Sir, to whom would it ever occur > thus: 'Grief, lamentation, pain, distress and despair spring indeed > from love; their source is love'? Venerable Sir, pleasure and > gladness spring indeed from love; their source is love." Displeased > with and disapproving of what the Bhagava said, the householder rose > from his seat and went away." Piyajatikasutta is one of my favorites. There are several different translations of which I think the most correct is 'born of a dear one (or 'one who is dear')'. > So what sort of 'love' conduces to detachment. Are we back at > only 'loving-kindness' or 'compassion', or is there more? This is my point (maybe my hobby-horse), really. I think that mettaa is better translated as 'friendliness', 'amity' or 'benevolence' rather than 'lovingkindness' (which word I believe originated in the King James Bible--you might be able to find this out in your OED). To me the ultimate in friendliness or compassion is that which encourages detachment. From the Visakhasutta: The sorrows, lamentations, the many kinds of suffering in the world, exist dependent on something dear. They don't exist when there's nothing dear. And thus blissful & sorrowless are those for whom nothing in the world is dear anywhere. So one who aspires to be stainless & sorrowless shouldn't make anything in the world dear anywhere. Udana VIII.8 Visakha Sutta To Visakha Well, just another of my opinions--maybe someday I'll be able to support it well from the Abhidhamma--or maybe I'll find out I'm wrong (again!). mike 20294 From: bodhi342 Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 8:07am Subject: [dsg] Re: Love The sorrows, lamentations, the many kinds of suffering in the world, exist dependent on something dear. They don't exist when there's nothing dear. And thus blissful & sorrowless are those for whom nothing in the world is dear anywhere. So one who aspires to be stainless & sorrowless shouldn't make anything in the world dear anywhere. Mike, Thanks for this concise, and IMO fundamental, sutta. This is the bargain, the price to be paid, the entry qualification. Relinquish EVERYTHING loved and dear, only then will you pass through. How many of us really confront this head-on and honestly? Even the theory, let alone the practice. I perceive we spend much more time rationalizing our attachments/detachments, fearful of the full implications of this all-or-nothing 'contract'. We have to pay heed to the Buddha telling us that we cannot have our cake, and eat it too! u.w. dharam 20295 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 8:21am Subject: [dsg] Re: Love > > Thanks for this concise, and IMO fundamental, sutta. Hi All, This may seem a stupid question, but could someone please tell me what 'IMO' stands for? I have been trying to figure it out from context clues in several posts and still can't figure it out. Metta, James 20296 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 9:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Love --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > > > Thanks for this concise, and IMO fundamental, sutta. > > Hi All, > > This may seem a stupid question, but could someone please tell me > what 'IMO' stands for? I have been trying to figure it out from > context clues in several posts and still can't figure it out. > > Metta, James KKT: IMO = In My Opinion IMHO = In My Humble Opinion Following is a list of Acronyms ============= Here's some information copied from http://www.pb.org/emoticon.html: Common Emoticons and Acronyms Emoticons Emoticons (emotional icons) are used to compensate for the inability to convey voice inflections, facial expressions, and bodily gestures in written communication. Some emoticons are better known as "smileys." Emoticons can be very effective toward avoiding misinterpretation of the writer's intents. While there are no standard definitions for the following emoticons, we have supplied their most usual meanings. Most emoticons will look like a face (eyes, nose, and mouth) when rotated 90 degree clockwise. :) or :-) Expresses happiness, sarcasm, or joke :( or :-( Expresses unhappiness :] or :-] Expresses jovial happiness :[ or :-[ Expresses despondent unhappiness :D or :-D Expresses jovial happiness :I or :-I Expresses indifference :-/ or :-\ Indicates undicided, confused, or skeptical. Also :/ or :\. :Q or :-Q Expresses confusion :S or :-S Expresses incoherence or loss of words :@ or :-@ Expresses shock or screaming :O or :-O Indicates surprise, yelling or realization of an error ("uh oh!") Acronyms AAMOF as a matter of fact BBFN bye bye for now BFN bye for now BTW by the way BYKT but you knew that CMIIW correct me if I'm wrong EOL end of lecture FAQ frequently asked question(s) FITB fill in the blank FWIW for what it's worth FYI for your information HTH hope this helps IAC in any case IAE in any event ICL in Christian love IMCO in my considered opinion IMHO in my humble opinion IMNSHO in my not so humble opinion IMO in my opinion IOW in other words LOL lots of luck or laughing out loud MGB may God bless MHOTY my hat's off to you NRN no reply necessary OIC oh, I see OTOH on the other hand ROF rolling on the floor ROFL rolling on the floor laughing ROTFL rolling on the floor laughing RSN real soon now SITD still in the dark TIA thanks in advance TIC tongue in cheek TTYL talk to you later TYVM thank you very much WYSIWYG what you see is what you get Grinning Joking Laughing Smiling Yawning >> 20297 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 9:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Love --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > > > Thanks for this concise, and IMO fundamental, sutta. > > Hi All, > > This may seem a stupid question, but could someone please tell me > what 'IMO' stands for? I have been trying to figure it out from > context clues in several posts and still can't figure it out. > > Metta, James Someone contacted me off-list and let me know that IMO means "In my opinion" and IMHO means "In my humble opinion". For some reason, I thought it meant something more complicated than that. So nevermind this question anymore. :-) Metta To All 20298 From: Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 9:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love Hi, James - In a message dated 3/16/2003 11:21:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Hi All, > > This may seem a stupid question, but could someone please tell me > what 'IMO' stands for? I have been trying to figure it out from > context clues in several posts and still can't figure it > out. > > Metta, James ============================= IMO = In my opinion IMHO = In my humble opinion AFAIK = As far as I know With abbreviated metta, Howard 20299 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:45am Subject: Issues of Dhamma, 4, lakkhana rupas, no 3. Issues of Dhamma, 4, lakkhana rupas, no 3. When we take into consideration the characteristics of realities, rúpa is sankhata dhamma, conditioned dhamma, and therefore, it arises and falls away. In between the moment of the arising of rúpa and its falling away, there must be its continuation and decaying until the moment of its falling away. Upacaya, the origination of rúpa and santati, its continuation, are aspects of arising, whereas decay, jaratå, and impermanence, aniccatå, are aspects of its falling away. Each kalåpa, group of rúpas arises due to its own origination factor [5] independently of the other groups of rúpa. Therefore, each group of rúpas must have its arising moment, upacaya. When we take into account the method of explanation according to the groups of rúpa, it cannot be said that the origination moment of rúpa, upacaya, occurs only at the moment of rebirth-consciousness, and that after the rebirth-consciousness has fallen away, the arising moment of the groups of rúpa is santati, continuation [6]. 2. Explanation in a general way or in conventional sense, vohåra: The Atthasåliní, the Commentary to the Dhammasangani, in the section on rúpa, in the explanation of upacaya and santati (II, Book II, Part I, Ch III, 327) states: ³In the real sense both integration and continuity are synonyms of the production (arising) of rúpa.... ŒThat which is the accumulation of the åyatanas (sense organs) is the arising of rúpa¹. ŒThat which is the arising of rúpa is continuity of rúpa¹ ². This whole passage explains the meaning of the characteristics of upacaya, arising, and santati, continuity, in a wider sense, by way of conventional terms. In the same way the ³Atthasåliní² explains jaratå as decrepitude, such as having broken teeth, greyness of the hair, wrinkled skin. The Tíka of the ³Abhidhammattha Sangaha², Manual of Abhidhamma², the Abhidhammatthavibhåviní [7] states about upacaya: ³Upacaya, accumulation is accumulating; the meaning is Œinitial accumulation¹, since the prefix upa indicates the meaning Œinitial¹ ...[8] Santati, continuity, is continuing; the meaning is Œconnected series¹. Therein, in the period from relinking (patisandhi) until the arising of the decads (groups of ten rúpas) of the eye, etc. the arising of materiality is called accumulation; after that it is called continuity.² [9] In the ³Sacca Sankhepa², and in the ³Abhidhammatta Sangaha², Chapter 6, Classification of Rúpa, we find more examples of explanation of the lakkhana rúpas in a more general or conventional sense. Footnotes: 5. There are four factors which produce rúpa: kamma, citta, temperature (utu) and nutrition (åhara). 6. As we shall see, in a more general explanation of the characteristics of rúpa it is said that the initial arising of groups of rúpa at rebirth is upacaya, or integration, and that after that there is santati, subsequent arising or continuation, of groups of rúpa. The ³Atthasåliní² (327) states with regard to the åyatanas: ³ ŒThat is integration of matter¹ means, Œthat accumulation of organs (åyatanas) of repeated production.¹ The meaning is growth...² 7. The Manual of the Abhidhamma together with the Tíka have been translated into English by R.P. Wijeratne and Rupert Gethin as: ³Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma² and ³Exposition of the Topics of Abhidhamma². These works have been aranged together in one book, published by P.T.S. 8. Upacaya means accumulation or integration. The terms accumulation and integration denote the initial arising of rúpa. 9. After the first arising of the decads of eye, ear, etc. they grow and develop. This is an explanation in conventional terms. ***** (end of chapter) 20300 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] meditation Dear Larry, op 15-03-2003 19:39 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Also, I think the regular practice of the Brahma Vihara would give you > an experiential idea of what a sign is. N: I am glad you mention the brahma viharas. As you remember, we read in the subcommentary to the satipatthanasutta that four meditation subjects are suitable for daily life, for all occasions. Among these is metta brahmavihara. I translated this part: buddhaanussati mettaa mara.nassati asubhabhaavanaa ca. N: The words , the meditation subjects on all occasions, mean: recollection of the Buddha, loving-kindness, mindfulness of death, and meditation of foulness. ida~nhi catukka.m yoginaa parihariyamaana.m ``sabbatthikakamma.t.thaana''nti vuccati N: This set of four meditations which is guarded by the yogi (practinioer), he called "the meditation subjects on all occasions". We do not have to do anything special, nor lead a secluded life. I find more and more that this is true. On the Pali yahoo list we had the first lesson of a new series, Pali Day by Day series B, and this was the first lesson: James W. Gair, W.S. Karunatillake Lesson 1 - Readings - Exercise 1. Buddha.m sara.na.m gacchaami I go to the Buddha as refuge dhamma.m sara.na.m gacchaami I go to the Dhamma as refuge sa.mgha.m sara.na.m gacchaami I go to the Sangha as refuge Dutiya.m pi ... Tatiya.m pi... I do not think, now I have to meditate on the Buddha, but during the day there can be spontaneously recollection of the Buddha. Also when we learn and understand a little more, we have more confidence in the Buddha Dhamma. Recolllection of the Buddha can arise quite naturally. And so it is with mindfulness of death, the circumstances in my life are such that I have to recollect this. Mindfulness of breathing would not be suitable for me, because I do not "lead a secluded life, quite removed from sense pleasures" as is stated in the Visuddhimagga. I find it very difficult to know what is air and what breath. As I see it, breath is rupa produced by citta, it is not the same as air. When one is blowing air may appear, it may not be breath. Very, very complicated. Moreover, the meditation subject is breath produced by kusala citta, not by lobha-mula-citta. Very difficult to know this, since lobha arises all the time and it may be very subtle. But everybody can only find this out for himself. I am glad you study the Visuddhimagga so thoroughly, Nina 20301 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 0:48pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Kom Hi Kimmy, > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > > so everytime after I had a quarrel with others, I > think we were too silly. Many of my arguments are like that too: silly... > Tomorrow I will have my project presentation, it's > held by my school every year. Many parents will see > our presentation, I hope I could get a good result > because I think we put a lot of efford into it. ( And > I think it is a good cause!) I hope you have done well!!! > > I am glad that someone is similar to me, and I'm > surprised that you are scared when watching scary > movies~ You think adults would do better when watching scary movies, right? Not so, otherwise they wouldn't' be able to sell scary movies (which are many) to adults. > > Lastly, I will have my house basketball competition > next week, I already know I will lose because the > others are very strong, so I would like to ask, how > can I enjoy the matches better even I know I will lose > from a Buddhist point of view? > If I were you, I would enjoy playing with your teammates, making better friends, learning how to play basketball better, and doing the best you can in the game, even if you lose. Sometimes in life, you may find that the process of getting there is more valuable that the results. The Buddha teaches that the result comes about when its conditions are ripe. When all the causes are right, then the result is sure to follow, regardless of whether or not we wish for that result. kom 20302 From: Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 2:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: jhana Hi James, I'm familiar with the essay by Bhikkhu Sona and found it wanting in some respects. My own accomplishment was just a glimpse that happened while lying in bed on a saturday morning, fooling around with the breath. I just wanted to encourage others to investigate this little known aspect of meditation. I found that the sign I experienced was neither visual nor touch based, maybe because it was the sign of air. It was sort of like an experienced idea with a presence of its own. For example, when practicing the Brahma Vihara we pervade every direction with loving kindness. That loving kindness and the directions could be generated as a learning sign, at least. In other words, we could imaginatively/actually send something out there. There is a difference between this and jhana but I don't want to pin anything down at this point. This is all very preliminary and I am sure others will have different experiences. It's a delicate process and maybe talking about it doesn't help but it isn't just an old myth. You can do it. Larry 20303 From: Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 3:09pm Subject: Way 63, Comm, Clear Comprehension 2 "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, 2. Clear comprehension in looking straight on and in looking away from the front, p. 81 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html Because clear comprehension of resort is just the keeping to the course of meditation, looking straight on and looking away from the front should be done just according to each person's meditation (on the aggregates, processes and bases or on a contemplation-device and so forth) with the thought of meditation uppermost in mind. Within, it is said, there certainly is no self or soul which looks straight on or looks away from the front. Still, at the arising of the thought "I shall look straight on," and with that thought the process of oscillation (vayo dhatu) originating from mind, [citta samutthana] bringing into being bodily expression [viññatti] arises. Thus owing to the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity [cittakiriyavayodhatu vipphara], the lower eyelid goes down and the upper eyelid goes up. Surely there is no one who opens with a contrivance. Thereupon, eye-consciousness arises fulfilling the function of sight [tato cakkhu viññanam dassana kiccam sadhentam uppajjati], it is said. Clear comprehension of this kind here is indeed called the clear comprehension of non-delusion [evam sampajananam panettha asammoha sampajaññam nama]. Further, clear comprehension of non-delusion should be also understood, here, through accurate knowledge of the root (mula pariñña), through the casual state (agantuka bhava) and through the temporary state [tavakalika bhava]. First (is the consideration) by way of the accurate knowledge of the root: -- There is (first) the mental state of the life-continum, And (then) there are adverting, seeing, receiving, Considering, determining, and impulsion Which is seventh (in cognition's course). [bhavangavajjanañceva dassanam sampaticchanam santiranam votthapanam javanam bhavati sattamam]. There, in the course of cognition, the life-continum goes on fulfilling the function of a (main) factor of the rebirth-process [tattha bhavangam upapatti bhavassa anga kiccam sadhayamanam pavattati]; after the turning round of the life-continum, a barely active mind process, fulfilling the function of adverting or attending to an object at the sense-door of the eye, goes on [tam avattetva kiriya mano dhatu avajjana kiccam sadhayamana]; from the cessation of that, fulfilling the function of seeing, eye-consciousness goes on [tannirodha cakkhu viññanam dassana kiccam sadhayamana]; from the cessation of that, a resultant mind process, fulfilling the function of receiving, goes on [tannirodha vipaka mano dhatu sampaticchanna kiccam sadhayamana]; from the cessation of that, a resultant mind consciousness process, fulfilling the function of considering, goes on [tannirodha vipaka mano viññana dhatu santirana kiccam sadhyamana]; from the cessation of that, a barely active mind consciousness process, fulfilling the function of determining, goes on [tannirodha kiriya mano viññana dhatu votthapana kiccam sadhayamana]; from the cessation of that, an impulsion impels seven times [tannirodha sattakkhattum javanam javati]. Now, among the mental states of the life-continuum and so forth or even in the mental state of the first impulsion, there is no looking straight on or looking away from the front, by way of lust, hatred or ignorance by him who sees in any direction. Also there is no such stained vision by him in the mental state of the second impulsion, the third, the fourth, the fifth, sixth or even in the seventh impulsion. But when, like soldiers in a battlefield, the mental states, after breaking-up gradually are fallen, one atop of another, there takes place looking straight on or looking away from the front, by way of lust, hate and ignorance, accompanied by the discriminatory thought: "This is a woman," or "This is a man," much in the same way as the fallen are distinguished after a battle; for in the frenzy of fighting there is no room for recognition of the individuals engaged in the fray.[24] Thus here in the first instance, clear comprehension of non-delusion should be understood, by way of the accurate knowledge of the root. 24. Here, it is necessary to explain further how a course of cognition with moral consequences takes place. Awareness or lack of it in regard to, for instance, the true nature of a visible object is not due to the sensory qualities of the eye. Nevertheless when a visible object becomes clear after existing for the space of a thought-unit in regard to consciousness of the life-continum without however causing any ruffle in the placid flow of the continum, there arises once and ceases consciousness as life-continum movement of one thought-unit's duration and once, too, arises and ceases consciousness as life-continum stoppage of one thought-unit's duration. Then completing the function of adverting or turning to the visible object, consciousness as a barely active mind-process arises once and ceases. After that in regular order arise and cease one thought-unit of eye-consciousness completing the function of seeing the object, one thought-unit of consciousness of a resultant mind-process completing the function of receiving the object, one thought-unit of resultant non-causal process of mind-consciousness completing the function of considering the object and one thought-unit of barely active non-causal mind-consciousness completing the function of determining the object. Immediately after that, conscious impulsion impels seven times, that is during the space of seven thought-units. There, from the state of the life-continum to that of determining no moral consequences take place. And no very strong moral consequences take place even in the first seven impulsion that follow determining. At the close of those seven impulsions consciousness slides into the life-continum or in other words consciousness becomes the life-continum taking up as object the karma, the karmical sign or the destiny-sign which brought about the relinking mind of the present existence. This activity of the life-continum is repeated very many times and then consciousness regrasps the visible object that was comprehended earlier in the course of sense-door cognition and exists for the space of one thought-unit by way of life-continum movement and for the space of one thought unit, by way of life-continum stoppage, at the mind-door. After that consciousness arises once and ceases by way of adverting to the mind-door and arises and ceases seven times by way of impulsion of mind-door cognition. It is even in the fourth impulsion-set beginning with sense-door cognition or in the impulsion-set of the third of the courses of mind-door cognition that very strong moral consequences take place. Cf. Majjhima Nikaya Atthakatha pp. 75-76 P.T.S. Ed. And the Visuddhi Marga by Buddhaghosa Thera with commentary of Kalikala Sahityas Sarvagjña Pandita Parakrama Bahu and new explanation by M. Dharmaratne, 1890, Colombo, Part I p.91. The extract given below is from the Paramattha Mañjusa Tika Part I p. 43 edited by M. Dhammananda Thera, 1928, Colombo: ettha ca cakkhu dvare ruparammane apathagate niyamitadi vasena kusalakusale javane sattakkhattum uppajjitva bhavangam otinne tadanu rupameva mano dvarika javane tasmim yevarammane sattakkhattum yeva uppajjitva bhavangam otinne puna tasmim yeva dvare tadevarammanam nissaya itthi purisoti adina vavatthapentam pasada rajjanadi vasena sattakkhattum javanam javati. 20304 From: Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 3:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 63, Comm, Clear Comprehension 2 Hi all, I'm understanding this to say clear comprehension of resort is keeping the object (sign?) of meditation constantly in mind and cear comprehension of nondelusion is understanding the consciousness process in the moment. Larry 20305 From: Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 4:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] meditation Hi Nina, I think calming the body of the breath makes it kusala and the difference between breath and air doesn't matter. The true object of jhana meditation is the counterpart sign which is different from physiological sensations and also different from insight. Signs, in general, would be a really good topic for a doctoral thesis. Maybe someone will pick it up. Larry 20306 From: Dan D. Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 8:07pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Dear Azita (and others, who should feel free to read and chime in as they see fit), I enjoyed your comments about 'pleasant/unpleasant object' very much! You are perceptive -- that, I can tell. Let's work on vocabulary a bit to make sure we are talking about the same things. You wrote: > Azita: "I had thought that the object was inherently 'pleasant/unpleasant' no matter how we perceived it. To me, it makes sense because when we experience kusala vipaka thro. eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body surely the object must be pleasant..." Dan: I'm so used to thinking of 'pleasant' as 'sukha' or 'somanassa' -- types of vedana, purely nama, aspects of experience -- that you should be patient with me when the hearing of 'pleasant' applied to rupa gives me pause. Obviously, you can't mean that objects are inherently sukha or somanassa. In your mind, what is the difference between 'pleasant' as a characteristic of a vedana and 'pleasant' as a characteristic of an object? In Pali, the word often translated as 'pleasant' when referring to sense objects is 'ittha', which is the past participle of 'icchati' (to wish, desire, ask for). To rephrase my question, then: What do you see as the difference between 'ittha' and 'sukha'? Or even: what is 'ittha'? > Azita: "pleasant" seems to be more objective, dissociated from 'me', whereas "desirable" involves 'me'.... Dan: I agree. At least I *think* I agree, but we need to be sure we're talking about the same things. (In particularI'm not sure what you mean specifically by the word 'me' in single quotes.) I too see the word "pleasant" as applied to objects to be more objective, more dissociated from...well....dissociated from the experience or the object's relationship to nama, as seeming to be a characteristic of an object independent of the experience of the object; whereas "desirable" emphasizes the relationship of the object to its association with the experiencing (or nama). I think your sense about these two words strikes at the heart of the matter. Let's look further... > Azita: the object is pleasant whether I'm experiencing it or not... Dan: I'm not following you here. In your earlier comment, you said that the object must be pleasant when we experience kusala vipaka. Although, I don't like the word "pleasant" here, I think I get your point. The object of kusala-vipaka is "pleasant". Now, though, you are saying that the object is pleasant whether or not you are experiencing it. I wonder... What is an unseen visible object an object of? The point is that a visible object is an object of seeing consciousness and simply doesn't exist outside the experience of seeing. Can the "pleasantness" of an "object" exist outside of the experience of it? >Azita: ...the desirable object is something that I've experienced and want. Dan: Yes, sometimes. [Also, the desirable object may be something that you haven't experienced but want anyway.] Robert, Sarah, and Jon, I hope to get back to you soon. Then, I'll have to pop back out. Dan 20307 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 8:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] meditation --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Nina, > > I think calming the body of the breath makes it kusala and the > difference between breath and air doesn't matter. The true object of > jhana meditation is the counterpart sign which is different from > physiological sensations and also different from insight. Signs, in > general, would be a really good topic for a doctoral thesis. Maybe > someone will pick it up. > > Larry Hi Larry, I believe you have it mistaken. Signs should not be used as the object for jhana meditation; some commentaries mistakenly extrapolate this teaching from the suttas, but that is not what the Lord Buddha taught. Perhaps you find the essay by Bhikkhu Soma `wanting in some respects' because it debunks this teaching that counter-signs should be used as objects of meditation. They are merely signs along the road, not the main destination. Actually, if one tries to make them an object of meditation the result will not be insight but merely various states of bliss arising from single-pointed absorption. The most that one can hope to achieve from this is remembrance of past lives and the development of extra-sensory perception…but not liberation. While it is comforting to attach the mind to signs, and it gives one a measurable sense of direction and purpose, the true goal is to plunge the mind into the void…the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception…where signs no longer exist. Metta, James 20308 From: Andrew Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 8:51pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > The point is that a visible object is an object of seeing > consciousness and simply doesn't exist outside the experience of > seeing. Can the "pleasantness" of an "object" exist outside of the > experience of it? > > Dan Hi Dan Accepting your invitation to chime in as I am a little confused. I thought visible object was rupa, a paramattha dhamma. Are you saying that rupa does not exist unless it is in contact with a sense-base thereby giving rise to consciousness? For example, does rupa only manifest anicca when in contact with a sense-base? Or is anicca inherent in rupa? If so, why couldn't attractiveness be inherent in a rupa? Have I lost the plot? Metta Andrew 20309 From: Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 9:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] meditation Hi James, Jhana is tranquility for tranquility's sake. There isn't any insight in it into the three characteristics. I think the reason a concept is the object of jhana is because any other kind of object is too busy, even very subtle breathing. It is profound calm. But I don't know about the state of neither perception nor non-perception. There may not be an object there. I vaguely remember reading something about this but I don't remember. However, jhana does set up the mind, somehow, for an insight that makes a difference. Maybe very rational people, people who really live with reason, don't need jhana to see clearly. Both jhana and insight are concerned with seeing clearly, but they see different characteristics. One sees a sign and the other sees impermanence, suffering, and no self. There is a lot to be investigated here. Do you have any other thoughts? Larry 20310 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 10:05pm Subject: Re: meditation --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi James, > > Jhana is tranquility for tranquility's sake. There isn't any insight in > it into the three characteristics. I think the reason a concept is the > object of jhana is because any other kind of object is too busy, even > very subtle breathing. Hi Larry, Oh, you were speaking of mundane jhanas while I thought you were speaking of supramundane jhanas. I am not quite sure why you are encouraging others or yourself to perfect mundane jhanas since they will only result in rebirth in higher realms of materiality and non- materiality, not liberation (nibbana). The four jhanas that the Buddha taught are the supramundane jhanas which don't use signs or counterpart signs as objects, but rather use the five aggregates as objects. The fact that the breath is changing and that the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (Body, Feeling, Mind, Mental Activity) are constantly changing, that doesn't mean that jhana cannot be perfected using these items as objects of meditation because awareness of them doesn't change. The point is to find that still point in awareness and maintain it while observing the transient nature of the mind and body…and that will be perfection of the supermundane jhanas. In the highest state of supermundane jhana, from the realm of neither perception nor non-perception, there will be an instantaneous awareness of Nibbana and the Four Noble Truths. Hmmm…I don't know if I am making myself clear enough. I am not trying to disprove you or anything; I am just concerned for you to practice a type of meditation that the Buddha taught will continue your existence in samsara. Metta, James 20311 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 10:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love Hi Mike (& Christine), --- "m. nease" wrote: > To me the ultimate in friendliness or compassion is that which > encourages > detachment. From the Visakhasutta: > > The sorrows, lamentations, > the many kinds of suffering in the world, > exist dependent on something dear. > They don't exist > when there's nothing dear. > And thus blissful & sorrowless > are those for whom nothing > in the world is dear anywhere. > So one who aspires > to be stainless & sorrowless > shouldn't make anything > in the world dear > anywhere. > > Udana VIII.8 > Visakha Sutta > To Visakha ***** S: I also think there is a wealth of helpful detail in the commentary to these verses and I’d like to quote some parts I find it helpful to reflect on further. So that the Comy notes (Masefield transl, PTS) make more sense in context, I’ll also quote his more literal translation of these verses first as well, even though they may not sound so poetic: ..... “Whatever griefs or lamentations or dukkhas or so of countless forms in this world - these originate dependent upon something held dear; when there be no thing held dear, these do not exist. Therefore, these are happy, free of grief, those for whom there is no thing held dear anywhere in this world - therefore, the one wishing for that which is grief-free, for that which is dustless, should not engender that held dear anywhere in this world”. As most readers here will know, these verses were given by the Buddha when Visakha’s very dear grandaughter passed away. Visakha was distraught and approached the Buddha with wet hair and clothes, even though, as we know she had been a sotapanna since a young age. In the commentary we read that this particular grandaughter was devoted to the Teachings, greatly helped her grandmother support the Sangha and was ‘fair to behold’, inspiring ‘serenity’, all of which made her very dear and charming. ***** extracts from Comy to Ud 8, Pitali Villagers 8 Visakha: “ ‘Whatever i) griefs’, whose characteristic is that of mental torment for the fool as he is internally consumed upon being contacted by the (five) losses of relatives, possessions, disease, moralily and view, (and) of whatever kind, by way of their division into those that are mild and medium and so on, or” ..... S: I was interested in these five losses given and followed a few references. They refer to the 5 kinds of loss (vyasanaani) and in DN iii, 235 (Walshe transl), we read: “Five kinds of loss (vyasanaani): Loss of relatives, wealth, health, morality, (right) view. No beings fall into an evil state, a hell-state....after death because of loss of relatives, wealth or health; but beings do fall into such states by loss of morality and right view.” ..... S: I find this to be such a powerful reminder of what is really of value and important in life. While we grieve for loss of relatives or health, we fail to remember the value of developing sila and panna and to reflect on how these can be lost as well at far greater cost. ..... “.. ‘or ii) lamentations’, whoe characteristic is that of the verbal babbling given rise to by the bubbling up of grief for that same fool upon being contacted by those same (losses) ‘or iii) dukkhas’ whose characteristic is that of oppressing the body of the one whose body has been smitten by undesirable tangible objects or....” ..... S: Masefield also gives a note with this ref: “Vism 504 which contrasts grief, lamentation and despair as follows: Grief is like the cooking of oil, etc in a pot over a slow fire. Lamentation is like its boiling over from the pot when cooking over a quick fire. Despair is like what remains in the pot after it has boiled over and is unable to do so any more, going on cooking in the pot till it dries up.” ..... : “...’therefore the one wishing’ on his own account ‘for that which is’, due to the absence of the aforementioned grief, ‘grief-free’, for the grief-free state, ‘for that which is’, through the departure of the dusts of lust and so on, ‘dustless’, for the dustless state, for arahantship, or alternatively for nibbana, which has acquired the name “That which is grief-free, that which is dustless” on account of its being the root-cause of the absence of grief and of the dusts of lusts and so forth - ..” ..... S: “the dusts of lust” as compared to “the dustless state, for arahantship, or...for nibbana” helps us to understand how dusty our lives are. When we read elsewhere about the dusty lay life compared to the bhikkhu’s life, I understand ”the dusts of lust” and “holding dear” is what is being referred to. ..... “..the one filled with yearning (for same) by way of that yearning that is skilled in a desire to act - ‘should not engende’, should not give rise to, ‘that held dear’, any state in which things are held dear, holding dear, ‘anywhere in this world’, where any dhamma, such as a sight-object and so on is concerned, where even any dhamma associated with samatha or vipassanaa is concerned. For this is said: “Even (right) dhammas are to be abandoned, so how much more so wrong dhammas” (M i 135).” ..... S: Note the reference to ‘sight -object and so on’(visible object etc), on account of which attachment arises. Also even the holding dear of wholesome states “associated with samatha or vipassanaa” is to be abandoned as well. ..... Mike, I think your comments are well-supported throughout the entire Tipitaka and commentaries. Indeed this is an explanation of the 4 Noble Truths. We don’t need to wait until we’re in a more secluded place or leading another lifestyle to appreciate these truths as Visakkha did. Thank you for your helpful reminders. Metta, Sarah ===== 20312 From: azita gill Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] bobbing pumpkins!!! --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Azita > > Interesting to think of mind without sati as being > like a pumpkin > bobbing about in the water. > > Jon > > dear Jon, a great simile, and it has given me reason to smile. this morning, at the end of my yoga class, when we do relaxation, I was having difficulty, trying to stay relaxed!!! my mind was all over the place and I thought of the bobbing pumpkin. it was a wonderful reminder, and of course, there is no 'me' who can make 'me' relax - if I relax then it is by conditions only. Thanks again, Jon Cheers, Azita. 20313 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love Hi Dharam, I always enjoy your well-considered comments - --- bodhi342 wrote: > Thanks for this concise, and IMO fundamental, sutta. This is the > bargain, the price to be paid, the entry qualification. Relinquish > EVERYTHING loved and dear, only then will you pass through. ..... While it’s true that only when everything loved and dear is relinquished, arahantship will be attained (see Comy notes to sutta just given), still, there has to be one step at a time. The step for most of us for now is hearing these truths about suffering and its cause, carefully considering what is heard, so that panna and the other path factors can begin to do their work of knowing present realities. ..... > How many of us really confront this head-on and honestly? Even the > theory, let alone the practice. I perceive we spend much more time > rationalizing our attachments/detachments, fearful of the full > implications of this all-or-nothing 'contract'. ..... As Mike said, it is a path of detachment and as the Comy notes showed, this includes detachment from wholesome moments of samatha and vipassana as well. If the present realities are ‘rationalizing...’, ‘fear...’, clinging to a self that can confront or practice, then all the more reason to know these phenomena for what they are.....merely more conditioned realities. ..... > We have to pay heed to the Buddha telling us that we cannot have our > cake, and eat it too! ..... Isn’t this thinking or thinking about ‘all-or-nothing’ contracts merely more thinking at the present moment? In other words, yet another opportunity for awareness and knowledge of what is being held dear? Look forward to Mike’s and your own comments further. Metta, Sarah ===== 20314 From: Star Kid Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 0:01am Subject: Metta? Love? Dear Everybody, It's me Sandy! I know 'Metta' is a Buddhist word and it means love. But what's the difference with 'Love...' and 'Metta...'? Metta?/Love? Sandy 20315 From: Star Kid Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 0:08am Subject: A Reply Dear James, This letter (No:20206) explains better, but what do you mean by writing too fast? Also you write "just a bundle of conditions that appears to be a person but will be something else later on." Please explain this. Janet 20316 From: Dan D. Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 4:15am Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Interesting questions, Andrew! Let me clarify briefly: > Andrew: Are you saying that rupa does not exist unless it is in contact with a sense-base thereby giving rise to consciousness? No. I'm not speculating about things that happen outside the realm of experience. > Andrew: For example, does rupa only manifest anicca when in contact with a sense-base? Or is anicca inherent in rupa? I'm not sure what you mean by "rupa". Could you please explain? ..... Then, I wrote: > > Dan: Can the "pleasantness" of an "object" exist outside of the > > experience of it? > Andrew: ... why couldn't attractiveness be inherent in a rupa? Doggonit, Andrew! Are you are changing the subject on me? I was talking about "pleasantness", not "attractiveness". Do you see any difference between these words? Dan 20317 From: dwlemen Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 6:40am Subject: From Christ to Buddha Dear Everyone, I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently I find myself struggling. My main hurdle seems to be transitioning my Western, Christian upbringing into the Eastern, Buddhist mindset (specifically Theravada). Are there resources to help one? Here are a few of my specific woes: 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to find clear (or relatively clear) absolute rules. One can structure one's behavior according to these "commandments". Is there a similar idea in Buddhism? This may be the same question as message 210 ("Buddhist concept of good vs. evil") but the answer never got posted. 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me than I thought. Christianity has some pretty clear punishments for violating the rules. So, while on one level, I have confidence in the non- existence of the Christian God, I have this fear of being "wrong." Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" this fear? 3. The Sangha. I live in a small town in Indiana. As such, there is no temple or group to help with my journey or to become a part of. Are there recommendations for isolated people to follow the correct path? Hopefully this isn't too much for one message. It is very difficult to move from one faith to another. Even though I do truly want to, I just don't know how or where to start. Peace, Dave 20318 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 6:55am Subject: Re: Questions for YOU! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Hi James, > > Sorry that I didn't send you a letter for a long > time, it's because I had a holiday to malaysia to > visit my family and relatives. > > I kind of got confused, while reading the letter > half way, but I think I kind of understand the letter > ( no. 18856). I like the part when you said 'It was at > this time that I felt that true wisdom wasn't cold and > logical, but optimistic and loving.' > > I think I'm half Christian because I don't go to > church. Do Buddhists goes to any places during the > week like the Christian does? Do Buddhists have any > prayers like the Christian does? Do Buddhists have to > pray before eating? > > Take care and Happy New Year! > > Love Sandy Hi Star Kid Sandy! It is okay not to write for a while. I am glad that you had a nice vacation in Malaysia. Let me tell you a story about Malaysia. I have never been to Malaysia but I had a roommate in college who was from Malaysia. He was also Moslem which meant that he couldn't drink alcohol, had to eat meat (no pork) that was blessed (kosher), prayed five times a day on a little rug (no matter where he was), couldn't touch any dogs (in Islamic religion they are considered an `unclean' animal), and many other `rules' of behavior. It was kinda funny to me because if he and I would visit anyone at their house and they had a dog it was my job to keep the dog away from him! ;-) He told me that if he was touched by a dog he would have to rub the spot eight times with dirt and then rinse eight times with water. I mention all of this because it relates to your questions about attending church and praying. Many types of religions, like Islam and Christianity, have ceremonies and rules for the people of that religion to follow. As a result, those people who follow these rules and customs the closest are considered more `religious' or `blessed' than those people who don't. That is why you don't think you are full Christian because you don't go to church. You think this because `going to church' is one of the important customs and ceremonies of the Christian religion (even though Jesus didn't regularly attend any kind of church nor did he teach `church going'). Another ceremony of Christianity is praying before eating a meal, like Jesus did, and praying in church. But Moslems pray to God five times a day, everyday. Who is doing the right thing? Who is doing the wrong thing? My opinion is that these different customs are neither right nor wrong; they are just doing what they want/need to do. Sandy, in Buddhism, as in the original teachings of the Buddha, there aren't that many types of prayers or customs because the Buddha saw that they don't have the `magical power' many people seem to think they have. He did teach a few prayers and did recommend keeping some holidays `holy', but not that many and not in the same way as other religions. However, it turns out that many people need prayers and customs so different cultures have `invented' various types of things to go along with Buddhism. Buddhism is a very confusing religion to people because it appears to be completely different in each different country! ;-) But those differences are what are called the `trappings' of Buddhism, not the original teachings of Buddhism. I'm sorry for this long explanation, but this is a complicated issue. So, I cannot give you definite answers to your questions because it will depend on the country where Buddhism is established. Some Buddhists will go to temple during the week, some won't; some Buddhists will pray, some won't; some Buddhists will pray before eating, some won't. These differences are determined by culture, not by the religion of Buddhism. Sorry I can't give you a more definite answer but I hope you understand a bit more. Thank you for writing again Sandy and I hope you work really hard in school. Love, James 20319 From: robmoult Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 8:54am Subject: Re: From Christ to Buddha Hi Dave, You will find many, many people in this group who have come to Buddhism from a Christian background. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Dear Everyone, > > I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently I find myself > struggling. My main hurdle seems to be transitioning my Western, > Christian upbringing into the Eastern, Buddhist mindset (specifically > Theravada). Are there resources to help one? ===== Raising the questions as part of this group is the best resource that I can imagine. ===== > Here are a few of my > specific woes: > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to find clear (or > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can structure one's behavior > according to these "commandments". Is there a similar idea in > Buddhism? This may be the same question as message 210 ("Buddhist > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer never got posted. ===== Christians have ten commandments, Buddhists have five "rules of training" (precepts): - Avoid killing - Avoid stealing - Avoid sexual misconduct - Avoid lying - Avoid intoxicants In Buddhism, if you break a precept, then you are creating bad kamma for yourself; it is a natural law (Buddhists think in terms of natural laws rather than in terms of rewards and punishments). ===== > > 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me than I thought. > Christianity has some pretty clear punishments for violating the > rules. So, while on one level, I have confidence in the non- > existence of the Christian God, I have this fear of being "wrong." > Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" this fear? ===== You have probably noticed some similarity between the precepts listed above and the ten commandments. Notice what is left out of the Buddhist precepts; rites and rituals. My wife was brought up as a Buddhist in Indonesia beliving in God. When I met her, I explained that Buddhism does not accept a all- powerful creator God. She was shocked and we went to a monk for a clarification. The monk said that I was correct but in order to fit into the social fabric of a Muslim nation, the Buddhists had decided to remain silent (abstain?) on the issue of God. Knowing that a belief in God was deeply ingrained, I did not press the matter with her. As she read more and more, her belief in God melted away slowly. My advice is to focus on other areas of the teachings rather than trying to face the "no-God" head on. Give it time. ===== > > 3. The Sangha. I live in a small town in Indiana. As such, there is > no temple or group to help with my journey or to become a part of. > Are there recommendations for isolated people to follow the correct > path? ===== Rites and rituals are not very important in Buddhism. There are lots of on-line resources and many "wise friends" here at DSG. ===== > > Hopefully this isn't too much for one message. ===== It wasn't too much, but in future posts, why not ask one question at a time and see the responses. A word of warning, some of us (myself included) tend to get deep into theory. Please ignore us. ===== > It is very difficult > to move from one faith to another. Even though I do truly want to, I > just don't know how or where to start. ===== In your case, I suspect it is a case of returning to a faith that you had in a past life :-). Metta, Rob :-) 20320 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nice to meet you !!! Dear Kiana, I believe you must be very young. I have very little time so so I reply when I feel like I have a good point to help the society. My daughter also is very young but she is not so interested in Buddhism, which I believe is about REAL truth at least that is what I think and ONLY thing want it to be. To me it is NOT a religion. Religion can be a very narrow-minded and selfish groupie concept. Another thing is I do not believe in 'Yound Saint, Old Devil'. That must be they have not got the really correct philosophy or Life Truth. That is another indication of hypocrisy. It is interesting you ask me about human nature, why I say human world in the past was, presently is and in the future will be like. In other words, human world will just be like that according my Buddhist interpretation. Quickly Buddha said there are 31 levels (planes - very scientific too) of existences. Human world and animal world can see and be in touch with each other while the rest (29 other worlds) we can not sense it at least easily. Human world is about in-between (some kind of halfway) the overly pleasant world (of Immortals, Gods, Spirits...) and overly unpleasant world (of Hell, ghosts?, low-life,...) - so I think human world will have all the mixed-bag of the good, the bad and the ugly of everything - occassional happiness, sorrows, neutral, so to become a Buddha or go to Nirvana, here the human world is the place to be or should I say the must place to be. So for all the other (religions ?) talk of the coming perfect world to follow soon, I think nothing will change, human world is and will be just like that. Another question you had asked is - How can I tell Buddha is gentle and warm, from reading what he had preached. No hatred, violence, killing under whatever pretext, no whatsoever condition including of course in defense of Buddha or Buddhism. He also was not ego-centric asking you to worship and praise and believe him and everything he say. He wanted you to check it out and use your own judgement. Like I mentioned above, Buddhism is and should be a truth seeking effort. If you have time try to find his explanation of many phenomena and the completeness and details are simply impressive. I still have not look at it but from the excerpts here and there only. I feel no ordinary genius (watch my use of genius) can explain such complicate things without stumbling all over by its own details and become a laughing stock over the 2,500 years. Also the knowledge of his explanation - I think is called Dhamma (I am still learning) will increase and decrease or even fade into oblivion at certain point, so is the coming into and going out of each Buddha. According to him, to become a human being is also not easy to come by. It is likened it to throwing a fistful of small beans at a concrete wall and expect one bean will get caught in one of the crevices or holes in that wall. This is how hard it is to become a human being with this thinking capability compared with the smartest animals from the animal world that we are able to interface and interact with. One place of good source is www.buddha.net. Thanks, Metta. --- Star Kid wrote: > > Dear Eddie, > Hello! I'm Kiana! That was so nice that you wrote > me > a letter(quite a suprise!^.^) > I am a twelve year old girl that is living in Hong > Kong. Can you introduce youself too? I hope you > would > not mind! > I agree that the human nature is here to stay in > the > past, now or even in the future! On the other hand, > I > think we need the "Human Nature", because if we have > no pain such as when someone treats or did something > bad to you, then how can we have gain (the victory)? > We should learn when we fall!!! > You're right, Buddha is very warm and gentle, I > knew > that from the sentences or books that they wrote. > And > can I ask why do you think Buddha is gentle and warm > too ? > Love , Kiana. 20321 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visible object in the mind-door process. Dear Rob M, op 14-03-2003 10:18 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > My understanding is that the object of a sense-door citta process is > a rupa (i.e. visible object). This rupa lasts only for the duration > of 17 cittas. The first mind door citta process after the rupa has > fallen away has, as its object a mental image (a copy) of the rupa > that has just fallen away. Subsequent mind-door citta processes > build upon this mental image. I have called this mental image (the > copy of the rupa) a "concept" as it is the object of a mind-door > citta process. > > What we normally think of as a "concept" is something much bigger > and more complex than this simple "mental image" of a rupa, but I > see concepts of varying complexity. The simplest, most elemental > concept is this "mental image", which forms the basis of larger, > more complex concepts which are built by later mind-door citta > processes. Nina: I still find this not quite clear, although I know what you mean by mental image and copy as a kind of simple concept. If we think of characteristics, not of words, I would say, it is just pure rupa presenting itselof through the mind-door, just after the sense-door process has fallen away. I think again of the first stage of vipassana nana: knowing the characteristic of nama as quite distinct from the characteristic of rupa. Through the mind-door, in different mind-door processes. As I wrote once before, Phra Dhammadharo asked A. Sujin: is the experience of rupa through the mind-door different from experience of rupa through a sense-door. Answer: exactly the same. She said that the mind-door process falls into the stream of the sense-door process, it is so extremely fast. We do not count processes. Panna just realizes different characteristics. I do not like to think of a copy or some kind of concept, no matter how simple, I find such words too complicated. I am just reminded by an object that is intrinsically pleasant or desirable: sometimes it can be known that an object is produced by kusala citta, and then it is pleasant. Desirable is the tr. of i.t.tha, it does not have to do here with attachment. We can translate this as agreeable, pleasing. The kind Pali teacher produced the three refuges on the screen. An agreeable visible object. But cittas are so fast, we cannot pinpoint everything. There can be akusala cittas in between the kusala cittas. A naughty child shouting, sound produced by akusala citta. It is not pleasant. Nina. 20322 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:30am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 5 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 5 We read further on: When he said the word bhagavå, the Blessed One, he demonstrated the excellence of the teacher, who was not an ordinary person. ³Bhagavå², the Arahatta Sammåsambuddha, was the person who taught the Dhamma. With the words, ³at Såvatthí, in the Jeta Grove, at Anåthapindika¹s Park², the venerable Elder demonstrated the support of the layfollowers of the Buddha in mentioning Såvatthí, and he demonstrated the support of the monks in mentioning the Jeta Grove. We read in the ³Paramatthadípaní², the Commentary to the ³Itivuttaka², ³As it was said², Khuddaka Nikåya, the Commentary to The Ones, Ch 1, §1, Lobha Sutta, an elaboration of the words ³arahat² and ³bhagavå². We read about four aditthåna dhammas, dhammas which are firm foundations connected with the ten perfections. We read that the aditthåna dhammas are: truthfulness, sacca, relinquisment, cåga, calm or peace, upasama, and paññå [3]. Sacca is truthfulness with regard to the development of paññå with the aim to realize the four noble Truths. We read in the Commentary to the Lobha Sutta: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 5 The word araham means that there should be truthfulness, sacca, with regard to the development of kusala ... As regards the word ³bhagavå², the Commentator refers to the fulfilment of the aditthåna dhammas of sacca, truthfulness, and cåga, relinquisment. Thus, if truthfulness and relinquishment are not firmly established, the four noble Truths cannot be realized. We read: By the word bhagavå the Commentator refers to the fulfilment of the aditthåna dhammas of sacca, truthfulness, and cåga, relinquishment, by explaining the Blessed One¹s truthfulness of his vow, patiññå, his truthfulness of speech and the truthfulness of his paññå; and by explaining the relinquishment of sense objects which are considered important in the world, such as gain, honour and praise, and the complete relinquisment of the abhisankhåras (accumulations leading to rebirth), namely, the defilements. Relinquishment, cåga, does not only refer to the giving up of possessions, but it also means the giving up of clinging to sense objects, such as visible object and tangible object. Apart from this it also refers to the giving up of what is considered important in the world: gain, honour and praise. Moreover, it refers to the relinquishment of all defilements. True relinquishment is the relinquishment of everything, even of all defilements. One needs from the beginning also sacca, truthfulness, as a firm foundation, so that defilements can be eradicated. We listen to the Dhamma, we understand it and we know that we still have a great deal of defilements. Therefore, we need to further develop and accumulate all the perfections in order to realize the noble Truths and to attain true relinquishment. Footnote: 3. We read in the Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct² that these are dhammas which are foundations. Aditthåna is also translated as resolve. We read in the ³Dialogues of the Buddha², no. 33, The Recital, IV, XXVII: ³Four Resolves, to wit, to gain insight, to win truth, to surrender (all evil), to master self (calm).² The Commentary, the Sumangala Vilåsiní, states that the resolve of paññå, paññåditthåna, begins as vipassanå paññå ( which realizes the ownership of kamma by insight) and has as its supreme fruit, the fruition of the arahat. Truthfulness, beginning with truthfulness in speech, ends with the ultimate truth of nibbåna. As to surrendering or giving up, this begins with detachment from sense objects and ends with the eradication of all defilements by the highest Path. As to calm, this begins with the subduing of defilements in (jhåna) attainment and ends with the cessation of all defilements by the highest Path. 20323 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: sila, samadhi, panna no 1. Dear Lars, First your text op 13-03-2003 15:19 schreef Lars op khandha5@g...: > (D.16): > > "iti siila"m, iti samaadhi, iti pa~n~naa. Such and such is sila, such and such is concentration, such and such is wisdom. Siilaparibhaavito samaadhi mahapphalo hoti mahaanisa"mso. Great becomes the fruit, great is the gain of concentration when it is fully developed by sila Samadhiparibhaavitaa pa~n~naa mahapphalaa hoti mahaanisa"msaa. Great becomes the fruit, great is the gain of wisdom when it is fully developed by concentration. Pa~n~naaparibhaavita"m citta"m sammadeva aasavehi vimuccati, seyyathida"m – kaamaasavaa, bhavaasavaa, avijjaasavaa"ti. utterly freed from the intoxicants (aasavas) of Lust, of becoming and of ignorance is the mind that is fully developed in wisdom. The commentary explains that sila here is: paarisuddhi sila. Before I go into the Co, I shall quote what I wrote about this subject in my "In Asoka's Footsteps" (See Zolag web.) Later on I shall continue. You wrote: And there seem to be indications that even a sotapanna can transgress some precepts. (S 55.24) N: I cannot find this annotation, it must be in K V, Streamwinning, but where? Could you indicate the sutta. It cannot be one of the five precepts, but it could be a precept of Vinaya. Nina 20324 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love Dear Mike and Dharam, This is the end of a long development up to arahatship. Let us not skip what has to be known first: all daily realities, including our attachments. No forcing not to have them, but understanding them as conditioned relaities when they naturally arise. They have to be understood as not mine, not self first. The development of understanding should be very natural. Nina op 16-03-2003 17:07 schreef bodhi342 op bodhi342@y...: > The sorrows, lamentations, > the many kinds of suffering in the world, > exist dependent on something dear. Mike, This is the > bargain, the price to be paid, the entry qualification. Relinquish > EVERYTHING loved and dear, only then will you pass through. 20325 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:30am Subject: Re: [dsg]the noting Dear Sarah op 09-03-2003 12:16 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: When there is > more understanding of paramattha sacca (absolute truth) and sammuti sacca > (conventional truth), even when we read about clenching the teeth’ or > other actions that may appear to suggest a self making a big effort, we > know there are just the various elements working in combinations and > according to conditions. .... > I’m not sure that this touches on your discussion with Jon. These are difficult points because they relate to developed stages of insight. N: I considered more the qu I raised to Jon about the third (please correct third, not second) stage of insight, as to panna that realizes even space in between groups of rupa. I realize better: there is I who would like to know, but it is panna that will perform its function. I listened to a tape: That is it. Nina. 20326 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Christ to Buddha Hi, I will like to contribute two things to understand The truth seeking Buddhism: 1. an email attachment of a transcript of a speech by the late U Ba Khin (my fellow country person, a practical vipassana practitioner). 2. a website: http://www.buddhanet.net/ and www.buddha.net (I just found it out now, understandably - I do not know about it too much) (Kiana, if you happen to look in this email - my mistake I provided the latter when I mean the former) It is 'important' to seize the moment of being a human being with the mind capacity to learn the real Life truth. Please see below: According to him, to become a human being is also not easy to come by. It is likened it to throwing a fistful of small beans at a concrete wall and expect one bean will get caught in one of the crevices or holes in that wall. This is how hard it is to become a human being with this thinking capability compared with the smartest animals from the animal world that we are able to interface and interact with. Also,... Buddha said there are 31 levels (planes - very scientific too) of existences. Human world and animal world can see and be in touch with each other while the rest (29 other worlds) we can not sense it at least easily. Human world is about in-between (some kind of halfway) the overly pleasant world (of Immortals, Gods, Spirits...) and overly unpleasant world (of Hell, ghosts?, low-life,...) - so I think human world will have all the mixed-bag of the good, the bad and the ugly of everything - occassional happiness, sorrows, neutral, so to become a Buddha or go to Nirvana, here the human world is the place to be or should I say the must place to be. So do check it out and is better and more interesting to see for yourself and make your own judgement, understand Buddhism. Have fun. Thanks. --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Dave, > > You will find many, many people in this group who > have come to > Buddhism from a Christian background. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" > > wrote: > > Dear Everyone, > > > > I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently I > find myself > > struggling. My main hurdle seems to be > transitioning my Western, > > Christian upbringing into the Eastern, Buddhist > mindset > (specifically > > Theravada). Are there resources to help one? > > ===== > > Raising the questions as part of this group is the > best resource that > I can imagine. > > ===== > > > Here are a few of my > > specific woes: > > > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to > find clear (or > > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can > structure one's behavior > > according to these "commandments". Is there a > similar idea in > > Buddhism? This may be the same question as > message 210 ("Buddhist > > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer never > got posted. > > ===== > > Christians have ten commandments, Buddhists have > five "rules of > training" (precepts): > - Avoid killing > - Avoid stealing > - Avoid sexual misconduct > - Avoid lying > - Avoid intoxicants > > In Buddhism, if you break a precept, then you are > creating bad kamma > for yourself; it is a natural law (Buddhists think > in terms of > natural laws rather than in terms of rewards and > punishments). > > ===== > > > > > 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me than > I thought. > > Christianity has some pretty clear punishments for > violating the > > rules. So, while on one level, I have confidence > in the non- > > existence of the Christian God, I have this fear > of being "wrong." > > Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" this > fear? > > ===== > > You have probably noticed some similarity between > the precepts listed > above and the ten commandments. Notice what is left > out of the > Buddhist precepts; rites and rituals. > > My wife was brought up as a Buddhist in Indonesia > beliving in God. > When I met her, I explained that Buddhism does not > accept a all- > powerful creator God. She was shocked and we went to > a monk for a > clarification. The monk said that I was correct but > in order to fit > into the social fabric of a Muslim nation, the > Buddhists had decided > to remain silent (abstain?) on the issue of God. > Knowing that a > belief in God was deeply ingrained, I did not press > the matter with > her. As she read more and more, her belief in God > melted away slowly. > > My advice is to focus on other areas of the > teachings rather than > trying to face the "no-God" head on. Give it time. > > ===== > > > > > 3. The Sangha. I live in a small town in Indiana. > As such, there > is > > no temple or group to help with my journey or to > become a part of. > > Are there recommendations for isolated people to > follow the correct > > path? > > ===== > > Rites and rituals are not very important in > Buddhism. There are lots > of on-line resources and many "wise friends" here at > DSG. > > ===== > > > > > Hopefully this isn't too much for one message. > > ===== > > It wasn't too much, but in future posts, why not ask > one question at > a time and see the responses. > > A word of warning, some of us (myself included) tend > to get deep into > theory. Please ignore us. > > ===== > > > It is very difficult > > to move from one faith to another. Even though I > do truly want to, > I > > just don't know how or where to start. > > ===== > > In your case, I suspect it is a case of returning to > a faith that you > had in a past life :-). > > Metta, > Rob :-) > 20327 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nice to meet you !!! website: http://www.buddhanet.net/ and www.buddha.net (I just found it out now, understandably - I do not know about it too much) Kiana, my mistake I provided the latter when I mean the former) --- Eddie Lou wrote: > Dear Kiana, > > I believe you must be very young. I have very little > time so so I reply when I feel like I have a good > point to help the society. > My daughter also is very young but she is not so > interested in Buddhism, which I believe is about > REAL > truth at least that is what I think and ONLY thing > want it to be. To me it is NOT a religion. Religion > can be a very narrow-minded and selfish groupie > concept. > > Another thing is I do not believe in 'Yound Saint, > Old > Devil'. That must be they have not got the really > correct philosophy or Life Truth. That is another > indication of hypocrisy. > > It is interesting you ask me about human nature, why > I > say human world in the past was, presently is and in > the future will be like. In other words, human world > will just be like that according my Buddhist > interpretation. Quickly Buddha said there are 31 > levels (planes - very scientific too) of existences. > > > Human world and animal world can see and be in touch > with each other while the rest (29 other worlds) we > can not sense it at least easily. Human world is > about > in-between (some kind of halfway) the overly > pleasant > world (of Immortals, Gods, Spirits...) and overly > unpleasant world (of Hell, ghosts?, low-life,...) - > so > I think human world will have all the mixed-bag of > the > good, the bad and the ugly of everything - > occassional > happiness, sorrows, neutral, so to become a Buddha > or > go to Nirvana, here the human world is the place to > be > or should I say the must place to be. > > So for all the other (religions ?) talk of the > coming > perfect world to follow soon, I think nothing will > change, human world is and will be just like that. > > Another question you had asked is - How can I tell > Buddha is gentle and warm, from reading what he had > preached. No hatred, violence, killing under > whatever > pretext, no whatsoever condition including of course > in defense of Buddha or Buddhism. > > He also was not ego-centric asking you to worship > and > praise and believe him and everything he say. He > wanted you to check it out and use your own > judgement. > > Like I mentioned above, Buddhism is and should be a > truth seeking effort. If you have time try to find > his > explanation of many phenomena and the completeness > and > details are simply impressive. I still have not look > at it but from the excerpts here and there only. I > feel no ordinary genius (watch my use of genius) can > explain such complicate things without stumbling all > over by its own details and become a laughing stock > over the 2,500 years. Also the knowledge of his > explanation - I think is called Dhamma (I am still > learning) will increase and decrease or even fade > into > oblivion at certain point, so is the coming into and > going out of each Buddha. > > According to him, to become a human being is also > not > easy to come by. It is likened it to throwing a > fistful of small beans at a concrete wall and expect > one bean will get caught in one of the crevices or > holes in that wall. This is how hard it is to become > a > human being with this thinking capability compared > with the smartest animals from the animal world that > we are able to interface and interact with. > > One place of good source is www.buddha.net. > > Thanks, > Metta. > --- Star Kid wrote: > > > > Dear Eddie, > > Hello! I'm Kiana! That was so nice that you wrote > > me > > a letter(quite a suprise!^.^) > > I am a twelve year old girl that is living in > Hong > > Kong. Can you introduce youself too? I hope you > > would > > not mind! > > I agree that the human nature is here to stay in > > the > > past, now or even in the future! On the other > hand, > > I > > think we need the "Human Nature", because if we > have > > no pain such as when someone treats or did > something > > bad to you, then how can we have gain (the > victory)? > > We should learn when we fall!!! > > You're right, Buddha is very warm and gentle, I > > knew > > that from the sentences or books that they wrote. > > And > > can I ask why do you think Buddha is gentle and > warm > > too ? > > Love , Kiana. 20328 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 11:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Christ to Buddha Sorry, I forgot to provide the email attachment: --- Eddie Lou wrote: > Hi, > > I will like to contribute two things to understand > The > truth seeking Buddhism: > > 1. an email attachment of a transcript of a speech > by > the late U Ba Khin (my fellow country person, a > practical vipassana practitioner). > > 2. a website: http://www.buddhanet.net/ > and www.buddha.net (I just found it out now, > understandably - I do not know about it too much) > > (Kiana, if you happen to look in this email - my > mistake I provided the latter when I mean the > former) > It is 'important' to seize the moment of being a > human > being with the mind capacity to learn the real Life > truth. Please see below: > > According to him, to become a human being is also > not > easy to come by. It is likened it to throwing a > fistful of small beans at a concrete wall and expect > one bean will get caught in one of the crevices or > holes in that wall. This is how hard it is to become > a > human being with this thinking capability compared > with the smartest animals from the animal world that > we are able to interface and interact with. > > Also,... > > Buddha said there are 31 levels (planes - very > scientific too) of existences. > > Human world and animal world can see and be in touch > with each other while the rest (29 other worlds) we > can not sense it at least easily. Human world is > about > in-between (some kind of halfway) the overly > pleasant > world (of Immortals, Gods, Spirits...) and overly > unpleasant world (of Hell, ghosts?, low-life,...) - > so > I think human world will have all the mixed-bag of > the > good, the bad and the ugly of everything - > occassional > happiness, sorrows, neutral, so to become a Buddha > or > go to Nirvana, here the human world is the place to > be > or should I say the must place to be. > > So do check it out and is better and more > interesting > to see for yourself and make your own judgement, > understand Buddhism. Have fun. > > Thanks. > --- robmoult wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > > You will find many, many people in this group who > > have come to > > Buddhism from a Christian background. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" > > > > wrote: > > > Dear Everyone, > > > > > > I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently I > > find myself > > > struggling. My main hurdle seems to be > > transitioning my Western, > > > Christian upbringing into the Eastern, Buddhist > > mindset > > (specifically > > > Theravada). Are there resources to help one? > > > > ===== > > > > Raising the questions as part of this group is the > > best resource that > > I can imagine. > > > > ===== > > > > > Here are a few of my > > > specific woes: > > > > > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to > > find clear (or > > > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can > > structure one's behavior > > > according to these "commandments". Is there a > > similar idea in > > > Buddhism? This may be the same question as > > message 210 ("Buddhist > > > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer never > > got posted. > > > > ===== > > > > Christians have ten commandments, Buddhists have > > five "rules of > > training" (precepts): > > - Avoid killing > > - Avoid stealing > > - Avoid sexual misconduct > > - Avoid lying > > - Avoid intoxicants > > > > In Buddhism, if you break a precept, then you are > > creating bad kamma > > for yourself; it is a natural law (Buddhists think > > in terms of > > natural laws rather than in terms of rewards and > > punishments). > > > > ===== > > > > > > > > 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me > than > > I thought. > > > Christianity has some pretty clear punishments > for > > violating the > > > rules. So, while on one level, I have > confidence > > in the non- > > > existence of the Christian God, I have this fear > > of being "wrong." > > > Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" > this > > fear? > > > > ===== > > > > You have probably noticed some similarity between > > the precepts listed > > above and the ten commandments. Notice what is > left > > out of the > > Buddhist precepts; rites and rituals. > > > > My wife was brought up as a Buddhist in Indonesia > > beliving in God. > > When I met her, I explained that Buddhism does not > > accept a all- > > powerful creator God. She was shocked and we went > to > > a monk for a > > clarification. The monk said that I was correct > but > > in order to fit > > into the social fabric of a Muslim nation, the > > Buddhists had decided > > to remain silent (abstain?) on the issue of God. > > Knowing that a > > belief in God was deeply ingrained, I did not > press > > the matter with > > her. As she read more and more, her belief in God > > melted away slowly. > > > > My advice is to focus on other areas of the > > teachings rather than > > trying to face the "no-God" head on. Give it time. > > > > ===== > > > > > > > > 3. The Sangha. I live in a small town in > Indiana. > > As such, there > > is > > > no temple or group to help with my journey or to > > become a part of. > > > Are there recommendations for isolated people to > > follow the correct > > > path? > > > > ===== > > > > Rites and rituals are not very important in > > Buddhism. There are lots > > of on-line resources and many "wise friends" here > at > > DSG. > > > > ===== > > > > > > > > Hopefully this isn't too much for one message. > === message truncated === 20329 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 11:30am Subject: Re: From Christ to Buddha Hi Dave, I will try to respond to your questions. 1. Yes, there are rules in the teaching of the Buddha with which one can structure one's behavior. The basic rules are the five precepts, observed by practicing Buddhist lay followers. They are listed in http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/pancasila.html 2. I would like to make sure what you mean by being "wrong". In particular, being wrong about what? 3. I would recommend practicing generosity and observing the five precepts. I would also recommend the page http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma.html for self-study. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Dear Everyone, > > I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently I find myself > struggling. My main hurdle seems to be transitioning my Western, > Christian upbringing into the Eastern, Buddhist mindset (specifically > Theravada). Are there resources to help one? Here are a few of my > specific woes: > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to find clear (or > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can structure one's behavior > according to these "commandments". Is there a similar idea in > Buddhism? This may be the same question as message 210 ("Buddhist > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer never got posted. > > 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me than I thought. > Christianity has some pretty clear punishments for violating the > rules. So, while on one level, I have confidence in the non- > existence of the Christian God, I have this fear of being "wrong." > Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" this fear? > > 3. The Sangha. I live in a small town in Indiana. As such, there is > no temple or group to help with my journey or to become a part of. > Are there recommendations for isolated people to follow the correct > path? > > Hopefully this isn't too much for one message. It is very difficult > to move from one faith to another. Even though I do truly want to, I > just don't know how or where to start. > > Peace, > > > Dave 20330 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 11:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Christ to Buddha Look like the email attachment is not there. One more time. --- Eddie Lou wrote: > Sorry, I forgot to provide the email attachment: > > > --- Eddie Lou wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I will like to contribute two things to understand > > The > > truth seeking Buddhism: > > > > 1. an email attachment of a transcript of a speech > > by > > the late U Ba Khin (my fellow country person, a > > practical vipassana practitioner). > > > > 2. a website: http://www.buddhanet.net/ > > and www.buddha.net (I just found it out now, > > understandably - I do not know about it too much) > > > > (Kiana, if you happen to look in this email - my > > mistake I provided the latter when I mean the > > former) > > It is 'important' to seize the moment of being a > > human > > being with the mind capacity to learn the real > Life > > truth. Please see below: > > > > According to him, to become a human being is also > > not > > easy to come by. It is likened it to throwing a > > fistful of small beans at a concrete wall and > expect > > one bean will get caught in one of the crevices or > > holes in that wall. This is how hard it is to > become > > a > > human being with this thinking capability compared > > with the smartest animals from the animal world > that > > we are able to interface and interact with. > > > > Also,... > > > > Buddha said there are 31 levels (planes - very > > scientific too) of existences. > > > > Human world and animal world can see and be in > touch > > with each other while the rest (29 other worlds) > we > > can not sense it at least easily. Human world is > > about > > in-between (some kind of halfway) the overly > > pleasant > > world (of Immortals, Gods, Spirits...) and overly > > unpleasant world (of Hell, ghosts?, low-life,...) > - > > so > > I think human world will have all the mixed-bag of > > the > > good, the bad and the ugly of everything - > > occassional > > happiness, sorrows, neutral, so to become a Buddha > > or > > go to Nirvana, here the human world is the place > to > > be > > or should I say the must place to be. > > > > So do check it out and is better and more > > interesting > > to see for yourself and make your own judgement, > > understand Buddhism. Have fun. > > > > Thanks. > > --- robmoult wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > You will find many, many people in this group > who > > > have come to > > > Buddhism from a Christian background. > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > "dwlemen" > > > > > > wrote: > > > > Dear Everyone, > > > > > > > > I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently > I > > > find myself > > > > struggling. My main hurdle seems to be > > > transitioning my Western, > > > > Christian upbringing into the Eastern, > Buddhist > > > mindset > > > (specifically > > > > Theravada). Are there resources to help one? > > > > > > > ===== > > > > > > Raising the questions as part of this group is > the > > > best resource that > > > I can imagine. > > > > > > ===== > > > > > > > Here are a few of my > > > > specific woes: > > > > > > > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to > > > find clear (or > > > > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can > > > structure one's behavior > > > > according to these "commandments". Is there a > > > similar idea in > > > > Buddhism? This may be the same question as > > > message 210 ("Buddhist > > > > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer > never > > > got posted. > > > > > > ===== > > > > > > Christians have ten commandments, Buddhists have > > > five "rules of > > > training" (precepts): > > > - Avoid killing > > > - Avoid stealing > > > - Avoid sexual misconduct > > > - Avoid lying > > > - Avoid intoxicants > > > > > > In Buddhism, if you break a precept, then you > are > > > creating bad kamma > > > for yourself; it is a natural law (Buddhists > think > > > in terms of > > > natural laws rather than in terms of rewards and > > > punishments). > > > > > > ===== > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me > > than > > > I thought. > > > > Christianity has some pretty clear punishments > > for > > > violating the > > > > rules. So, while on one level, I have > > confidence > > > in the non- > > > > existence of the Christian God, I have this > fear > > > of being "wrong." > > > > Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" > > this > > > fear? > > > > > > ===== > > > > > > You have probably noticed some similarity > between > > > the precepts listed > > > above and the ten commandments. Notice what is > > left > > > out of the > > > Buddhist precepts; rites and rituals. > > > > > > My wife was brought up as a Buddhist in > Indonesia > > > beliving in God. > > > When I met her, I explained that Buddhism does > not > > > accept a all- > > > powerful creator God. She was shocked and we > went > > to > > > a monk for a > > > clarification. The monk said that I was correct > > but > > > in order to fit > > > into the social fabric of a Muslim nation, the > > > Buddhists had decided > > > to remain silent (abstain?) on the issue of God. > > > Knowing that a > > > belief in God was deeply ingrained, I did not > > press > > > the matter with > > > her. As she read more and more, her belief in > God > > > melted away slowly. > > > > > > My advice is to focus on other areas of the > > > teachings rather than > === message truncated === 20331 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 11:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] From Christ to Buddha Dear Dave, op 17-03-2003 15:40 schreef dwlemen op dwlemen@y...: > So, while on one level, I have confidence in the non- > existence of the Christian God, I have this fear of being "wrong." > Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" this fear? N: Have no fear, and this will come when you gain confidence in the Buddha's teachings. The Buddha had such great compassion in teaching Dhamma, such patience and lovingkindness. When you read suttas the Buddha speaks personally to you. He helps you to know yourself better, also your own faults and vices. But you do not have to force yourself to suppress these, it is important to know them when they arise. In that way you will see that they are conditioned, conditioned by past experiences. This is a long way of learning the Truth of non-self. But it is not a way of suppressing, having to force yourself. You will gradually have more confidence when you learn things you never knew before. Every day I myself am surprised: without the Buddha I would not have known this or this. When there is confidence there cannot be fear at the same time. Nina. 20332 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 11:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Christ to Buddha Look like the email attachment is not there. One more again. If unsuccessful, can someone help out? I clicked attachment and browsed to attach, I clicked 'Done' but the result no email attachment (about 164 kilobytes) and I can see the attachment with name just before I send off, I do not know why. Does not look like very much luck. But I think I got that email attachment from that www.buddhanet.net. So if all fail, please look into that website. Hopefully, it is still there. Thx. --- Eddie Lou wrote: > 20333 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 0:32pm Subject: [dsg] Re: From Christ to Buddha Hi Eddie, Yahoo strips all attachments from posts. It is not possible to put an attachment on Dhammastudygroup. I think this is to prevent the spread of viruses, and as a control on the use of scarce archival storage capacities. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Eddie Lou wrote: > Look like the email attachment is not there. One > more again. > > If unsuccessful, can someone help out? > > I clicked attachment and browsed to attach, I clicked > 'Done' but the result no email attachment (about 164 > kilobytes) and I can see the attachment with name just > before I send off, I do not know why. > > Does not look like very much luck. But I think I got > that email attachment from that www.buddhanet.net. So > if all fail, please look into that website. Hopefully, > it is still there. Thx. > --- Eddie Lou wrote: 20334 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 0:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Christ to Buddha Thanks. It really helps or else I will go on trying to no avail. Thx again. --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hi Eddie, > > Yahoo strips all attachments from posts. It is not > possible to put an > attachment on Dhammastudygroup. I think this is to > prevent the > spread of viruses, and as a control on the use of > scarce archival > storage capacities. > > metta, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Eddie Lou > > wrote: > > Look like the email attachment is not there. One > > more again. > > > > If unsuccessful, can someone help out? > > > > I clicked attachment and browsed to attach, I > clicked > > 'Done' but the result no email attachment (about > 164 > > kilobytes) and I can see the attachment with name > just > > before I send off, I do not know why. > > > > Does not look like very much luck. But I think I > got > > that email attachment from that www.buddhanet.net. > So > > if all fail, please look into that website. > Hopefully, > > it is still there. Thx. > > --- Eddie Lou wrote: 20335 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:23pm Subject: Non-violence and War Dear Group, With the three roots/poisons of greed, hate and delusion so evident in world events, may you gain some strength from the Blessed One's words. Though spoken thousands of years ago in ordinary time, it is just an eye-blink in the length of Samsara, our wandering-on: "The truth of the Truth-speaker's words doesn't change." The Buddha's words on Non-violence: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/nonviolence.html The Buddha's words on 'War' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html#w World Poets Against War http://www.nthposition.com/100poets.html metta, Christine Vive la France! 20336 From: dwlemen Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:24pm Subject: Precepts (was From Christ to Buddha) Rob, Thank you for your reply. I have some followup questions below. In taking your advice, I'll break up my replies into multiple posts to start more specific threads... > > DAVE STARTED: > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to find clear (or > > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can structure one's behavior > > according to these "commandments". Is there a similar idea in > > Buddhism? This may be the same question as message 210 ("Buddhist > > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer never got posted. > > ===== > ROB REPLIED: > > Christians have ten commandments, Buddhists have five "rules of > training" (precepts): > - Avoid killing > - Avoid stealing > - Avoid sexual misconduct > - Avoid lying > - Avoid intoxicants > > In Buddhism, if you break a precept, then you are creating bad kamma > for yourself; it is a natural law (Buddhists think in terms of > natural laws rather than in terms of rewards and punishments). > > ===== DAVE REPLY: Two questions here. First, how does this "natural law" relate to "Dependant origination?" Would these laws then be "absolutes" that are to be regardless of time or any cultural "relativism" with which one might apply? Second, are these 5 further defined or refined anywhere? For example "sexual misconduct" is pretty vague. Is there anything that further defines it? Is it just adultry, or are premarital sex, homosexuality, prostitution, etc. (again... just picking this one as an example for clarification Peace, Dave 20337 From: dwlemen Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:30pm Subject: Rituals (was From Christ to Buddha) Rob, > > DAVE STARTED: > > > > 3. The Sangha. I live in a small town in Indiana. As such, there > is > > no temple or group to help with my journey or to become a part of. > > Are there recommendations for isolated people to follow the correct > > path? > > ===== > ROB REPLIED: > > Rites and rituals are not very important in Buddhism. There are lots > of on-line resources and many "wise friends" here at DSG. > > ===== DAVE REPLY: I think I do struggle with the "rites and rituals" part, although I never really thought about them before with Christianity. But, to say grace before eating is good, the Lord's Prayer 3x a day, church 1x a week, communion, etc. Doing these "rituals" helps one feel like they are on the right path, so to speak. I think I wonder about myself and Buddhism because there isn't anything like that. So, it seems like one should meditate, but when, how long, in what way, etc. and there isn't much in the way of answers to those (I suppose to avoid it become ritualistic). > > DAVE STARTED: > > It is very difficult to move from one faith to another. Even though I do truly want to, > > I just don't know how or where to start. > > ===== > ROB REPLIED > In your case, I suspect it is a case of returning to a faith that you > had in a past life :-). > DAVE REPLY: You know, I don't know what it is... I studied religion in school (majored in it). I even went to Thailand for a summer semester course. But, that was all years ago. Lately, I've struggled with Christianity more and more and I had "created" my own religion, or at least a theory good for dinner talks. But, somewhere I came across something with Buddhism and it struck me some of the common points (esp. Dependent Origination). So, perhaps it is another life (although I don't actually believe in a literal reincarnation)! > Metta, > Rob :-) Peace, Dave 20338 From: dwlemen Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:40pm Subject: no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) Victor, Thanks for your reply. I've printed the links and I'll try to read them tonight. In response to your request for clarification on my question #2, by "wrong" I mean... well, picked the wrong religion! If it turns out that Christianity is the "right" one, then we're all in for an eternity of unpleasantness for not accepting Jesus, etc. Although, if Mohammad is right, then I know a bunch of Christians in trouble for eating Ham every Easter! I guess my point was that I don't think that I believe in a Christian god, but I can't bring myself to say that I do NOT believe... just in case. It's an odd feeling. I remember one day, I was praying my little mantra ("I love the lord my god with all my heart...") and I realized that, although I say those words over and over, they carried no meaning for me. But, I suppose I don't yet have enough confidence in "no-god" to be able to make a clean break. So, even though I see my current predictament as hipocritical, I'm still stuck there right now. So, I was looking to see if there were others who had gone through this. I guess there is just years and years of programming that must get altered. Growing up in fear of GOD imprints the mind in a way that makes erasing it, somewhat difficult. Anyway, hope that helps clarify what I was asking. Peace, Dave --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Dave, > > I will try to respond to your questions. > > 1. Yes, there are rules in the teaching of the Buddha with which one > can structure one's behavior. The basic rules are the five precepts, > observed by practicing Buddhist lay followers. They are listed in > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/pancasila.html > > 2. I would like to make sure what you mean by being "wrong". In > particular, being wrong about what? > > 3. I would recommend practicing generosity and observing the five > precepts. > > I would also recommend the page > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma.html > for self-study. > > Regards, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" > wrote: > > Dear Everyone, > > > > I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently I find myself > > struggling. My main hurdle seems to be transitioning my Western, > > Christian upbringing into the Eastern, Buddhist mindset > (specifically > > Theravada). Are there resources to help one? Here are a few of my > > specific woes: > > > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to find clear (or > > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can structure one's behavior > > according to these "commandments". Is there a similar idea in > > Buddhism? This may be the same question as message 210 ("Buddhist > > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer never got posted. > > > > 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me than I thought. > > Christianity has some pretty clear punishments for violating the > > rules. So, while on one level, I have confidence in the non- > > existence of the Christian God, I have this fear of being "wrong." > > Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" this fear? > > > > 3. The Sangha. I live in a small town in Indiana. As such, there > is > > no temple or group to help with my journey or to become a part of. > > Are there recommendations for isolated people to follow the correct > > path? > > > > Hopefully this isn't too much for one message. It is very > difficult > > to move from one faith to another. Even though I do truly want to, > I > > just don't know how or where to start. > > > > Peace, > > > > > > Dave 20339 From: Lars Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 2:51pm Subject: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: sila, samadhi, panna no 1. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > You wrote: > And there seem to be indications that even a sotapanna can > transgress some precepts. (S 55.24) > N: I cannot find this annotation, it must be in K V, Streamwinning, > but where? Could you indicate the sutta. It cannot be one of the > five precepts, but it could be a precept of Vinaya. > Nina It is in the Sotaapatti sa"myutta, sarakaani-vaggo, sarakaani- sutta"m. No English translation online as far as I know. (There is a German one if you are interested.) But the sutta seems to indicate that Sakakani had been a drunkard (Sarakaani sakko sikkhaadubbalyamaapaadi, majjapaana"m apaayii). Maybe the com has some indication? Thank you for your pointers about the parisuddhi sila. I shall have a closer look at it tomorrow. Lars 20340 From: Andrew Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 2:55pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > Interesting questions, Andrew! Let me clarify briefly: > > > Andrew: Are you saying that rupa does not exist unless it is in > contact with a sense-base thereby giving rise to consciousness? > > No. I'm not speculating about things that happen outside the realm of > experience. A:Why not, Dan? Is such speculation not recommended in Dhamma? I read alot of posts on DSG talking about arahants etc. > > > Andrew: For example, does rupa only manifest anicca when in contact > with a sense-base? Or is anicca inherent in rupa? > > I'm not sure what you mean by "rupa". Could you please explain? A: Yes, I mean "corporeality". > > ..... > Then, I wrote: > > > Dan: Can the "pleasantness" of an "object" exist outside of the > > > experience of it? > > > Andrew: ... why couldn't attractiveness be inherent in a rupa? > > Doggonit, Andrew! Are you are changing the subject on me? I was > talking about "pleasantness", not "attractiveness". Do you see any > difference between these words? A: "Doggonit" isn't in my Pali dictionary (only joking!). Seriously, "ittha" isn't in my Pali dictionary either. I am trying to come to terms with the notion of inherently "pleasant" or whatever rupa and there are lots of English words flying about eg pleasant, attractive, desirable. At the moment, "attractive" fits in best with my understanding (for some reason, it seems less conceptual - like a rule of physics that determines magnetic attraction). That being so, I would welcome - 1. a discourse on the various Pali terms and their shades of meaning; or 2. for the sake of discussion, just treat "pleasant" and "attractive" as synonomous. > > Metta Andrew 20341 From: Dan D. Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 4:01pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran [Andrew] Dear Andrew, A few more brief comments: > > > Andrew: Are you saying that rupa does not exist unless it is in > > contact with a sense-base thereby giving rise to consciousness? > > > > No. I'm not speculating about things that happen outside the realm of > > experience. > > A:Why not, Dan? Is such speculation not recommended in Dhamma? I > read alot of posts on DSG talking about arahants etc. It's just not what I'm doing here. I spend most of my professional life and most of my personal life speculating about "rupa existing outside" and about how it behaves. There's nothing wrong with that at all. However, here, I am just trying to understand sense objects and how they are processed by the mind. > > > > > Andrew: For example, does rupa only manifest anicca when in contact > > with a sense-base? Or is anicca inherent in rupa? > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "rupa". Could you please explain? > > A: Yes, I mean "corporeality". > > > > ..... > > Then, I wrote: > > > > Dan: Can the "pleasantness" of an "object" exist outside of the > > > > experience of it? > > > > > Andrew: ... why couldn't attractiveness be inherent in a rupa? > > > > Doggonit, Andrew! Are you are changing the subject on me? I was > > talking about "pleasantness", not "attractiveness". Do you see any > > difference between these words? > > A: "Doggonit" isn't in my Pali dictionary (only joking!). Seriously, "ittha" isn't in my Pali dictionary either. ->Dan: "Ittha" is the past participle of icchati (to wish, desire, ask for), i.e. it means "wished for, desired, asked for". > Andrew: I am trying to come to terms with the notion of inherently "pleasant" or whatever rupa and there are lots of English words flying about eg pleasant, attractive, desirable. At the moment, "attractive" fits in best with my understanding (for some reason, it seems less conceptual - like a rule of physics that determines magnetic attraction). That being so, I would welcome - 1. a discourse on the various Pali terms and their shades of meaning; or 2. for the sake of discussion, just treat "pleasant" and "attractive" as synonomous. -> Dan: The problem I see with "pleasant" is that it is the same word that is so commonly used in the context of pleasant vedana -- a characteristic of mind. The nature of mind (mana) is so distinctly different from the nature of rupa that it is confusing to say "pleasant object" on the one hand and "pleasant vedana" on the other. "Pleasant" simply cannot mean the same thing in both instances. Dan 20342 From: Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 4:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation Hi James, I don't know anything about supramundane jhanas. I was just following what Buddhaghosa wrote, I think. I haven't gotten to the end of it yet, so maybe there will be something about these jhanas later. Also, I don't recall the Buddha saying don't practice jhana or be careful of jhana. The jhana that he was taught didn't go far enough. It needed that little extra push of insight. In a way, perhaps we could say nibbana is ultimate tranquility. If so, the progress of jhana from lesser to greater tranquility would culminate in nibbana _if_ the appropriate insight arose. That particular insight can't be practiced. It either happens or it doesn't; but it does make some difference in one's life to rehearse it. Also, tranquility can be practiced in most situations, and that is very much to the point. Whether or not we can figure out a way for householders to practice jhana is yet to be seen. More research is needed. Larry 20343 From: Andrew Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 4:24pm Subject: Bhavanga-cittas Dear Group In ADL, Nina says (in the context of a sense-door process) that the bhavanga-cittas do not experience the rupa. In "Realities and Concepts", Sujin B says (in the context of a mind-door process) that the arrest-bhavanga is "the mind-door through which the cittas of the mind-door process will experience the object" (p 63). Question: in a mind-door process, do the bhavanga-cittas experience the mind-object? What do they experience? Sujin also seems to say (p 24) that pannatti can be "included in" a mind-door-object. Question: what is an example of mind-door-object that is not pannatti? Any help in putting me straight on this area would be greatly appreciated. Metta Andrew 20344 From: Andrew Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 4:32pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran [Andrew] --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > -> Dan: The problem I see with "pleasant" is that it is the same word > that is so commonly used in the context of pleasant vedana -- a > characteristic of mind. The nature of mind (mana) is so distinctly > different from the nature of rupa that it is confusing to > say "pleasant object" on the one hand and "pleasant vedana" on the > other. "Pleasant" simply cannot mean the same thing in both > instances. > Dear Dan Thanks for clarifying those points. You point out the confusion caused by our use of English ie one word "pleasant" for both vedana and rupa. Is it the same in Pali? Are the same Pali adjectives applied to both vedana and rupa? Perhaps we should talk about "pleasant" vedana and "attractive" rupa in our English discussions to emphasise the distinction? Andrew 20345 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 5:25pm Subject: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: sila, samadhi, panna no 1. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lars" wrote: > --- > > And there seem to be indications that even a sotapanna can > > transgress some precepts. (S 55.24) > >> > It is in the Sotaapatti sa"myutta, sarakaani-vaggo, sarakaani- > sutta"m. No English translation online as far as I know. (There is a > German one if you are interested.) > But the sutta seems to indicate that Sakakani had been a drunkard > (Sarakaani sakko sikkhaadubbalyamaapaadi, majjapaana"m apaayii). > Maybe the com has some indication? > > Thank you for your pointers about the parisuddhi sila. I shall have > a closer look at it tomorrow. > Lars _______ Dear Lars, Sarakani was a monk who left the order, took to drink and became an alcoholic. He died with the smell of alcohol on his breath. However he also had confidence in Dhamma and went to listen to the monks and Buddha when he had time. He became a sotapanna just at the time he died - he could never have taken alcohol after becoming a sotapanna. RobertK 20346 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 8:32pm Subject: Re: meditation --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi James, > > I don't know anything about supramundane jhanas. I was just following > what Buddhaghosa wrote, I think. I haven't gotten to the end of it yet, > so maybe there will be something about these jhanas later. Also, I don't > recall the Buddha saying don't practice jhana or be careful of jhana. > The jhana that he was taught didn't go far enough. It needed that little > extra push of insight. In a way, perhaps we could say nibbana is > ultimate tranquility. If so, the progress of jhana from lesser to > greater tranquility would culminate in nibbana _if_ the appropriate > insight arose. That particular insight can't be practiced. It either > happens or it doesn't; but it does make some difference in one's life to > rehearse it. Also, tranquility can be practiced in most situations, and > that is very much to the point. Whether or not we can figure out a way > for householders to practice jhana is yet to be seen. More research is > needed. > > Larry Hi Larry, Some of the sentences of this post I don't understand. To me, they are somewhat ambiguous in meaning. However, your thoughts are probably not ambiguous and there is just a breakdown with this mode of communication. I will address those sentences which I believe I understand. The only ultimate authority on Buddhism is the Lord Buddha. While Buddhaghosa did a good job at clarifying some difficult points, he also put forth many inaccuracies and outright lies in his commentaries (I will not clarify further about this in this group). Please research from many other sources about the various aspects of meditation and then reach your conclusions. Buddhaghosa is not the ultimate authority on the meaning of Buddhism, which includes meditation. You are quite mistaken if you believe there are no dangerous practices of jhana; there are many different kinds of dangerous practices of jhana…for this life and rebirth. The Lord Buddha almost starved himself to death practicing the wrong forms of jhana (those which put him into continual states of bliss and suppressed his appetite and other bodily needs); and many of his contemporaries made themselves virtually insane with practices of the wrong forms…some believing they should behave like animals and/or remained continually unclothed. It was the Lord Buddha's accumulations that allowed him to finally see the folly of this form of jhana practice and to have not been permanently, mentally damaged by his years of incorrect practice. The difference was not a "little extra push of insight" as you describe, but an entirely different approach to meditation practice. It didn't take him years to perfect this new approach because he had already built up his strength of concentration and he had the benefit of his previous accumulations to help him out. It is neither necessary nor recommended to retrace his exact steps because that will result in much of the same folly that he encountered. You see, his karma was to encounter and practice the wrong path so that he could teach the correct path to others; it is not our karma to initially follow the wrong path as he did, but to learn and follow the right path from beginning to end. Am I making myself clear enough? Regarding this statement, "Whether or not we can figure out a way for householders to practice jhana is yet to be seen. More research is needed," I am not sure why you have reached this conclusion. Householders can practice jhana just the same as monks or as anyone. The only thing required is a mind and the dedication and knowledge to direct it toward the practice. Granted, some time needs to be taken away from daily activities for intense meditation retreats, but that is the same thing monks do. Monks, for the most part, are busy everyday with various activities and duties which don't allow for them to meditate for great lengths of time…and the same was true during the Buddha's age. If you follow the right path from the beginning to the end, you don't need as much time as the Buddha took anyway. That is what he wished and taught for everyone. Metta, James 20347 From: Dan D. Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 8:32pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K, Sarah, Jon] Dear Robert, Sarah, and Jon, I looked up the Vibhanga passage [PTS p. 2; U Thittila §6] that Rob's Sammohavinodani discussion refers to: "Therein what is superior material quality? That material quality which, for this or that being, is not contemptible, not despised, not worthless, not derisible, respected, superior, thought to be superior, considered to be superior, desirable [ittha], attractive, pleasant [manapo--pleasing, pleasant, charming, pretty], (i.e.) the visible, audible, odorous, sapid, tangible. This is called superior material quality. Superior material quality should be understood by comparing this material quality with that." VbhA's "disputatious speaker" contends: "There is no intrinsic agreeable and disagreeable. It is stated according to the likings of these or those." It is difficult to read the Vbh text as something other than that a superior material quality is sense data that is desirable to this or that being. However, there is still an intrinsic agreeable/disagreeable aspect to a sense object. The question, then, is what is a sense object? (i) The data processed by the mind through the sense door, or (ii) some object "out there"? Two very different views with two very different implications... (ii) If a sense object is some object "out there," then it can't really be experienced. Buddha cannot pass through the eye-door, and a piece of dogs--- does not pass through the body-door (even if one were to squeeze it very hard!). You can't very well call something that can't be experienced "pleasant" or "unpleasant". The mistake that the disputatious speaker is making is that he is misunderstanding the object as something real, lasting, to be experienced by me, you, and the next person as we pass the dogs--- down the line. This kind of abstract, conceptual object would certainly not carry an intrinsic "pleasant" or "unpleasant" label, and if Vbh were referring to that kind of object, the disputatious speaker would be right. (i) If a sense object is the data processed by the mind through the sense door, then it makes perfect sense for it to be agreeable or disgreeable; and, as Sammohavinodani goes on to say, "Only by way of [kamma-] result, however, is it rightly distinguishable [as agreeable or disagreeable].... If the object is agreeable it is profitable result [kusala vipaka] that has arisen; if disagreeable, it is unprofitable that has arisen." And Vbh is clear on how superior material quality should be understood, viz. "by comparing this material quality with that." In other words, the nature of sense objects is to be understood through experience, not through consideration of whether the abstract category to which the hypothesized object "out there" belongs to the category of "superior" or "inferior". This is in marked contrast to what Sammohavinodani seems to be saying. The commentary here expresses some important insights that help elucidate the Vbh text (e.g. reaffirmation of intrinsic disagreeable/agreeable sense object as the distinguishing feature of kusala-vipaka vs. akusala-vipaka), but it does seem to be at variance with Vbh in some critical places. For example: (1) (p. 10-11) "`But there is the distinguishing of an object as intrinsically agreeable or disagreeable.' But according to whom is it distinguishable? By way of the average being. For this is not distinguishable according to the likes and dislikes of great emporers such as Mahasammata, Mahasudassana, Dhammasoka and so on. For to them even a divine object appears unpleasing. Nor is it distinguishable according to [the likes and dislikes of] the extreme unfortunates who find it hard to get food and drink. For to them lumps of broken rice- porridge and the taste of rotten meat seem as exceedingly sweet as ambrosia. But it is distinguishable according to what is found agreeable at one time and disagreeable at another time by average [men such as] accountants, government officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants. For such are able to distinguish between the agreeable and disagreeable." By this measure, the Bach cantatas that I like so much are really intrinsically disagreeable, and the music of rapper Eminem is really intrinsically agreeable because that is the way the pop-culture evaluates it. Sammohavinodani then goes on to explain my problem, why I can't see the unpleasant music of Bach for what is really is: "It is through perversion of perception that that same object is agreeable for one and disagreeable for another." Some disputatious person might argue that Bach cantatas are pleasant, and it is really the music of Eninem that is unpleasant. Such a person should be sked: "Are you not aware that Eminem is at the top of the pop-music charts, and Bach is not agreeable to the average person?" Hmmm...I guess that settles it in the only rational way (given Sammohavinodani's tool for distinguishing the intrinsically pleasant from the intrinsically unpleasant). Absurd! People have different tastes, and it is non-sensical to parse those tastes into correct and incorrect -- and especially non-sensical to base the parsing on the opinions of the masses because they "are able to distinguish between the agreeable and the disagreeable." Thankfully, Vbh rejects this approach: "Inferior and superior material quality should be understood by comparing this material quality with that" -- not by comparing this person's tastes with that person's and then deciding the matter by a vote to find the opinion of the average man. This poses a difficult problem for Sammohavinodani because it just spent two or three pages saying just the opposite. In light of this new information, it tries a new tack (p. 12): "...here the above method should be disregarded"— It reads as if the commentator read the first few lines of Vbh, wrote a few pages, and then read another line that contradicted what had just been written: "Oops! Disregard that." Sammohavinodani tries to recover: "...inferiority and superiority should [really] be understood by comparison of this and that [rather than by comparison of this person's opinion with that person's]." (my parentheticals) — Whew! The commentary seems to be getting back on track now.......... But wait! What's this? "...the materiality of the dwellers in hell is called inferior at the [lower] extremity. Compared with that, among animals that of nagas and supannas is called superior. Their materiality is inferior. Compared with that, petas' materiality is called superior"... and so on and so forth. That's how we are to read the Vbh at PTS p. 2 (U Thittila §6)? That is quite a stretch! Lordy, what an excursion! In his introduction to the Ñm translation (p. x), Lance Cousins suggests that the Sammohavinodani is not very polished in comparison to Visuddhimagga: "[T]he material has been less carefully edited and is therefore closer to the original commentaries in Sinhala Prakrit. They thereby provide precious hints of an earlier stage in development." A rough draft, perhaps? Dan 20348 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 8:58pm Subject: Re: meditation Dear James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: The Lord Buddha almost starved himself to death practicing the wrong forms of jhana (those which put him into continual states of bliss and suppressed his appetite and other bodily needs); KKT: The Buddha almost starved himself to death in practicing self-mortification and not by practicing jhana. Self-mortification was very in vogue among the ascetics in the time of the Buddha, especially among the Jains. KKT 20349 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Non-violence and War Hi Christine, I understand your concerns about the pending war and thank you for your references. --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Group, > > With the three roots/poisons of greed, hate and delusion so evident > in world events, may you gain some strength from the Blessed One's > words. ..... Do you understand the Blessed One’s words to be urging us to be concerned with the roots/poisons in ‘world events’ or in ‘our own’cittas arising at this moment, as the cause of present harm and suffering? ..... >Though spoken thousands of years ago in ordinary time, it is > just an eye-blink in the length of Samsara, our wandering-on: > > "The truth of the Truth-speaker's words > doesn't change." > > The Buddha's words on Non-violence: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/nonviolence.html ..... I’ve just looked at the first sutta quoted in this first link you give and include it here: [Sutta Nipata IV.15] Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s transl: “When embraced, the rod of violence breeds danger & fear: Look at people quarreling. I will tell of how I experienced dismay. Seeing people floundering like fish in small puddles, competing with one another -- as I saw this, fear came into me. The world was entirely without substance. All the directions were knocked out of line. Wanting a haven for myself, I saw nothing that wasn't laid claim to. Seeing nothing in the end but competition, I felt discontent. And then I saw an arrow here, so very hard to see, embedded in the heart. Overcome by this arrow you run in all directions. But simply on pulling it out you don't run, you don't sink... Whatever things are tied down in the world, you shouldn't be set on them. Having totally penetrated sensual pleasures, sensual passions, you should train for your own Unbinding. “ ***** Would this quick rough summary be correct do you think? ‘I was dismayed when I saw all those around me fighting and quarelling blindly. Then I realised the real thorn was the one in my heart, i.e the attachment within. With the removal of this thorn, the bonds and ties to the world are overcome.’ ..... Let me also quote some of the verses from Norman’s (PTS) transl to this sutta which he titles: ‘Embraced Violence’: ..... “.... But seeing (people) opposed (to one another) at the end, I was dissatisfied. Then I saw a barb here, hard to see, nestling in the heart. “Affected by this barb, one runs in all directions. Having pulled that barb out, one does not run, nor sink. “At that point the precepts are recited: Whatever fetters there are in the world, one should not be intent upon them. Having wholly pierced sensual pleasures one should train oneself for one’s own quenching. “One should be truthful, not impudent, without deception, rid of slander, without anger. A sage should cross over the evil of greed, and avarice. ...... “I call greed “the great flood”, I call desire “the current”. The objects of sense are the movement (of the tide) . Sensual pleasure is the mud which is hard to cross over. “Not deviating from truth, a sage, a brahman, stands on high ground. having given up everything, he indeed is called “calmed”. ...... “He who has passed beyond sensual pleasures here, the attachment which is hard to cross over in the world, does not grieve, (and) does not worry. he has cut across the stream, he is without bond. “Make what (existed) previously wither away. May there be nothing for you afterwards. If you do not grasp anything in between, you will wander calmed. “Of whom there is no cherishing at all in respect of name and form , and (who) does not grieve because of what does not exist, he truly does not suffer any loss in the world. ..... “Not harsh, not greedy, without lust, impartial in every respect; this is what I, when asked, call advantage for unshakable men.” ..... ***** I think the point I read is that ‘World Peace’ will only ever come about by understanding the 6 worlds appearing at this moment as discussed in this extract from ‘Abh in Daily Life’: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/12597 I seem to remember Nina and I also wrote articles on World Peace and Dhamma that were included at the start of one of the versions of Pilgrimage in Sri Lanka, but I don’t have a copy. As we’ve discussed before, none of this is to suggest one should or shouldn’t follow other actions according to one’s inclinations - rallies, petitions and so forth - but whilst following or not following these activities, understanding of present realities is always the ‘highest’ good or kusala which we are fortunate enough to be able to appreciate at moments of wise reflection. Thanks for the references, Chris. I’ll look at the others later if I have time. I’d be glad to hear your further comments on thes points. Metta, Sarah ===== 20350 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:15pm Subject: Re: meditation --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear James, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > wrote: > > > > The Lord Buddha almost > starved himself to death practicing the wrong forms of jhana (those > which put him into continual states of bliss and suppressed his > appetite and other bodily needs); > > > > KKT: The Buddha almost > starved himself to death > in practicing self-mortification > and not by practicing jhana. > > Self-mortification was very > in vogue among the ascetics > in the time of the Buddha, > especially among the Jains. > > > KKT Hi KKT, And how do you believe the desire for self-mortification arises? It is not a common, everyday phenomenon after all. The desire for self- mortification arises from the mind's over-fixation on a mental object (thought); diagnosed today as obsessive-compulsive disorder. Be it the Jains, St. Benedictine Monks, or anorexics, they all have the desire for self-mortification due to their fixation on a self- perpetuating mental thought(s). This fixation, in turn, suppresses normal mental functioning. It is not a conscious choice, as I believe you are suggesting. And I am posting far too much again; it is time for me to stop. Metta, James 20351 From: Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation Hi James, The only sources I know of for detailed instructions on and analysis of jhana are Visuddhimagga, Vimuttimagga, Patisambhidamagga, and something called Yogavacara's Manual. Do you know of any others? As for the dangers of jhana, I've heard that from quite a few people but I don't see it in the suttas and I don't see how there can be an 8-fold path without jhana. Without the 8-fold path is it really Buddhism? I will admit though, there is practically no jhana meditation going on these days, even among recluses. B. Alan Wallace talks about this a little in his book "The Bridge of Quiescence" which is concerned with a Tibetan analysis of samatha but compares it to jhana as explained by Buddhaghosa. So, it appears there is no functional 8-fold path right now. What are we to do? Patch one together out of stuff we like or try to rediscover the old one? Larry 20352 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi James, > > The only sources I know of for detailed instructions on and analysis of > jhana are Visuddhimagga, Vimuttimagga, Patisambhidamagga, and something > called Yogavacara's Manual. Do you know of any others? Hi Larry, Perhaps you might enjoy reading this source, which analyses the various commentaries you list and how they align with the suttas and recognized meditation teachers (which Buddhaghosa is a Buddhist scholar, not a meditation teacher…big difference): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel351.html As I said, the Eightfold Path does include jhana, but it includes supramundane jhana and not mundane jhana (refer to the above article). Each time someone sits to practice yogic (whose etymology means 'to yoke'…as in the mind to an object) meditation, they are attempting to attain jhana. Jhana is not some mystical, magical thing; jhana is simply concentrated, mental absorption. Granted, few practice it to perfection today because few have the power of concentration…due to our over stimulated society and over stimulated food. But that is no reason to throw in the towel or reinvent the wheel, to use some tired clichés ;-). We just need to focus on what we can do…and meditate. Metta, James 20353 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K, Sarah, Jon] Hi Dan & All, Many thx for the very detailed post;-) ;-) (I hope you have scanner access..) (This is not really a reply as right now I’m on standby for updates of the funeral and proceedings in Adelaide and keeping an eye from here on the timing as Jon has flights to catch..... Apparently his eulogy in praise of his mother’s fine qualities (including her kind support for his way of life inc. many years ago when he gave up a successful law practice and she gave her permission for him to become a Buddhist monk instead) and quoting of ‘The Arrow” which I posted the other day, was very well-received in the Christian church and by the large, mostly Christian turnout.) Eminem vs Bach with regard to pleasant sound???? Not a popularity contest as I understand the Smv. The intrinsic nature is not according to perception. It is how it is actually heard by the middle-ranking or average men, not how they conceive and perceive it to be so. We have tickets for ten days’ time to go to a Rolling Stones concert here. It’s the kind of thing we do about once every 10 years. I know the sound will be far too loud to be intrinsically ‘pleasant’ and yet still there’s just about enough lobha to go and follow after the papanca, though it won’t bother me if it gets cancelled as happened last time;-) ..... > In his introduction to the Ñm translation (p. x), Lance Cousins > suggests that the Sammohavinodani is not very polished in comparison > to Visuddhimagga: "[T]he material has been less carefully edited > and > is therefore closer to the original commentaries in Sinhala Prakrit. > They thereby provide precious hints of an earlier stage in > development." A rough draft, perhaps? .... Vism XV11, 178f: “....It is a condition likewise for eight kinds of limited (-sphere) resultant consciousness in the course of existence, not in rebirth-linking, in the unhappy destinies in the sense-sphere becoming. For then it is a condition (for such profitable-resultant consciousness occurring) in hell encountering a desirable object (on such occasions) as the Elder Maha-Mogallana’s visits to hell, and so on. But among animals and powerful ghosts too a desirable object is obtained (through the same condition).......” S: “a desirable object is obtained” among dogs and ghosts....this will be regardless of how it is perceived or appreciated or not.....I’m sure they’d prefer to see their own equivalent of Eminem;-) ..... “.....In the fine-material becoming it is a condition likewise for four kinds of resultant consciousness in the course of an existence, not in rebirth-linking. Then it is a condition for (Brahmas’) seeing undesirable visible data and hearing undesirable sounds that are in the sense sphere; there are no undesirable visible data, etc, in the Brahma-world itself; and likewise in the divine world of the sense sphere.” ~Footnote: “Pm (comy to Vism) points out that this is generally but not always so, since deities see such potents of their death as the fading of their flowers, etc, which are undesirable visible data.~ ***** You may also wish to look at Vism XV11, 127 and XIV, 54f I may get back after reading your post with the due care it deserves. Hopefully Rob will add his comments too in the meantime. Metta, Sarah ====== 20354 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K, Sarah, Jon] --- Dear Dan, Let's try to establish what we agree on and disagree on. 1.You don't like the word pleasant or unpleasant to refer to sense objects. That's fine - agreeable/disagreeable or desirable/undesirable are probably better. 2. You say: "And Vbh is clear on how > superior material quality should be understood, viz. "by comparing this > material quality with that." In other words, the nature of sense > objects is to be understood through experience, not through > consideration of whether the abstract category to which the > hypothesized object "out there" belongs to the category of > "superior" > or "inferior". " _________ In the salayatanasamyutta 35:135 (p1207 Bodhi translation) "I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named 'Contact's sixfold base'. There whatever form one sees with the eye is undedesirable, never desirable; unlovely, disagreaable. whatever sound..whatever taste..whatever odour..whatever tactile object..whatever mental phenomenon one cognises with the mind is undesirable.disagreeable..."endquote As I understand it the forms seen in hell would be intrinsically disagreeable at all times. Take Nina's example of someone shouting in anger. The sound produced is inherently disagreeable but if we are not around to hear it then there is no sotavinnana and hence no vipaka for us. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > Dear Robert, Sarah, and Jon, > I looked up the Vibhanga passage [PTS p. 2; U Thittila §6] that > Rob's Sammohavinodani discussion refers to: > > "Therein what is superior material quality? That material quality > which, for this or that being, is not contemptible, not despised, not > worthless, not derisible, respected, superior, thought to be > superior, considered to be superior, desirable [ittha], attractive, > pleasant [manapo--pleasing, pleasant, charming, pretty], (i.e.) the > visible, audible, odorous, sapid, tangible. This is called superior > material quality. Superior material quality should be understood by > comparing this material quality with that." > > 20355 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 11:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rituals (was From Christ to Buddha) Hi Dave, Thanks for joining us on DSG. You're asking very helpful questions for all of us to consider and I really appreciate your sincere and honest comments. --- dwlemen wrote: > Rob, > You know, I don't know what it is... I studied religion in school > (majored in it). I even went to Thailand for a summer semester > course. But, that was all years ago. Lately, I've struggled with > Christianity more and more and I had "created" my own religion, or at > least a theory good for dinner talks. But, somewhere I came across > something with Buddhism and it struck me some of the common points > (esp. Dependent Origination). So, perhaps it is another life > (although I don't actually believe in a literal reincarnation)! ..... I think this is how it has been for many of us. Something strikes a chord from what we read or hear in Buddhism, but we may continue with our traditional patterns and rituals whilst considering further. You reminded me of how since I was a small girl I had always said my prayers before going to bed. It continued for quite a while after I became interested in Buddhism (a bit like a just-in-case safety-net which stayed long after I'd given up going to Church, reading the Bible etc), but became more and more mechanical and eventually would just be forgotten. Whilst we cling to the idea of a 'self', of a 'me' and a 'you', there's bound to be the clinging to a 'God' or 'gods' as well. By understanding more about what it is that is taken for self and beings, we can begin to see that we live in a world of concepts which we take for ultimate truths or realities. Coming from another religion, as most of us do here, has one real advantage perhaps: every word or idea or ritual is questioned and challenged. This is healthy. Look forward to hearing plenty more of your qus and the replies from Rob m and all the others. With metta, Sarah P.S. I'm sure you're far better versed in the Teachings than you modestly suggest. If you need any directions to make your stay on DSG easier, just call for help! For example, there's a simple pali glossary which can be printed out at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms Weight Age Gender Female Male 20356 From: Star Kid Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 0:01am Subject: q's Dear James, It's me Hilary. You wouldn't believe it, i have some more questions looking for answers. 1. What is the holy book for the buddhist? 2.Anything such as priest, pope or bishop? 3. Did buddhism come out from another religion? Like Chrisitanity from Jewish. 4. Any speical cultures? Metta Hilary P.S- Could you try putting your answers in a poem? 20357 From: Vital Moors Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 0:22am Subject: I´m new and searching I´m Vital E.H. Moors and I like asia and buddhisme very much. I´m working at my philosophy. I hope to settle me in the near futher in Asia (Vietnam or Thailand.) I am searching for people with the same interests. Bit I alsoneed more information and about Buddhism and how I can practize it in my life. My dream for already a long time is to become a monk in Thailand. But I think i´m not ready for it. So I´m also searching for a mentor who can give me advice and guide me.For more information about me you can check my homepage: www.vitalmoors.nl Vital E.H. Moors 20358 From: Vital Etienne Hélène Moors Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 0:49am Subject: I feel in my haert that I have to become a monk but I have to go a whole way and need some mentor who can guide me I´m Vital E.H. Moors and I like asia and buddhisme very much. I´m working at my philosophy. I hope to settle me in the near futher in Asia (Vietnam or Thailand.) I am searching for people with the same interests. Bit I alsoneed more information and about Buddhism and how I can practize it in my life. Since the first time I was in Tahiland I feel in my haert that I have to go to a buddhist temple and become a monk. And everytime i come back there this strange feeling comes back. And also when I´m in Europe at home I feel the same need. But I think I am not ready for it. Since a few months I am reading some books about Buddhism. And more and more I see it is the way that I am acting and thinking right now. But I want now go further and search a mentor who can give me advice and guide me . For more information about me you can check my homepage: www.vitalmoors.nl Vital E.H. Moors http://www.vitalmoors.nl 20359 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: Love Hi Mike, This is a co-incidence, a person in my Pali class asked about the Pali word for 'love' - which started a discussion in the break on whether or not such an emotion was encouraged in Buddhism. Metta was mentioned, but a dictionary search also unearthed number of other words like:- mettaayati, da.lhapema, abhirati, pema, sineha; sneha; anuraaga. piyaayati; pema"m bandhati; mettaayati. piyaayita; baddhapema. (The consensus was that Buddhism didn't encourage 'love' in a personalised Christian, or worldly, sense.) You say: "To me the ultimate in friendliness or compassion is that which encourages detachment." I think detachment is one of those words like 'love' that has different meanings. 'Love' can mean anything from 'unconditional valuing' of someone to 'I love baked beans'. Detachment can be seen, as meaning a form of mental ill-health (as in someone who is 'detached emotionally from reality') or, apathy, or what I think you are also referring to, citta-viveka, the mental detachment from sensuous things. Nyanatiloka describes viveka-sukha as: 'happiness of detachment', or aloofness (s. prec). "Whoso is addicted to society and worldly bustle, he will not partake of the happiness of renunciation, detachment, peace and enlightenment" (A. VII, 86). It is one thing to agree intellectually with "So one who aspires to be stainless & sorrowless shouldn't make anything in the world dear anywhere", but really quite scary to imagine having nothing dear anywhere - at least, it is for me. Your posts always set me thinking Mike :-) Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: 20360 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:09am Subject: Re: no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) Hi Dave, It is difficult to leave a faith based religion in which you have spent your whole life, and upon which your whole value system, spiritual life and much of your social life was based. Probably many of your close relatives, friends and work colleagues are Christians. Most western cultural festivals (Christmas and Easter) revolve around the Christ. And possibly not many people you know understand what Buddhism really is. I came to the Dhamma within the last five years, after growing up within the Anglican (Episcopalian?) church from Baptism, Sunday School, Youth Groups, Sunday School teacher, Confirmation, Communion, Marriage, and then repeating the cycle with my children. They were educated in Church schools before going to Uni. Initially, though my heart and head said Buddhism, occasionally my heart looked backwards for the familiar, though illusory, comfort of "Come unto me ye that are heavy laden and I will give you rest". I remember times of prayer, beautiful and well-loved hymns, familiar rituals and congregational meetings. There is no need to rush things. It's a bit like ending a love affair - one has sweet memories of what really never was true. Occasionally Buddhism seems rather arid and joyless, usually when I'm stressed and tired. But better to have Reality and Truth than a false dream. At these times I seek the support of others whom I consider further along the path than I, and who are untroubled and equanimous. You can only do what you can only do. :-) Don't be concerned if there are some areas you don't yet comprehend or agree with. As you study, test and prove the teachings of the Buddha, things settle into place (for me it was a growing understanding about 'conditionality' and 'no control', that helped me come to an acceptance of no-god, no- soul and, eventually, to understand the fact that the moments after death are no different to the moments before death). Some useful sites: http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebidx.htm http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ http://www.abhidhamma.org/contents.htm http://www.vipassana.info/contents-vipassana.htm Glad you joined us, Dave, metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Victor, > > Thanks for your reply. I've printed the links and I'll try to read > them tonight. > > In response to your request for clarification on my question #2, > by "wrong" I mean... well, picked the wrong religion! If it turns > out that Christianity is the "right" one, then we're all in for an > eternity of unpleasantness for not accepting Jesus, etc. Although, > if Mohammad is right, then I know a bunch of Christians in trouble > for eating Ham every Easter! > > I guess my point was that I don't think that I believe in a Christian > god, but I can't bring myself to say that I do NOT believe... just in > case. It's an odd feeling. I remember one day, I was praying my > little mantra ("I love the lord my god with all my heart...") and I > realized that, although I say those words over and over, they carried > no meaning for me. But, I suppose I don't yet have enough confidence > in "no-god" to be able to make a clean break. So, even though I see > my current predictament as hipocritical, I'm still stuck there right > now. > > So, I was looking to see if there were others who had gone through > this. I guess there is just years and years of programming that must > get altered. Growing up in fear of GOD imprints the mind in a way > that makes erasing it, somewhat difficult. > > Anyway, hope that helps clarify what I was asking. > > Peace, > > > Dave 20361 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Non-violence and War Hi Sarah, and All, I don't think I have much detachment at all, though a little more than years ago. I don't have a great understanding of the Blessed One's words - but I think, in general, they do urge us to be non- harming, to have compassion, and loving-kindness towards others. Nothing I know of in the Teachings tells us directly to prevent another from being violent, or to save those under threat. But didn't the Buddha intervene to prevent Angulimala from doing further harm? I agree (intellectually) that the Buddha meant us to uproot the defilements arising at this moment in 'our own cittas'. Does this mean we are not to care about others? Or we are to 'care' but do nothing? Surely one should, out of metta and karuna, attempt to protect those in danger, to the best of one's ability, and to influence or try to change the course of aggressive governments For me, in the present, that involves petitions, vigils, discussions and marches. (And on those lists that will allow it, mention of conditions, current events, war and peace from a buddhist perspective.) In the Dhammapada it seems that the Buddha clearly says that one can only purify oneself. v. 165 "By oneself, indeed, is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself, indeed, is one purified. Purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one purifies another." metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: 20362 From: Sarah Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Non-violence and War Hi Chris, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hi Sarah, and All, > > I don't think I have much detachment at all, though a little more > than years ago. ..... I think it takes some wisdom to appreciate how little detachment or equanimity there is in a day. I find the chapter Nina has written on Equanimity (tatramajjhatata cetasika) in her book ‘Cetasikas’ to be particularly helpful: http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas32.html We read that “Ignorance is called the "near enemy" of equanimity, because one may think that there is equanimity when there is actually ignorance. Its far enemies are greed and resentment, When there is attachment or aversion there cannot be equanimity at the same time.” We also read that equanimity accompanies all wholesome cittas. There cannot be any state of kusala without this balance of mind or evenmindedness or detachment. So even moments of metta or compassion must be accompanied by tatramajjhatata (detachment) too. ..... “The Visuddhimagga (XIV, 153) states about equanimity : It has the characteristic of conveying citta and cetasikas evenly. Its function is to prevent deficiency and excess, or its function is to inhibit partiality. It is manifested as neutrality. It should be regarded as like a conductor (driver) who looks on with equanimity on thoroughbreds progressing evenly. The Atthasalini (I, Book I, Part IV, Chapter I, 133) gives a similar definition. When there is equanimity there is neither elation nor depression. The object which is experienced is viewed with impartiality and neutrality, just as a charioteer treats with impartiality his well-trained horses. Equanimity effects the balance of the citta and the other cetasikas it arises together with. There is no balance of mind when akusala citta arises, when we are cross, greedy, avaricious or ignorant. Whereas when we are generous, observe morality (sila), develop calm or develop right understanding of nama and rupa, there is balance of mind.” ..... >I don't have a great understanding of the Blessed > One's words - but I think, in general, they do urge us to be non- > harming, to have compassion, and loving-kindness towards others. > Nothing I know of in the Teachings tells us directly to prevent > another from being violent, or to save those under threat. But didn't > the Buddha intervene to prevent Angulimala from doing further harm? > I agree (intellectually) that the Buddha meant us to uproot the > defilements arising at this moment in 'our own cittas'. Does this > mean we are not to care about others? Or we are to 'care' but do > nothing? ..... I’m inclined to think that the more we understand about present kusala and akusala states, the more we can honestly know at this moment whether the care is wholesome and the less we’ll be inclined to measure our own and others’ compassion or loving-kindness by actions taken or not taken. I believe this is an aspect of sacca-parami (sincerity) which we’re reading in the series on the Perfections. Sometimes we may be able to prevent some harm or try to do so, but sometimes it wasn’t possible even for the Buddha or the great disciples. I don’t think we can set any rules or ‘shoulds’. It’ll depend on conditions and our accumulated tendencies in what ways we respond at any time. To quote a little more from ‘Cetasikas’: “If one understands the characteristic of equanimity it can be developed in daily life and condition moments of calm. Sometimes people may be beyond any help, but when we remember that unpleasant results in life they receive are conditioned by kamma, that people are "heirs" to kamma, it will prevent us from being distressed. Sadness about other people's suffering is not helpful, neither for ourselves nor for others, whereas when there is equanimity we can be of comfort to others.” ..... >Surely one should, out of metta and karuna, attempt to > protect those in danger, to the best of one's ability, and to > influence or try to change the course of aggressive governments. ..... I like the translation of ‘friendliness’ for metta that Mike uses. For you and I , we’re surrounded by other people for much of the day. There are opportunites all the time for kindness and friendliness. We may speak or write to ‘aggressive governments’ and again it can be with friendliness or with dosa or with attachment. It just depends. Life is always just this very citta arising and experiencing its object. Is there any awareness? Is the thinking about those who may suffer tomorrow or next week with compassion or with aversion and anxiety? Is there any detachment? I just listened on the news to the details of those who have died or are sick here from the new strand of pneumonia without a cure. Mostly my reactions were of alarm and anxiety and concern for them and those I know...i.e attachment and aversion with little even-mindedness. These habitual tendencies and reactions arise so quickly. Another time, we may hear disturbing news but there may be equanimity and right understanding of phenomena. It might be considered as ‘doing nothing’ in a conventional sense, but in a Buddhist sense, it would be a very worthy kind of kusala and even kusala kamma-patha as we’ve been discussing. Let me add one more quote from ‘Cetasikas’ which I find helpful: “Understanding can be developed now, when there is an object presenting itself through one of the six doors. Sometimes the object is pleasant, sometimes unpleasant. When understanding has not been developed it is difficult to be "balanced", to "stay in the middle", without attachment, without aversion. we may tell ourselves time and again that life is only nama and rupa, conditioned realities which are beyond control, but we are still impatient and we are still disturbed by the events of life. However, when there is mindfulness, for example, of visible object, understanding can realize it as a rupa which appears through the eye-door, not a thing, not a person. When there is mindfulness of seeing, understanding can realize it as only an experience, a type of nama, no self who sees. When realities are clearly known as not a thing, not a person, thus, as anatta, there will be more even-mindedness and impartiality towards them. However, this cannot be realized in the beginning. The arahat has eradicated all defilements and thus he can have equanimity which has reached perfection. He is undisturbed, patient and always contented.” ..... I know it’s not easy and I apologise if any of my comments seem insensitive at this time. With metta, Sarah ===== 20363 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:09am Subject: Re: no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) Hi Dave, Now I see what you mean. The Buddha did not deny the existence of divine beings/gods in blissful heavenly realms. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/loka.html These beings might enjoy very long life-span, power, and bliss; nevertheless, they are still subject to ageing and death. I think it might be useful to see the Christian God in the context of Buddhist cosmology. Have you heard of Brahma vihara? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel006.html Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Victor, > > Thanks for your reply. I've printed the links and I'll try to read > them tonight. > > In response to your request for clarification on my question #2, > by "wrong" I mean... well, picked the wrong religion! If it turns > out that Christianity is the "right" one, then we're all in for an > eternity of unpleasantness for not accepting Jesus, etc. Although, > if Mohammad is right, then I know a bunch of Christians in trouble > for eating Ham every Easter! > > I guess my point was that I don't think that I believe in a Christian > god, but I can't bring myself to say that I do NOT believe... just in > case. It's an odd feeling. I remember one day, I was praying my > little mantra ("I love the lord my god with all my heart...") and I > realized that, although I say those words over and over, they carried > no meaning for me. But, I suppose I don't yet have enough confidence > in "no-god" to be able to make a clean break. So, even though I see > my current predictament as hipocritical, I'm still stuck there right > now. > > So, I was looking to see if there were others who had gone through > this. I guess there is just years and years of programming that must > get altered. Growing up in fear of GOD imprints the mind in a way > that makes erasing it, somewhat difficult. > > Anyway, hope that helps clarify what I was asking. > > Peace, > > > Dave 20364 From: Sarah Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching Hi Vital, Welcome to DSG and many thanks for your introductions and link to your website which I took a look at. I see you're Dutch and have a legal background like Jon. I think we all act as mentors to each other....we all learn and help as we can. Some of us even learn from the children (the Starkids) here - from their challenging questions and good cheer;-) I think you're wise to learn what you can before you move to Asia. Pls ask any questions on Buddhism and let us know how we can help further. You may like to look at some old posts under "New to the List....." at this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Thanks for joining us and best wishes. Metta, Sarah ====== -- Vital Moors wrote: > > I´m Vital E.H. Moors and I like asia and buddhisme very much. I´m > working at my philosophy. I hope to settle me in the near futher in > Asia (Vietnam or Thailand.) I am searching for people with the same > interests. Bit I alsoneed more information and about Buddhism and > how I can practize it in my life. My dream for already a long time > is to become a monk in Thailand. But I think i´m not ready for it. > So I´m also searching for a mentor who can give me advice and guide > me.For more information about me you can check my homepage: > www.vitalmoors.nl 20365 From: Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:50am Subject: RE: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching Dear Sarah, I understand your mail very well. But it is difficult for me to set some real steps. What are good introductionbooks ? Where can i find them? I was very catholic in the past. I have complete the education to become priest, but I stopped with it after 5 years, because there were a lot of other thing sin my live at that moment. I didn't know much about the world. I'm a gay man and hiv+, but I'm very healty with my mediciens. So you know that. I had a relation for over 9 years. That was ended last year. At that moment I quesioned all my life. And I came to the conclusion that I cannot be happy in a pure materialistic world. The materialistisc things are nice, but not important for me anymoere. The only important thing at the moment is the growth of my inner. Not my image or personality, but the one I realy am. Of course I have some exprience with medition etc. from my brother who is yogi and from my education at the episcopal seminary. I also have praktized NLP for a long time. But that is not the way for m any more. it can hepl me of course. But it is not the way that i want to grow. I my live the most beautifil moments are these of adoration. Adoration of the nature. Te see a flower of animal. Ethic is fo me not so an issue. Because I believe that all the experiences in my life have given me a strong ethical standard, with does not come from outside but what is incorporate. I don't steel; I don't say hard words; I don't make troubles.... Not because you don't may do that, but because it is a part of mine. I think a lot about life, about my experiences and about how I can grow. I can tell you a lot of course. And that is important because if you don't know my past you cannnot understatnd the manner I stay in life. I think I think and act as a buddhist, but I'm not a buddhist at the moment. My way of thinking and living has devollepd by my previous experiences in life. Now I see that I have to go further... and I realy think and know that Buddhisme can help me a lot by that. Why? It is a feeling. Because everytime I come in a buddhisttemple in Tahiland or Vietnam, I feel a great peace and happiness in myself. I would I had these feelings all the time. I hope you can give me some advice. Vital www.vitalmoors.nl -----Original Message----- From: "Sarah" Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 2:19 PM To: "dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com" Subject: Re: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching Hi Vital, Welcome to DSG and many thanks for your introductions and link to your website which I took a look at. I see you're Dutch and have a legal background like Jon. I think we all act as mentors to each other....we all learn and help as we can. Some of us even learn from the children (the Starkids) here - from their challenging questions and good cheer;-) I think you're wise to learn what you can before you move to Asia. Pls ask any questions on Buddhism and let us know how we can help further. You may like to look at some old posts under "New to the List....." at this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Thanks for joining us and best wishes. Metta, Sarah ====== -- Vital Moors wrote: > > I´m Vital E.H. Moors and I like asia and buddhisme very much. I´m > working at my philosophy. I hope to settle me in the near futher in > Asia (Vietnam or Thailand.) I am searching for people with the same > interests. Bit I alsoneed more information and about Buddhism and > how I can practize it in my life. My dream for already a long time > is to become a monk in Thailand. But I think i´m not ready for it. > So I´m also searching for a mentor who can give me advice and guide > me.For more information about me you can check my homepage: > www.vitalmoors.nl 20366 From: Dan D. Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 6:59am Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K, Sarah, Jon] Dear Sarah, I'm sorry to hear of Jon's mother's passing away. She must have been a fine woman indeed, judging by the quality of her son. Christians appreciating "The arrow"? This does not surprise me in the least. Thoughtful Christians have a great appreciation for Dhamma, which, after all, richly infuses the most important Christian doctrines (albeit in quite different language). > Sarah: Eminem vs Bach with regard to pleasant sound???? Not a popularity contest as I understand the Smv. The intrinsic nature is not according to perception. It is how it is actually heard by the middle-ranking or average men, not how they conceive and perceive it to be so. I think you may be ignoring the parts of the Smv that you don't like. The defining of ittha/anittha is via the "likes and dislikes (vaso-- desire, wish)" of the average men because "such are able to distinguish between the agreeable and the disagreeable". I have great difficulty reading this as "how it is actually heard" instead of how the sound is distinguished (i.e. perceived and conceived). In fact, Ñm adds a clarifying parenthetical immediately following the sentence quoted above: "[i.e. it is distinguishable according to the average man's impulsion]." By "impulsion", he means javana, not "how it is actually heard". In the following paragraph, a rival viewpoint is expressed: "But the Elder Tipitika Cula-Abhaya said: 'The agreeable and disagreeable are distinguishable according to [kamma-] result only, not according to impulsion. but it is impulsion through perversion of perception only that lusts for the agreeable and hates the same agreeable, that lusts for the disagreeable and hates the same disagreeable. Only by way of [kamma-] result, however, is it rightly distinguishable.'" The Elder Tipitika Cula-Abhaya's comments are launched with a "but" and put in quotes because they are fundamentally at odds with the previous comments. Who's right? The commentator or the Elder Tipitika Cula-Abhaya? May your perception be perverted enough to enjoy the ear-shattering sounds of the Rolling Stones concert! That has an odd ring to it, don't you think? Dan 20367 From: Dan D. Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 7:24am Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K] Dear Robert, Can you understand why I object to using "pleasant/unpleasant" to refer to BOTH vedana and sense object? > In the salayatanasamyutta 35:135 (p1207 Bodhi translation) > "I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named 'Contact's sixfold base'. > There whatever form one sees with the eye is undedesirable, > never desirable; unlovely, disagreaable. whatever > sound..whatever taste..whatever odour..whatever tactile > object..whatever mental phenomenon one cognises with the mind is > undesirable.disagreeable..."endquote Wonderful quote, Robert! I read this a few weeks ago, but it didn't strike me as very interesting then. Now it seems wondrously powerful. Isn't this just a restatement of the Noble Truth of suffering? "Contact's sixfold base" is a hell... Dukkha, Dukkha, Dukkha, and this is realized when the sixfold base of contact is seen and understood. > As I understand it the forms seen in hell would be intrinsically > disagreeable at all times. Yes, and the Buddha's teachings lead to dispassion and revulsion for these hells and the consequent turning away from them. But they go very deep, all the way down to the realm of phassa. When sense contact is truly understood, it is recognized as dukkha. > Take Nina's example of someone shouting in anger. The sound produced is inherently disagreeable but if we are not around to hear it then there is no sotavinnana and hence no vipaka for us. I agree that the abstract category of angry shouts would be recognized by the average man as disagreeable, but ittha/anittha is to be understood through vipaka. If there is no sotavinyana, then there is no ittha/anittha. There is no sensing of the sound, and there is no sense object. With no sense object and no vipaka, there is no agreeable/disagreeable. Dan 20368 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 7:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > I understand your mail very well. But it is difficult for me to set some real steps. What are good introductionbooks ? Where can i find them? > Hi Vital, I will contact you off-list about these matters. While the majority of the members of this group are highly intelligent and mean well, such displays of raw honesty and emotion can highly disturb. Being empathic, I am used to it. Don't fret. All is not forsaken. Metta, James 20369 From: Dan D. Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 7:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching Dear Vital, Bhikkhu Bodhi, a great contemporary monk from U.S.A., has written a wonderful introduction to the eightfold noble path. You may find it at http://www.vipassana.com/resources/8fp0.php. This is a good starting point. Dan 20370 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 8:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching Dear Dan, I could not find the page.What do I have to do with that if I want to view that page describing Noble Eightfold Path? Yours sincerely, Htoo --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > Dear Vital, > Bhikkhu Bodhi, a great contemporary monk from U.S.A., has written a > wonderful introduction to the eightfold noble path. You may find it > at http://www.vipassana.com/resources/8fp0.php. This is a good > starting point. > > Dan 20371 From: Dan D. Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 8:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching Sorry about that. You might try the link without the last "." in it. http://www.vipassana.com/resources/8fp0.php Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Dear Dan, > > I could not find the page.What do I have to do with that if I want to > view that page describing Noble > Eightfold Path? > > Yours sincerely, > > Htoo > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Dear Vital, > > Bhikkhu Bodhi, a great contemporary monk from U.S.A., has written a > > wonderful introduction to the eightfold noble path. You may find it > > at http://www.vipassana.com/resources/8fp0.php. This is a good > > starting point. > > > > Dan 20372 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 9:19am Subject: Re: Philip: Reply --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Dear James, and everyone: > > I have received your letter. Thanks for using your > time to write a letter to me. I think that my letter > was more like a test about Buddhism rather than a > letter. Hi Star Kid Philip! How are you? I hope you are doing fine. Hmmmm…so your questions were a test. That means that you already had in your mind what the correct answers should be, doesn't it? And when I didn't answer the way you thought I should, you got rather upset and defensive, didn't you? Philip, questions should be asked in a spirit of friendliness and openness. You should be open-minded and genuinely want to know my answers, not to ask questions just to put me to some kind of test. That will make me feel like I am on trial or something! ;-) And believe it or not, you will learn more by genuinely listening to other people rather than just thinking you know the answers already. But, to use a lesson from "Pooh's Little Instruction Book", "If the person you are talking to doesn't appear to be listening, be patient. It may simply be that he has a small piece of fluff in his ear." I am going to be patient and answer these other questions for you. Maybe you got that small piece of fluff out of your ear. ;-) Philip, you asked me what is unique about Buddhism and I told you: the teaching of non-self (anatta). This isn't personal opinion of mine, this is fact. Everything that Jesus taught is not unique; no matter what you list that he taught it was taught before him in various other religions. Even his crucifixion, which you consider unique, springs from previous pagan religions which believed in animal and human sacrifices. Actually, most of what the Buddha taught had also been taught before in various other religions. But the one thing that the Buddha taught, which cannot be found in any other religion in existence, is the teaching of non-self. I am sorry if you don't like this answer, but it is the truth. There is nothing inherently unique about Christianity, but there is something inherently unique about Buddhism: the teaching of non-self (anatta). Okay, now let me answer your other questions: 1. Why do the people who believe in the Buddha shave their heads and use a lighted thingy to poke six holes on their head? What is the point of that? (Answer: Only monks shave their heads, not everyone who practices Buddhism. Monks shave their heads for two reasons, which the Buddha taught: 1. To encourage the dropping of individual identity; 2. To separate the Buddha's monks, visually, from other monks of his time who grew long hair. I am not sure what you mean by a `lighted thingy that pokes six holes on their head'. I have never heard of that…and it sounds very painful. Monks, as a tradition, don't poke holes in their head.) 2. How did you first come in touch with Buddhism? (Answer: I chose Buddhism as my religion after studying many of the world's religions. It seemed to be the closest to what I already believed about the world…but it filled in some of the gaps in my knowledge. Basically, Buddhism answered my questions about life.) 3. Do you think that you have reached all the requirements that the Buddha required? (Answer: The Buddha didn't have any `requirements', like a boss or a leader, he had suggestions. As far as my own practice and my place on the Buddhist path, that is a private matter. I only discuss my Buddhist accomplishments with my meditation master, no one else. Other people have asked me this question, usually in the wrong spirit, and I refuse to answer.) 4. Why is Buddhism only popular in Asia, while Christianity is popular internationally? (Not to be offensive)? (Answer: Christianity is more popular and spreading because Christians believe in recruiting people to their religion, while Buddhists don't believe in that. Buddhists believe that it is up to each individual to decide and no one should be persuaded to believe one way or another.) 5. Can you tell me the names of some of the Buddhas? (like the smiling one). (Answer: I don't know all of the Buddhas to tell you their names. I believe the smiling Buddha you see is called "The Happy Buddha", but he is based on an actual Buddha who existed in China. My knowledge of this is somewhat foggy and is based on a book I read long ago. Maybe you should check out the library for books on the various Buddhas.) 6. Well, you said that there are many Buddhas. Then why when I ask you when is the Buddha born, you didn't ask me which Buddha did I mean? (Answer: I read your mind! Hehehe…just kidding. I assumed that was the Buddha you meant because he was the supreme Buddha who taught the Buddhism we know today.) As always, it was a pleasure writing to you again, Philip. Take care and work hard in school…and try to respect and obey your teachers. Believe it or not, they know a lot more than you do. Metta, James 20373 From: dwlemen Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 10:38am Subject: Shrine Room? Everyone, Another quick question... I had followed a link Dan gave another person and, elsewhere in that site, I found a "Lay Buddhist Practice" document (http://www.vipassana.com/resources/lay_buddhist_practice.php) This doc starts right off with where your shrine should be, and how to give offerings to it, etc. Is this actually part of core Buddhism? It looks a bit like something that evolved later. Is it really important to have a shrine and make offerings as this doc suggests? Peace, Dave 20374 From: Eddie Lou Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 11:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) Hi, May I add something. I think it is: 1. human being, nowithstanding science & technological advances, still is very vulnerable & fragile in terms of survivability and true understanding of phenomena. Think of Hurricane, earthquake, accidents, attacks say - sabotage, now - terrrorism, the list go on and on and new entries or old entries renew themselves and present all kinds of threats - perceived or real. That is and can be very scary, so human thought upon some kind of reliance and protection. One of them is God. Actually, I learnt this from somewhere in books or media. 2. over time it becomes very real and people old and new become like you said - programmed to think this way. 3. Buddhism did not deny the existence of other beings in 31 planes of existence, including Gods, Immortals, etc. But even though powerful compared to us, they also have their own limitations to assist us. We are what we did and currently doing ie - Karma (own work or doing - past & present). Also Gods and others may have longer life (maybe that is why they are called Immortals???) but they still have a life span meaning they were born and died eventually. (side track: I learnt some were born straight to be an adult no inbetween infants and kid stage and some have no or limited physical (rupa) bodies at all - body means extra suffering that is why it is more blissful overthere.) And finally, they are still going through the continuous rebirth cycle called - Samsara. 4. Buddhism "seems" to represent a more realistic model with should I say "total true picture". With that understanding, a person can become more at ease and tranquil especially with insight gained through 'correct' meditation and thus accumulation of Panna - I would think the closest equivalent term is 'wisdom'. Emotional stability is one of the good results. 5. Another thing, why I say it represents more realistic model is except for things not verifiable like immortals mentioned above, those verifiable seems click so well so far over 2,500 years of study and scrutiny. 6. Looking for REAL truth is very important. Things "AS IS". Thanks. --- dwlemen wrote: > Victor, > > Thanks for your reply. I've printed the links and > I'll try to read > them tonight. > > In response to your request for clarification on my > question #2, > by "wrong" I mean... well, picked the wrong > religion! If it turns > out that Christianity is the "right" one, then we're > all in for an > eternity of unpleasantness for not accepting Jesus, > etc. Although, > if Mohammad is right, then I know a bunch of > Christians in trouble > for eating Ham every Easter! > > I guess my point was that I don't think that I > believe in a Christian > god, but I can't bring myself to say that I do NOT > believe... just in > case. It's an odd feeling. I remember one day, I > was praying my > little mantra ("I love the lord my god with all my > heart...") and I > realized that, although I say those words over and > over, they carried > no meaning for me. But, I suppose I don't yet have > enough confidence > in "no-god" to be able to make a clean break. So, > even though I see > my current predictament as hipocritical, I'm still > stuck there right > now. > > So, I was looking to see if there were others who > had gone through > this. I guess there is just years and years of > programming that must > get altered. Growing up in fear of GOD imprints the > mind in a way > that makes erasing it, somewhat difficult. > > Anyway, hope that helps clarify what I was asking. > > Peace, > > > Dave > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > > I will try to respond to your questions. > > > > 1. Yes, there are rules in the teaching of the > Buddha with which > one > > can structure one's behavior. The basic rules are > the five > precepts, > > observed by practicing Buddhist lay followers. > They are listed in > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/pancasila.html > > > > 2. I would like to make sure what you mean by > being "wrong". In > > particular, being wrong about what? > > > > 3. I would recommend practicing generosity and > observing the five > > precepts. > > > > I would also recommend the page > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma.html > > for self-study. > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" > > > wrote: > > > Dear Everyone, > > > > > > I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently I > find myself > > > struggling. My main hurdle seems to be > transitioning my Western, > > > Christian upbringing into the Eastern, Buddhist > mindset > > (specifically > > > Theravada). Are there resources to help one? > Here are a few of > my > > > specific woes: > > > > > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to > find clear (or > > > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can > structure one's > behavior > > > according to these "commandments". Is there a > similar idea in > > > Buddhism? This may be the same question as > message 210 > ("Buddhist > > > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer never > got posted. > > > > > > 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me > than I thought. > > > Christianity has some pretty clear punishments > for violating the > > > rules. So, while on one level, I have > confidence in the non- > > > existence of the Christian God, I have this fear > of > being "wrong." > > > Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" > this fear? > > > > > > 3. The Sangha. I live in a small town in > Indiana. As such, > there > > is > > > no temple or group to help with my journey or to > become a part > of. > > > Are there recommendations for isolated people to > follow the > correct > > > path? > > > > > > Hopefully this isn't too much for one message. > It is very > > difficult > > > to move from one faith to another. Even though > I do truly want > to, > > I > > > just don't know how or where to start. > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > Dave 20375 From: Eddie Lou Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 11:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) A good source: www.buddhanet.net --- Eddie Lou wrote: > Hi, > > May I add something. I think it is: > > 1. human being, nowithstanding science & > technological > advances, still is very vulnerable & fragile in > terms > of survivability and true understanding of > phenomena. > Think of Hurricane, earthquake, accidents, attacks > say > - sabotage, now - terrrorism, the list go on and on > and new entries or old entries renew themselves and > present all kinds of threats - perceived or real. > > That is and can be very scary, so human thought upon > some kind of reliance and protection. One of them is > God. Actually, I learnt this from somewhere in books > or media. > > 2. over time it becomes very real and people old and > new become like you said - programmed to think this > way. > > 3. Buddhism did not deny the existence of other > beings > in 31 planes of existence, including Gods, > Immortals, > etc. But even though powerful compared to us, they > also have their own limitations to assist us. We are > what we did and currently doing ie - Karma (own work > or doing - past & present). > > Also Gods and others may have longer life (maybe > that > is why they are called Immortals???) but they still > have a life span meaning they were born and died > eventually. (side track: I learnt some were born > straight to be an adult no inbetween infants and kid > stage and some have no or limited physical (rupa) > bodies at all - body means extra suffering that is > why > it is more blissful overthere.) And finally, they > are > still going through the continuous rebirth cycle > called - Samsara. > > 4. Buddhism "seems" to represent a more realistic > model with should I say "total true picture". With > that understanding, a person can become more at ease > and tranquil especially with insight gained through > 'correct' meditation and thus accumulation of Panna > - > I would think the closest equivalent term is > 'wisdom'. > Emotional stability is one of the good results. > > 5. Another thing, why I say it represents more > realistic model is except for things not verifiable > like immortals mentioned above, those verifiable > seems > click so well so far over 2,500 years of study and > scrutiny. > > 6. Looking for REAL truth is very important. Things > "AS IS". > > Thanks. > > --- dwlemen wrote: > > Victor, > > > > Thanks for your reply. I've printed the links and > > I'll try to read > > them tonight. > > > > In response to your request for clarification on > my > > question #2, > > by "wrong" I mean... well, picked the wrong > > religion! If it turns > > out that Christianity is the "right" one, then > we're > > all in for an > > eternity of unpleasantness for not accepting > Jesus, > > etc. Although, > > if Mohammad is right, then I know a bunch of > > Christians in trouble > > for eating Ham every Easter! > > > > I guess my point was that I don't think that I > > believe in a Christian > > god, but I can't bring myself to say that I do NOT > > believe... just in > > case. It's an odd feeling. I remember one day, I > > was praying my > > little mantra ("I love the lord my god with all my > > heart...") and I > > realized that, although I say those words over and > > over, they carried > > no meaning for me. But, I suppose I don't yet > have > > enough confidence > > in "no-god" to be able to make a clean break. So, > > even though I see > > my current predictament as hipocritical, I'm still > > stuck there right > > now. > > > > So, I was looking to see if there were others who > > had gone through > > this. I guess there is just years and years of > > programming that must > > get altered. Growing up in fear of GOD imprints > the > > mind in a way > > that makes erasing it, somewhat difficult. > > > > Anyway, hope that helps clarify what I was asking. > > > > Peace, > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > > "yu_zhonghao" > > wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > I will try to respond to your questions. > > > > > > 1. Yes, there are rules in the teaching of the > > Buddha with which > > one > > > can structure one's behavior. The basic rules > are > > the five > > precepts, > > > observed by practicing Buddhist lay followers. > > They are listed in > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/pancasila.html > > > > > > 2. I would like to make sure what you mean by > > being "wrong". In > > > particular, being wrong about what? > > > > > > 3. I would recommend practicing generosity and > > observing the five > > > precepts. > > > > > > I would also recommend the page > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma.html > > > for self-study. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Victor > > > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > "dwlemen" > > > > > wrote: > > > > Dear Everyone, > > > > > > > > I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently > I > > find myself > > > > struggling. My main hurdle seems to be > > transitioning my Western, > > > > Christian upbringing into the Eastern, > Buddhist > > mindset > > > (specifically > > > > Theravada). Are there resources to help one? > > Here are a few of > > my > > > > specific woes: > > > > > > > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to > > find clear (or > > > > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can > > structure one's > > behavior > > > > according to these "commandments". Is there a > > similar idea in > > > > Buddhism? This may be the same question as > > message 210 > > ("Buddhist > > > > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer > never > > got posted. > > > > > > > > 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me > > than I thought. > > > > Christianity has some pretty clear punishments > > for violating the > === message truncated === 20376 From: dwlemen Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 11:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) Thanks for the insight. I am not really familiar with the "31 planes of existance" and the idea of Gods, Immortals, etc. I thought that, along with "no-god" was "no-self" so, if we say there is no such thing as me, how is there such a thing as a god or an immortal? Peace, Dave --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Eddie Lou wrote: > Hi, > > May I add something. I think it is: > > 1. human being, nowithstanding science & technological > advances, still is very vulnerable & fragile in terms > of survivability and true understanding of phenomena. > Think of Hurricane, earthquake, accidents, attacks say > - sabotage, now - terrrorism, the list go on and on > and new entries or old entries renew themselves and > present all kinds of threats - perceived or real. > > That is and can be very scary, so human thought upon > some kind of reliance and protection. One of them is > God. Actually, I learnt this from somewhere in books > or media. > > 2. over time it becomes very real and people old and > new become like you said - programmed to think this > way. > > 3. Buddhism did not deny the existence of other beings > in 31 planes of existence, including Gods, Immortals, > etc. But even though powerful compared to us, they > also have their own limitations to assist us. We are > what we did and currently doing ie - Karma (own work > or doing - past & present). > > Also Gods and others may have longer life (maybe that > is why they are called Immortals???) but they still > have a life span meaning they were born and died > eventually. (side track: I learnt some were born > straight to be an adult no inbetween infants and kid > stage and some have no or limited physical (rupa) > bodies at all - body means extra suffering that is why > it is more blissful overthere.) And finally, they are > still going through the continuous rebirth cycle > called - Samsara. > > 4. Buddhism "seems" to represent a more realistic > model with should I say "total true picture". With > that understanding, a person can become more at ease > and tranquil especially with insight gained through > 'correct' meditation and thus accumulation of Panna - > I would think the closest equivalent term is 'wisdom'. > Emotional stability is one of the good results. > > 5. Another thing, why I say it represents more > realistic model is except for things not verifiable > like immortals mentioned above, those verifiable seems > click so well so far over 2,500 years of study and > scrutiny. > > 6. Looking for REAL truth is very important. Things > "AS IS". > > Thanks. > > --- dwlemen wrote: > > Victor, > > > > Thanks for your reply. I've printed the links and > > I'll try to read > > them tonight. > > > > In response to your request for clarification on my > > question #2, > > by "wrong" I mean... well, picked the wrong > > religion! If it turns > > out that Christianity is the "right" one, then we're > > all in for an > > eternity of unpleasantness for not accepting Jesus, > > etc. Although, > > if Mohammad is right, then I know a bunch of > > Christians in trouble > > for eating Ham every Easter! > > > > I guess my point was that I don't think that I > > believe in a Christian > > god, but I can't bring myself to say that I do NOT > > believe... just in > > case. It's an odd feeling. I remember one day, I > > was praying my > > little mantra ("I love the lord my god with all my > > heart...") and I > > realized that, although I say those words over and > > over, they carried > > no meaning for me. But, I suppose I don't yet have > > enough confidence > > in "no-god" to be able to make a clean break. So, > > even though I see > > my current predictament as hipocritical, I'm still > > stuck there right > > now. > > > > So, I was looking to see if there were others who > > had gone through > > this. I guess there is just years and years of > > programming that must > > get altered. Growing up in fear of GOD imprints the > > mind in a way > > that makes erasing it, somewhat difficult. > > > > Anyway, hope that helps clarify what I was asking. > > > > Peace, > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > > "yu_zhonghao" > > wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > I will try to respond to your questions. > > > > > > 1. Yes, there are rules in the teaching of the > > Buddha with which > > one > > > can structure one's behavior. The basic rules are > > the five > > precepts, > > > observed by practicing Buddhist lay followers. > > They are listed in > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/pancasila.html > > > > > > 2. I would like to make sure what you mean by > > being "wrong". In > > > particular, being wrong about what? > > > > > > 3. I would recommend practicing generosity and > > observing the five > > > precepts. > > > > > > I would also recommend the page > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma.html > > > for self-study. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Victor > > > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" > > > > > wrote: > > > > Dear Everyone, > > > > > > > > I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently I > > find myself > > > > struggling. My main hurdle seems to be > > transitioning my Western, > > > > Christian upbringing into the Eastern, Buddhist > > mindset > > > (specifically > > > > Theravada). Are there resources to help one? > > Here are a few of > > my > > > > specific woes: > > > > > > > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to > > find clear (or > > > > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can > > structure one's > > behavior > > > > according to these "commandments". Is there a > > similar idea in > > > > Buddhism? This may be the same question as > > message 210 > > ("Buddhist > > > > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer never > > got posted. > > > > > > > > 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me > > than I thought. > > > > Christianity has some pretty clear punishments > > for violating the > > > > rules. So, while on one level, I have > > confidence in the non- > > > > existence of the Christian God, I have this fear > > of > > being "wrong." > > > > Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" > > this fear? > > > > > > > > 3. The Sangha. I live in a small town in > > Indiana. As such, > > there > > > is > > > > no temple or group to help with my journey or to > > become a part > > of. > > > > Are there recommendations for isolated people to > > follow the > > correct > > > > path? > > > > > > > > Hopefully this isn't too much for one message. > > It is very > > > difficult > > > > to move from one faith to another. Even though > > I do truly want > > to, > > > I > > > > just don't know how or where to start. > > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave 20377 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 0:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K] --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > Dear Robert, > Can you understand why I object to using "pleasant/unpleasant" to > refer to BOTH vedana and sense object? ____________ Dear Dan, Yes, you object because someone might confuse nama and rupa by using the same word for both. As I said either disagreeable or undesirable are fine. here are some pali words they use:anittham, amanapam, akanatum for 'disagreeable'. > > > > In the salayatanasamyutta 35:135 (p1207 Bodhi translation) > > "I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named 'Contact's sixfold base'. > > There whatever form one sees with the eye is undedesirable, > > never desirable; unlovely, disagreaable. whatever > > sound..whatever taste..whatever odour..whatever tactile > > object..whatever mental phenomenon one cognises with the mind is > > undesirable.disagreeable..."endquote > > Wonderful quote, Robert! I read this a few weeks ago, but it didn't > strike me as very interesting then. Now it seems wondrously powerful. > Isn't this just a restatement of the Noble Truth of > suffering? "Contact's sixfold base" is a hell... Dukkha, Dukkha, > Dukkha, and this is realized when the sixfold base of contact is seen > and understood. > > > As I understand it the forms seen in hell would be intrinsically > > disagreeable at all times. > > Yes, and the Buddha's teachings lead to dispassion and revulsion for > these hells and the consequent turning away from them. But they go > very deep, all the way down to the realm of phassa. When sense > contact is truly understood, it is recognized as dukkha. _______________ Yes this is right. Although it should be noted that (from memory) the sutta or another nearby also notes that the Buddha has seen heavenly realms where "whatever form one sees with the eye is desirable, never undesirable; lovely, agreaable. whatever sound..whatever taste..whatever odour.."" As you indicate these agreeable sense objects are also dukkha. RobertK ------------------------- > > 20378 From: vital moors Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 0:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching Tank you Sarah. I hope to recieve your mail very soon. My emailadrs is : vitalmoors@h... http://www.vitalmoors.nl ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- Van: "buddhatrue" Aan: Verzonden: dinsdag 18 maart 2003 16:31 Onderwerp: Re: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > > > I understand your mail very well. But it is difficult for me to set > some real steps. What are good introductionbooks ? Where can i find > them? > > > > Hi Vital, > > I will contact you off-list about these matters. While the majority > of the members of this group are highly intelligent and mean well, > such displays of raw honesty and emotion can highly disturb. Being > empathic, I am used to it. Don't fret. All is not forsaken. > > Metta, James 20379 From: Eddie Lou Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 0:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) Hi, Dave, I am still a learning student in Buddhism. I think about "no-self" refers to the ego - 'I' and with 'correct' meditation one can eventually find we are nothing but a breathing and living ego or consciousness. I myself never actually know how to meditate but I heard it produce major change in consciousness or mind but not those bad frightening mind control or hallucination. Try to look in the good source: www.buddhanet.net. Look for vipassana meditation by Late U Ba Khin (a practical practitioner of that meditation). This vipassana is what made Last Buddha namely - Gotama became fully enlightened but he had that underlying accumulation of Parami or good stuff like meritorious deeds and wisdom over umpteen (billions or trillions of) rebirth cycles over many worlds (we currently are in one of that world). The world system is also going through some kind of or similar rebirth cycle. But the time scale is different from a person rebirth cycle. I hope I do not overhelm you with info. But do look for the website mentioned above and it takes time to learn, so be patient and you will realize your wish. To me all I want is the real or at close to real truth. I will not like settle for anything less. I know the concept of "no-self" is hard to grasp, even for me who had been analysing all these things for 5-7 years in my spare time. I still have a lot of skeptical questions about all these things and still have not got really good answers. For example, I asked who started all these rebirth cycles "Games". I was told there is no beginning or end. (That makes me more curious.) I do not know if this is true. Hope someone can tell me more satisfactorily. But I am still very impressed with Buddhism, which I do not like to call it a religion because I think of the negative connotation that can go with a religion. I see it a truth - revellation effort or like scientific stuff. --- dwlemen wrote: > Thanks for the insight. I am not really familiar > with the "31 planes > of existance" and the idea of Gods, Immortals, etc. > I thought that, > along with "no-god" was "no-self" so, if we say > there is no such > thing as me, how is there such a thing as a god or > an immortal? > > Peace, > > > Dave > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Eddie Lou > > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > May I add something. I think it is: > > > > 1. human being, nowithstanding science & > technological > > advances, still is very vulnerable & fragile in > terms > > of survivability and true understanding of > phenomena. > > Think of Hurricane, earthquake, accidents, attacks > say > > - sabotage, now - terrrorism, the list go on and > on > > and new entries or old entries renew themselves > and > > present all kinds of threats - perceived or real. > > > > That is and can be very scary, so human thought > upon > > some kind of reliance and protection. One of them > is > > God. Actually, I learnt this from somewhere in > books > > or media. > > > > 2. over time it becomes very real and people old > and > > new become like you said - programmed to think > this > > way. > > > > 3. Buddhism did not deny the existence of other > beings > > in 31 planes of existence, including Gods, > Immortals, > > etc. But even though powerful compared to us, they > > also have their own limitations to assist us. We > are > > what we did and currently doing ie - Karma (own > work > > or doing - past & present). > > > > Also Gods and others may have longer life (maybe > that > > is why they are called Immortals???) but they > still > > have a life span meaning they were born and died > > eventually. (side track: I learnt some were born > > straight to be an adult no inbetween infants and > kid > > stage and some have no or limited physical (rupa) > > bodies at all - body means extra suffering that is > why > > it is more blissful overthere.) And finally, they > are > > still going through the continuous rebirth cycle > > called - Samsara. > > > > 4. Buddhism "seems" to represent a more realistic > > model with should I say "total true picture". With > > that understanding, a person can become more at > ease > > and tranquil especially with insight gained > through > > 'correct' meditation and thus accumulation of > Panna - > > I would think the closest equivalent term is > 'wisdom'. > > Emotional stability is one of the good results. > > > > 5. Another thing, why I say it represents more > > realistic model is except for things not > verifiable > > like immortals mentioned above, those verifiable > seems > > click so well so far over 2,500 years of study and > > scrutiny. > > > > 6. Looking for REAL truth is very important. > Things > > "AS IS". > > > > Thanks. > > > > --- dwlemen wrote: > > > Victor, > > > > > > Thanks for your reply. I've printed the links > and > > > I'll try to read > > > them tonight. > > > > > > In response to your request for clarification on > my > > > question #2, > > > by "wrong" I mean... well, picked the wrong > > > religion! If it turns > > > out that Christianity is the "right" one, then > we're > > > all in for an > > > eternity of unpleasantness for not accepting > Jesus, > > > etc. Although, > > > if Mohammad is right, then I know a bunch of > > > Christians in trouble > > > for eating Ham every Easter! > > > > > > I guess my point was that I don't think that I > > > believe in a Christian > > > god, but I can't bring myself to say that I do > NOT > > > believe... just in > > > case. It's an odd feeling. I remember one day, > I > > > was praying my > > > little mantra ("I love the lord my god with all > my > > > heart...") and I > > > realized that, although I say those words over > and > > > over, they carried > > > no meaning for me. But, I suppose I don't yet > have > > > enough confidence > > > in "no-god" to be able to make a clean break. > So, > > > even though I see > > > my current predictament as hipocritical, I'm > still > > > stuck there right > > > now. > > > > > > So, I was looking to see if there were others > who > > > had gone through > > > this. I guess there is just years and years of > > > programming that must > > > get altered. Growing up in fear of GOD imprints > the > > > mind in a way > > > that makes erasing it, somewhat difficult. > > > > > > Anyway, hope that helps clarify what I was > asking. > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > > > "yu_zhonghao" > > > wrote: > > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > > > I will try to respond to your questions. > > > > > > > > 1. Yes, there are rules in the teaching of > the > > > Buddha with which > > > one > > > > can structure one's behavior. The basic rules > are > > > the five > > > precepts, > > > > observed by practicing Buddhist lay followers. > > > > They are listed in > > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/pancasila.html > > > > > > > > 2. I would like to make sure what you mean by > > > being "wrong". In > > > > particular, being wrong about what? > > > > > > > > 3. I would recommend practicing generosity > and > > > observing the five > > > > precepts. > > > > > === message truncated === 20380 From: Eddie Lou Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 0:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) One more thing the "no-self" maybe related to the wisdom of the ability to differentiate between 'rupa' - closest equivalent being physical or physique and 'nama' - closest equivalent being spirit or soul. This ability I heard is the key or one of the keys to be liberated from the rebirth cycle I told you before - Samsara and with the true final destination being Nirvana, where the truth of cause and effect no longer exists. --- Eddie Lou wrote: > Hi, Dave, > > I am still a learning student in Buddhism. I think > about "no-self" refers to the ego - 'I' and with > 'correct' meditation one can eventually find we are > nothing but a breathing and living ego or > consciousness. I myself never actually know how to > meditate but I heard it produce major change in > consciousness or mind but not those bad frightening > mind control or hallucination. Try to look in the > good > source: > www.buddhanet.net. Look for vipassana meditation by > Late U Ba Khin (a practical practitioner of that > meditation). This vipassana is what made Last Buddha > namely - Gotama became fully enlightened but he had > that underlying accumulation of Parami or good stuff > like meritorious deeds and wisdom over umpteen > (billions or trillions of) rebirth cycles over many > worlds (we currently are in one of that world). > > The world system is also going through some kind of > or > similar rebirth cycle. But the time scale is > different > from a person rebirth cycle. > > I hope I do not overhelm you with info. But do look > for the website mentioned above and it takes time to > learn, so be patient and you will realize your wish. > > > To me all I want is the real or at close to real > truth. I will not like settle for anything less. > > I know the concept of "no-self" is hard to grasp, > even > for me who had been analysing all these things for > 5-7 > years in my spare time. > > I still have a lot of skeptical questions about all > these things and still have not got really good > answers. > > For example, I asked who started all these rebirth > cycles "Games". I was told there is no beginning or > end. (That makes me more curious.) I do not know if > this is true. Hope someone can tell me more > satisfactorily. > > But I am still very impressed with Buddhism, which I > do not like to call it a religion because I think of > the negative connotation that can go with a > religion. > I see it a truth - revellation effort or like > scientific stuff. > --- dwlemen wrote: > > Thanks for the insight. I am not really familiar > > with the "31 planes > > of existance" and the idea of Gods, Immortals, > etc. > > I thought that, > > along with "no-god" was "no-self" so, if we say > > there is no such > > thing as me, how is there such a thing as a god or > > an immortal? > > > > Peace, > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Eddie Lou > > > > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > May I add something. I think it is: > > > > > > 1. human being, nowithstanding science & > > technological > > > advances, still is very vulnerable & fragile in > > terms > > > of survivability and true understanding of > > phenomena. > > > Think of Hurricane, earthquake, accidents, > attacks > > say > > > - sabotage, now - terrrorism, the list go on and > > on > > > and new entries or old entries renew themselves > > and > > > present all kinds of threats - perceived or > real. > > > > > > That is and can be very scary, so human thought > > upon > > > some kind of reliance and protection. One of > them > > is > > > God. Actually, I learnt this from somewhere in > > books > > > or media. > > > > > > 2. over time it becomes very real and people old > > and > > > new become like you said - programmed to think > > this > > > way. > > > > > > 3. Buddhism did not deny the existence of other > > beings > > > in 31 planes of existence, including Gods, > > Immortals, > > > etc. But even though powerful compared to us, > they > > > also have their own limitations to assist us. We > > are > > > what we did and currently doing ie - Karma (own > > work > > > or doing - past & present). > > > > > > Also Gods and others may have longer life (maybe > > that > > > is why they are called Immortals???) but they > > still > > > have a life span meaning they were born and died > > > eventually. (side track: I learnt some were born > > > straight to be an adult no inbetween infants and > > kid > > > stage and some have no or limited physical > (rupa) > > > bodies at all - body means extra suffering that > is > > why > > > it is more blissful overthere.) And finally, > they > > are > > > still going through the continuous rebirth cycle > > > called - Samsara. > > > > > > 4. Buddhism "seems" to represent a more > realistic > > > model with should I say "total true picture". > With > > > that understanding, a person can become more at > > ease > > > and tranquil especially with insight gained > > through > > > 'correct' meditation and thus accumulation of > > Panna - > > > I would think the closest equivalent term is > > 'wisdom'. > > > Emotional stability is one of the good results. > > > > > > 5. Another thing, why I say it represents more > > > realistic model is except for things not > > verifiable > > > like immortals mentioned above, those verifiable > > seems > > > click so well so far over 2,500 years of study > and > > > scrutiny. > > > > > > 6. Looking for REAL truth is very important. > > Things > > > "AS IS". > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > --- dwlemen wrote: > > > > Victor, > > > > > > > > Thanks for your reply. I've printed the links > > and > > > > I'll try to read > > > > them tonight. > > > > > > > > In response to your request for clarification > on > > my > > > > question #2, > > > > by "wrong" I mean... well, picked the wrong > > > > religion! If it turns > > > > out that Christianity is the "right" one, then > > we're > > > > all in for an > > > > eternity of unpleasantness for not accepting > > Jesus, > > > > etc. Although, > > > > if Mohammad is right, then I know a bunch of > > > > Christians in trouble > > > > for eating Ham every Easter! > > > > > > > > I guess my point was that I don't think that I > > > > believe in a Christian > > > > god, but I can't bring myself to say that I do > > NOT > === message truncated === 20381 From: Eddie Lou Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 0:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Shrine Room? I think a true Buddhist (that is what Buddhas taught) should not be stepped in those rituals or rites, customs and tradition. In Kalama Sutta (I think is the scripture), Buddha said do not believe anything just because it is passed on from generations to generations and told by learned sages, etc. Check it out YOURSELF, if it makes sense and good for everyone then you can adopt it. But I am sure he is not asking us to be violent and rebellious because it (Buddhism) is so gentle and kind. It is more about mind self-control (see self-control). and doing good things actually Not good or not bad that is nuetral reaction to any stimuli is the right way to Nirvana, I learnt. Everyone please correct me if I am wrong. --- dwlemen wrote: > Everyone, > > Another quick question... I had followed a link Dan > gave another > person and, elsewhere in that site, I found a "Lay > Buddhist Practice" > document > (http://www.vipassana.com/resources/lay_buddhist_practice.php) > > This doc starts right off with where your shrine > should be, and how > to give offerings to it, etc. > > Is this actually part of core Buddhism? It looks a > bit like > something that evolved later. Is it really > important to have a > shrine and make offerings as this doc suggests? > > > Peace, > > > Dave 20382 From: Eddie Lou Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 0:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) I have many one more thing. I will try to make it true this time because I really got to run back to my job - that "self" or I call it ego is the last thing or one of the last things to go on the way to Nirvana. I heard even Old or experienced or learned monks before that last stage (Arahat or pacceka Buddha) can be very ego-centric or egoistic. --- Eddie Lou wrote: > One more thing the "no-self" maybe related to the > wisdom of the ability to differentiate between > 'rupa' > - closest equivalent being physical or physique and > 'nama' - closest equivalent being spirit or soul. > > This ability I heard is the key or one of the keys > to > be liberated from the rebirth cycle I told you > before > - Samsara and with the true final destination being > Nirvana, where the truth of cause and effect no > longer > exists. > > --- Eddie Lou wrote: > > Hi, Dave, > > > > I am still a learning student in Buddhism. I think > > about "no-self" refers to the ego - 'I' and with > > 'correct' meditation one can eventually find we > are > > nothing but a breathing and living ego or > > consciousness. I myself never actually know how to > > meditate but I heard it produce major change in > > consciousness or mind but not those bad > frightening > > mind control or hallucination. Try to look in the > > good > > source: > > www.buddhanet.net. Look for vipassana meditation > by > > Late U Ba Khin (a practical practitioner of that > > meditation). This vipassana is what made Last > Buddha > > namely - Gotama became fully enlightened but he > had > > that underlying accumulation of Parami or good > stuff > > like meritorious deeds and wisdom over umpteen > > (billions or trillions of) rebirth cycles over > many > > worlds (we currently are in one of that world). > > > > The world system is also going through some kind > of > > or > > similar rebirth cycle. But the time scale is > > different > > from a person rebirth cycle. > > > > I hope I do not overhelm you with info. But do > look > > for the website mentioned above and it takes time > to > > learn, so be patient and you will realize your > wish. > > > > > > To me all I want is the real or at close to real > > truth. I will not like settle for anything less. > > > > I know the concept of "no-self" is hard to grasp, > > even > > for me who had been analysing all these things for > > 5-7 > > years in my spare time. > > > > I still have a lot of skeptical questions about > all > > these things and still have not got really good > > answers. > > > > For example, I asked who started all these > rebirth > > cycles "Games". I was told there is no beginning > or > > end. (That makes me more curious.) I do not know > if > > this is true. Hope someone can tell me more > > satisfactorily. > > > > But I am still very impressed with Buddhism, which > I > > do not like to call it a religion because I think > of > > the negative connotation that can go with a > > religion. > > I see it a truth - revellation effort or like > > scientific stuff. > > --- dwlemen wrote: > > > Thanks for the insight. I am not really > familiar > > > with the "31 planes > > > of existance" and the idea of Gods, Immortals, > > etc. > > > I thought that, > > > along with "no-god" was "no-self" so, if we say > > > there is no such > > > thing as me, how is there such a thing as a god > or > > > an immortal? > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Eddie > Lou > > > > > > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > May I add something. I think it is: > > > > > > > > 1. human being, nowithstanding science & > > > technological > > > > advances, still is very vulnerable & fragile > in > > > terms > > > > of survivability and true understanding of > > > phenomena. > > > > Think of Hurricane, earthquake, accidents, > > attacks > > > say > > > > - sabotage, now - terrrorism, the list go on > and > > > on > > > > and new entries or old entries renew > themselves > > > and > > > > present all kinds of threats - perceived or > > real. > > > > > > > > That is and can be very scary, so human > thought > > > upon > > > > some kind of reliance and protection. One of > > them > > > is > > > > God. Actually, I learnt this from somewhere in > > > books > > > > or media. > > > > > > > > 2. over time it becomes very real and people > old > > > and > > > > new become like you said - programmed to think > > > this > > > > way. > > > > > > > > 3. Buddhism did not deny the existence of > other > > > beings > > > > in 31 planes of existence, including Gods, > > > Immortals, > > > > etc. But even though powerful compared to us, > > they > > > > also have their own limitations to assist us. > We > > > are > > > > what we did and currently doing ie - Karma > (own > > > work > > > > or doing - past & present). > > > > > > > > Also Gods and others may have longer life > (maybe > > > that > > > > is why they are called Immortals???) but they > > > still > > > > have a life span meaning they were born and > died > > > > eventually. (side track: I learnt some were > born > > > > straight to be an adult no inbetween infants > and > > > kid > > > > stage and some have no or limited physical > > (rupa) > > > > bodies at all - body means extra suffering > that > > is > > > why > > > > it is more blissful overthere.) And finally, > > they > > > are > > > > still going through the continuous rebirth > cycle > > > > called - Samsara. > > > > > > > > 4. Buddhism "seems" to represent a more > > realistic > > > > model with should I say "total true picture". > > With > > > > that understanding, a person can become more > at > > > ease > === message truncated === 20383 From: bodhi342 Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 1:11pm Subject: Re: Love Dear Nina and Sarah, Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I appreciate your important reminders that we have to take one step at a time, understand the realities that are conditioned, not mine, not self. Also to remember that the arising of both realities and understanding should be natural - a critical, and oft-forgotten point. Further, that relinquishing everything is for a later stage of development i.e. for arahat. What you say is true. I was looking at things from a slightly different perspective. This analogy of a favorite endeavor may help. A gardener should understand that patience and step-by-step labor is required for seeds to grow into mature plants. Some plants may reach that stage in this season, some in his/her lifetime, some beyond. Slow, patient nurturing, understanding what is needed for survival/growth at each stage. Let this be representative of what you are saying. This same gardener also needs some mental construct of the potential final product, say the appearance or sensation of the garden. She/He requires some understanding of the utility of expending all that effort. And (pertinent to relinquishing attachment), as importantly, what must be given to, or given up, for the result he/she seeks. There have been several messages about doubt re: Abhidhamma, or disillusionment with other religions recently, which led me to wonder why intelligent people become disillusioned in the first place. The easy answer is that they were 'wrong' to begin with, and then saw the light. However, as usual, there may be more to it. Disillusionment is probably multifactorial, one aspect may poor understanding of what is to be achieved, and as important, what is to be relinquished. Giving up/relinquishing/surrendering (?), are common motifs of many faiths, yet I wonder how many actually understand the 'bargain' at the outset. Could the shock of finding out, be an important cause for these people's disillusionment and doubt? None of us wants to scare away newcomers by presenting seemingly difficult hurdles at any early stage. However, IMHO in the interest of 'informed consent' and to perhaps avoid later disillusionment, students/practitioners of any ~ ism, should pay some heed to what is required to be given up, even while being attracted to what is to be gained. Let us use the example of a legal contract (even social contracts, such as marriage may apply). At the outset, one would think there would never be a future problem. Unfortunately, we all know that disputes can arise too frequently. One reason is that the parties do not fully understand the implications of what they are signing up for at the outset. [There are many reasons for this, and I am neither an attorney nor a psychologist.] This sets the stage for disillusionment, leading to despair, anger, conflict etc. I suspect that true informed consent, with nothing assumed, could alleviate a lot of this sort of dukkha (small 'd'), don't you? Understanding not only what is to be gained, but what must be relinquished, may be vital to keep people on a chosen path. I would be very interested in both of your views (Mike and Christine's too) on what I realize is an unorthodox inquiry. u.w. dharam > The sorrows, lamentations, > the many kinds of suffering in the world, > exist dependent on something dear. > They don't exist > when there's nothing dear. > And thus blissful & sorrowless > are those for whom nothing > in the world is dear anywhere. > So one who aspires > to be stainless & sorrowless > shouldn't make anything > in the world dear > anywhere. 20384 From: robmoult Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:26pm Subject: Re: Precepts (was From Christ to Buddha) Hi Dave, Sorry for the delay in replying. I was pleased to see that your post has generated a number of responses. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Two questions here. First, how does this "natural law" relate > to "Dependant origination?" Would these laws then be "absolutes" > that are to be regardless of time or any cultural "relativism" with > which one might apply? ===== When it comes to precepts, the "natural law" that I am referring to is the law of kamma. Here's how it works. Whenever there is a willed action, this creates a "seed". When conditions are right, this seed will develop. The nature of what develops depends on the type of seed (mango seeds can only develop into mango trees). If I do something "bad", this creates a "bad" seed and a "bad" effect will arise when conditions allow. "Do" includes willed actions performed by the body, through speech or through thought. "Bad" means a willed action motivated by desire, aversion or delusion. The law of kamma is a moral law and considered to be absolute; independent of time or cultural relativism. "Dependent Origination" is not really a "natural law", it is an explanation to the question, "What keeps us being reborn and how do we stop from being reborn?" Dependent Origin is one of the most complex aspects of Buddhism. There are twelve factors. Each factor is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the following factor to arise. As an analogy, if I see a tree, I know that there are multiple factors which arose to allow this tree to come into existence. Some of the factors include: - A seed - Rain - Fertile soil - Sun - Seasons Each of these factors contributed in their own way to the arising of the tree. One could say that the "seed" is the "root factor" because the nature of the seed determines the nature of the tree, but we know that a seed is not a sufficient condition for a tree to arise. So we can see that the law of kamma focuses on moral retribution whereas dependent origination focuses on salvation from continued rebirth. ===== > > Second, are these 5 further defined or refined anywhere? For > example "sexual misconduct" is pretty vague. Is there anything that > further defines it? Is it just adultry, or are premarital sex, > homosexuality, prostitution, etc. (again... just picking this one as > an example for clarification ===== Yes, the kammic impact of these are very well defined. Let's explore the first one (avoid killing) as an example. Every willed action creates a kammic seed, but the constituent factors necessary for killing to arise are: 1. There must be life 2. There must be knowldege of life 3. There must be intention to kill 4. There must be effort to kill 5. There must be consequent death Comments: 1. Life is defined as "that which breathes"; therefore it includes animals. 2. If you unknowingly step on an ant, that is not killing. 3. If you brush away a mosquito and by doing so inadvertently cause its death, then this is not killing as the intention was not to kill but rather to brush away 4. Killing is classified under actions performed through the body, but killing can also be performed through speech (such as ordering the execution of a person) It is interesting to note that if you go to a "live seafood restaurant" and select which fish you want to eat, then this is considered killing. However, if you order from a menu or pick up an already dead fish from the supermarket, then this is not considered killing. The strength of the seed (kammic weight) of killing depends on a number of factors. Killing a large animal is more serious than killing a smaller animal, because of the amount of effort required is correspondingly greater. Killing a human is more serious than killing an animal because a human has greater potential than an animal. Killing a more virtuous human is more serious than killing a less virtuous human. The kammic weight also depends on the cruelty involved in the act of killing. I could go on for many pages, but I suspect that there is lots of material here to stimulate further thinking. Looking forward to your response. Metta, Rob M :-) 20385 From: robmoult Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:55pm Subject: Re: Rituals (was From Christ to Buddha) Hi Dave, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > I think I do struggle with the "rites and rituals" part, although I > never really thought about them before with Christianity. But, to > say grace before eating is good, the Lord's Prayer 3x a day, church > 1x a week, communion, etc. Doing these "rituals" helps one feel like > they are on the right path, so to speak. I think I wonder about > myself and Buddhism because there isn't anything like that. So, it > seems like one should meditate, but when, how long, in what way, etc. > and there isn't much in the way of answers to those (I suppose to > avoid it become ritualistic). ===== At the age of 13, I took "confirmation classes" at the church. I still remember the first class. The said, "Let's examine the Lord's Prayer. The first phrase, 'Our father', is significant. It means that all men are brothers (we share a common father). Let's talk about the relationship and responsibilities between a father and a son..." This class had a huge impact on me. I had memorized the Lord's prayer (and virtually all of the Sunday morning service), yet I was reciting without any understanding. If there was a God up there watching me, I wasn't fooling Him at all. I decided to stop reciting and start listening to try and understand. The same applies in Buddhism. "Empty" rites and rituals are of no value. Actions performed repeatedly with understanding develop into habits (accumulations). Meditation, when done properly with the right understanding, can very good. If you have a habit of saying grace before meals, you can also use that time to think with loving-kindness about those whose efforts allowed the food to be available to you. You don't have to bow down in front of a Buddha to think about the qualities that the Buddha exemplified, but for some people (such as myself), it helps those kinds of thoughts arise. On a related note, there is no concept of "worship" in Buddhism. The purpose of prostrating oneself in front of a stone statue is to condition the mind to remember the qualities of the Buddha. ===== > I studied religion in school > (majored in it). I even went to Thailand for a summer semester > course. But, that was all years ago. Lately, I've struggled with > Christianity more and more and I had "created" my own religion, or at > least a theory good for dinner talks. But, somewhere I came across > something with Buddhism and it struck me some of the common points > (esp. Dependent Origination). So, perhaps it is another life > (although I don't actually believe in a literal reincarnation)! Dave, we have a lot in common. I mentioned my experience during confirmation classes. That is what started me to explore religion and philosophy. After a few years, I because disillusioned and decided to "create my own religion". I was about 20 and had a girlfriend whose father was a minister. One night, while out camping with her family, her father asked me about my religious views. For two hours, I explained what I had been developing in my own mind as "my own religion". Her father listened carefully, asked a few clarifying questions and at the end told me that what I had described was Buddhism (though the terminology was obviously different). I was shocked. I had never read anything about Buddhism and had a hard time believing that I had independently come up with ideas which paralleled one of the world's major religions. I started reading about Buddhism and realized that it was true. Now I understand that in a previous life, I had studied Buddhism, so I had a "natural inclination" to think in that manner. Like you, I had a hard time accepting reincarnation. The thing that helped me to accept reincarnation is asking myself, "why do I have a unique set of talents and tendencies which appear to be "inborn"; where did they come from? Lots more material for discussion, so I will sign off here. Metta, Rob M :-) 20386 From: robmoult Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 4:23pm Subject: Precepts Hi Dave, I teach Buddhist Theory (Abhidhamma) for beginners each Sunday morning, so my tendency is to give explanations in layman's terms without a lot of references (i.e. a non-scholarly approach). However, if you would like some background reading on precepts, I can recommend the following by Bhikkhu Bodhi: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/going_for_refuge_taking_the_prec.h tm Don't be put off by technical terms or words in Pali. Let me know if I can help your understanding. Metta, Rob M :-) 20387 From: Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:06pm Subject: Way 64, Comm, Clear Comprehension 2 "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, 2 Clear comprehension in looking straight on and in looking away from the front, p. 82 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html [Tika] The passage beginning with the words: Within, it is said, there certainly is no self or soul is stated to explain that looking straight on or looking away from the front is, to be sure, just a variety of occurrence of even bare phenomena and that therefore clear comprehension of non-delusion is the knowing of that fact as it really is [yasma pana alokitadi nama dhamma mattasseva pavatti viseso tasma tassa yathavato jananam asammoha sampajaññanti dassetum abhantareti adi vuttam]. [T] Accurate knowledge of the root [mula pariñña] = comprehension of the fundamental reason of impulsion at the mind-door [mano dvarika javanassa mula karana parijananam]. [T] Through the casual state [agantuka bhava]: through the state of one coming as a stranger [abbhagata bhava]. Through the temporary state [tavakalika bhava]: through the state of proceeding only at a certain moment (tam khana matta pavattakassa bhava]. [T] Fulfilling the function of a (main) factor of the rebirth-process means: accomplishing the principal work of a link; what is stated by that is this: having become substance. The life-continum is, indeed, the principal factor and the principal basis because of similarity to the relinking mind. Therefore, it is called the principal factor and basis or it is called so owing to its fulfilling of the function of a ground or reason by way of the causal condition of unbroken procedure [patthana bhutam anga kiccam nipphadentam asariram hutvati vuttam hoti, bhavangam hi patisandhi sadisatta patthanam angam patthanañca sariranti vuccati, avicchedappavatti hetu bhavena va karana kiccam sadhayamananti attho]. [T] The expression: After the turning round of that has been stated by way of general reference to the life-continum, threefold as regards procedure: past thought-unit of the life-continum, movement of the life-continum and stoppage of the life-continum. At this place turning round refers just to the stoppage of the life-continum [tam avattetvati bhavanga samañña vasena vuttam pavattakara visesa vasena pana atitadina tibbidham tattha ca bhavangupacchedasseva avattanam]. [T] From the cessation of that (tannirodha) = Owing to the dissolution of that [tassa nirujjhanato] -- expressions of reason by way of proximity-condition [anantara paccaya vasena hetu vacanam]. [T] Even in the first impulsion and so forth ending with the seventh impulsion. This passage has been stated concerning the absence (in a definite way) of lust, hate and ignorance with the thought: This is a woman or This is a man, in the course of cognition at the five doors of sense. In this matter, indeed, owing to the existence of mental states, by way of adverting and the rest up to determining, without radical reflection, on account of reflecting unwisely prior to adverting-determining, impulsion that is with a bare semblance of greed arises in regard to a liked object such as a female form, and impulsion that is with a bare semblance of hate arises in regard to an object not liked. There is however no occurrence of lust, hate and ignorance in an extreme way, with strong moral consequences in the course of sense-door cognition. Only in the course of mind-door cognition lust, hate and ignorance occur absolutely, that is, with strong moral consequences. But impulsion of the course of sense-door cognition is the root of lust, hate and ignorance of mind-door course of cognition. Or even all beginning with the mental state of the life-continum can be taken as the root of mind-door impulsion. Thus accurate knowledge of the root has been stated by way of the root-reason of mind-door impulsion. The casual state and the temporary state (are) indeed (stated) on account of the newness of just impulsion of the course of cognition at the five doors of sense and on account of the brevity of the same impulsion [pathama javanepi... pe... sattama javanepiti idam pañca dvarika vithiyam ayam itthi ayam purisoti rajjana dussana muyhananam abhavam sandhaya vuttam tattha hi avajjana vatthabbananam puretaram pavatta yoniso manasikara vasena ayoniso avajjana votthabbanakarena pavattanto itthe itthi rupadimhi lobha sahagata mattam javanam uppajati anitthe ca dosa sahagata mattam na pana ekanta rajjana dussanadi hoti tassa pana mano dvarikassa rajjana dussanadino pañca dvarika javanam mulam yatha vuttam va sabbampi bhavangadi evam mano dvarikassa javanassa mula karana vasena mulapariñña vutta. Agantuka tavakalikata pana pañca dvarika javanasseva apubba bhava vasena ittarata vasena ca]. [T] After breaking up gradually are fallen, one atop of another, on account of the turning round -- changing, moving -- early and later or before and after or below and above, in the form of the arising of the mental state of the life-continum [hettha ca upari ca parivattamana vasena aparaparam bhavanguppatti vasena]. [T] Likewise indeed (is indicated) the falling after breaking down of the (other) mental states on account of the arising of the mental state of the life-continum (tatha bhavanguppada vasena hi tesam bhijjitva patanam]. [T] By this indeed the commentator shows, by way of the gradual arising of the earlier and the later mental state of the life-continum, the arising of the impulsion of the mind-door course of cognition which is different to the impulsion of the course of cognition at the five doors of sense [imina pana hetthimassa uparimassa ca bhavangassa aparaparuppatti vasena pañca dvarika javanato visadisassa mano dvarika javanassa uppadam dasseti]. [T] Because of the proceeding of lust and the like by just the way of mind-door impulsion, the commentator said even thus: There takes place looking straight on or looking away from the front, by way of lust, hatred and ignorance. 20388 From: Dan D. Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:34pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K] Hello, Robert K, > > Dan: Can you understand why I object to using "pleasant/unpleasant" to refer to BOTH vedana and sense object? > Robert: Yes, you object because someone might confuse nama and rupa by using the same word for both. Dan: Yes, that's certainly a part of it. But also, it can be helpful to contemplate what it means for an object to be 'pleasant' vs. what it means for vedana to be 'pleasant', i.e. contemplate the distinction between ittha and sukha (or somanassa) -- a nice meditation. Dan 20389 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 6:34pm Subject: Re: Shrine Room? Hi Dave, Welcome to dsg. You asked: --------------- > Is this actually part of core Buddhism? It looks a bit like something that evolved later. Is it really important to have a shrine and make offerings as this doc suggests? > -------------- Whenever a Buddhist clings to religious rite and ritual, he is being afraid to accept the teaching he professes. But his fear is misplaced; rightly understood, the teaching does not take away something precious -- our belief in an eternal soul or self -- without giving something infinitely more valuable in return -- insight into absolute reality. The doctrine of not-self (anatta), is all-encompassing and unyielding; it cannot be put to one side for the sake of convenience. In other words, it does not allow the possibility of a temporary self which heroically practises Right Mindfulness in order to realise its own non-existence. In this way, anatta is so profound and so difficult to grasp that it is mostly rejected as unworkable, even by the majority of Buddhists. The result, I'm sorry to say, is that the Buddha's unique, incomparable teaching, is widely portrayed as a mere religion. The illusion of a self who meditates and follows precepts is no different from the illusion of a self who prays and obeys commandments. Opting for the comfortable, religious alternative would be understandable had not the Buddha offered a wholly satisfactory explanation in its place. That is, the teaching of ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas), as spelt out specifically in the Abhidhamma and at least implicitly, in every other word of the Pali Canon. Whenever there is right understanding of conditioned paramattha dhammas, there is no interest in the wrong questions; "Is there a self? Is there not a self? Will I be reborn? Will I not be reborn?" To the contrary, one is delighted to find that the question of self does not arise. Which way will we go; will we settle for the 'self you have when you're not having a self,' or will we accept anatta in its entirety?' Only conditions will decide. Good luck with your giving up of the old ways; let's hope you don't install another religion in their place. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 20390 From: Sarah Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 9:49pm Subject: RE: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching Dear Vital, Thank you for sharing your background and interest in Buddhism with us. A little more in context below: --- vitalmoors@h... wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > I understand your mail very well. But it is difficult for me to set some > real steps. What are good introductionbooks ? Where can i find them? ..... I think you’ve taken a great step (or several steps) by joining us here, showing your interest and difficulties and asking questions. I’m not sure that it’s an introduction book, but I think you will be able to appreciate Nina Van Gorkom’s “Buddhism in Daily Life”. The English version can be found at: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ If you find it useful, later you can obtain a hard copy as well. Of more interest still might be the German version and there may well be a Dutch one too. Nina will let you know if this would be easier. You will come across many Pali terms and I suggest that if you’re reading on line or printing out that you keep this glossary printed out by your side: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms ..... > I was very catholic in the past. I have complete the education to become > priest, but I stopped with it after 5 years, because there were a lot of > other thing sin my live at that moment. I didn't know much about the > world. > > I'm a gay man and hiv+, but I'm very healty with my mediciens. So you > know that. I had a relation for over 9 years. That was ended last year. > At that moment I quesioned all my life. ..... Thank you for sharing all of this with us and I sincerely hope you stay healthy and continue questioning and considering what life is and what is in life. ..... >And I came to the conclusion > that I cannot be happy in a pure materialistic world. The materialistisc > things are nice, but not important for me anymoere. The only important > thing at the moment is the growth of my inner. Not my image or > personality, but the one I realy am. ..... I agree that it is the inner growth that is important and that attachment to the ‘materialistic things’ will never bring any lasting happiness. Sometimes people interpret this to mean that all possessions should be thrown out, but of course, attachment cannot be measured by the outer appearance. ..... > Of course I have some exprience with medition etc. from my brother who > is yogi and from my education at the episcopal seminary. I also have > praktized NLP for a long time. But that is not the way for m any more. > it can hepl me of course. But it is not the way that i want to grow. ...... I hope this isn’t too stupid, but I can’t think what NLP is for now??? ..... > I my live the most beautifil moments are these of adoration. Adoration > of the nature. Te see a flower of animal. ..... I understand your comments here and I also enjoy hiking and looking at insects and flowers and so on. We had a friend who died last year and in his last months he was talking a lot about the beauty of nature and sunsets and being present in the moment. This is quite different from the Buddhist perspective of understanding present realities and developing detachment, rather than attachment or adoration. ..... > Ethic is fo me not so an issue. Because I believe that all the > experiences in my life have given me a strong ethical standard, with > does not come from outside but what is incorporate. I don't steel; I > don't say hard words; I don't make troubles.... Not because you don't > may do that, but because it is a part of mine. ..... I’m glad to hear about your ethical standards. I find it helpful to consider these areas more and more closely and to develop more and more confidence in their value and importance. ..... > I think a lot about life, about my experiences and about how I can grow. > I can tell you a lot of course. And that is important because if you > don't know my past you cannnot understatnd the manner I stay in life. I > think I think and act as a buddhist, but I'm not a buddhist at the > moment. ..... Vital, I don’t think the label ‘Buddhist’ is of any great importance. I wrote a short article on this quite some time back and as it’s in simple language, I may post it for your interest. Knowing details about a person’s past as you’ve kindly shared can help us to know what may be useful/useless to discuss. In the end, however, we all share the same problems, the same ignorance, attachment and aversion and really there’s no ‘me’ or ‘you’, merely conditioned phenomena, arising and falling away. ..... >My way of thinking and living has devollepd by my previous > experiences in life. Now I see that I have to go further... and I realy > think and know that Buddhisme can help me a lot by that. Why? It is a > feeling. Because everytime I come in a buddhisttemple in Tahiland or > Vietnam, I feel a great peace and happiness in myself. I would I had > these feelings all the time. > > I hope you can give me some advice. ..... It’s great to hear of your keen interest and I fully agree with you when you mention about the developed (or accumulated) ‘way of thinking and living’. As you say, there is always further to delve and more understanding to develop. Thanks again and please let us know how you find the book. Metta, Sarah ===== 20391 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 11:42pm Subject: Moderator bulletin Hi All, Just a couple of reminders. Trimming When replying to another member’s post, please remember to delete any part of the other post that is not necessary for your reply. This will be welcomed by everyone, and also helps conserve archive space. Salutation etc Also, we encourage members to use a salutation at the beginning of each post, and to sign off with their name at the end. Thanks for your co-operation. Jon and Sarah PS As usual, any comments or questions on this reminder should be sent to us off-list only. Thanks. 20392 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K, Sarah, Jon] Dear Dan, --- "Dan D." wrote: > Dear Sarah, > I'm sorry to hear of Jon's mother's passing away. She must have been > a fine woman indeed, judging by the quality of her son. ..... Thank you. 3 sons - all very different..;-) ..... > Christians appreciating "The arrow"? This does not surprise me in the > least. Thoughtful Christians have a great appreciation for Dhamma, > which, after all, richly infuses the most important Christian > doctrines (albeit in quite different language). ..... Jon tells me he shortened it and ‘adjusted’ the language a little.... ..... > I think you may be ignoring the parts of the Smv that you don't like. ..... I thought I liked it all........ there are some parts we may be understanding differently, however..... ..... > The defining of ittha/anittha is via the "likes and dislikes (vaso-- > desire, wish)" of the average men because "such are able to > distinguish between the agreeable and the disagreeable". I have great > difficulty reading this as "how it is actually heard" instead of how > the sound is distinguished (i.e. perceived and conceived). In fact, > Ñm adds a clarifying parenthetical immediately following the sentence > quoted above: "[i.e. it is distinguishable according to the average > man's impulsion]." By "impulsion", he means javana, not "how it is > actually heard". ..... Yes, by “how it is actually heard”, I meant, how the sense door cittas experience the object as opposed to how it is perceived and conceived, liked and disliked by later mind door processes to be more exact. I may be wrong - impulsion maybe referring to later processes here. (The visible object remains the same for the 17 moments it is experienced in the process. As we know, there can be attachment to what is unpleasant and aversion to what is pleasant. In the quote I added about doors (dvara), I think it clarifies that when it says ‘distinguishable by kamma result’, it is referring to the vipaka cittas and other cittas experiencing the same object through a sense doorway.) ..... > In the following paragraph, a rival viewpoint is expressed: "But the > Elder Tipitika Cula-Abhaya said: 'The agreeable and disagreeable are > distinguishable according to [kamma-] result only, not according to > impulsion. but it is impulsion through perversion of perception only > that lusts for the agreeable and hates the same agreeable, that lusts > for the disagreeable and hates the same disagreeable. Only by way of > [kamma-] result, however, is it rightly distinguishable.'" > > The Elder Tipitika Cula-Abhaya's comments are launched with a "but" > and put in quotes because they are fundamentally at odds with the > previous comments. Who's right? The commentator or the Elder Tipitika > Cula-Abhaya? ..... I don’t pretend to have all the answers here, Dan;-) I don’t understand this Elder to be giving a ‘rival viewpoint’. I assume this is the same Elder Abhaya referred to in other places (eg Sv 1307) and clearly an arahant, often referred to in the commentaries with Tissadatta Thera. I may be wrong as this longer name is used here and Tissadatta’s name isn’t (???). I understood his comments here to be a fine-tuning, rather like adding an abhidhamma gloss to a sutta, such as we’re reading in the commentay to the Satipatthana Sutta at the moment in the Way corner. It is a way to add detail (of what would have already been apparent to the listeners) to prevent misunderstanding. In other words, whilst the ‘average man’ experiences and usually at some level knows that what he experiences is inherently ‘pleasant’ or ‘unpleasant’, because of significant room for error (esp. amongst Eminem fans;-)) because of sanna vipallassa, to be precise, we can only say that what is inherently A or B is according to what the vipaka cittas experience and not according to subsequent javana processes, even for ‘average man’. This is why we end up with the quote I added about pleasant and unpleasant experiences through different senses which clarifies that perceptions cannot be relied on. It’s impossible for us to know what is inherently pleasant and unpleasant even when visible object or sound is the object of awareness. It’s also not the goal, but I think it is important to know that kusala vipaka cittas (eg seeing consciousness as a result of ‘good’ kamma) only sees pleasant visible objects and vice versa. Remember also that the rupa arises first and conditions the vipaka citta. It’ll depend on further conditions with further implications as to what stage of the rupa the vipaka citta arises. For example, this will play a part in determining whether there are subsequent mind door processes. Very tricky and detailed for me. There is a lot of detail on related points in the Way corner at the moment. I know this probably still leaves a few untidy threads. Rob, Jon or Nina may add more. When I read anything that isn’t clear to me (very often), my inclination is to question my own understanding first, the translation second and the text itself last of all. I appreciate that for others it may be the reverse;-) ..... > May your perception be perverted enough to enjoy the ear-shattering > sounds of the Rolling Stones concert! That has an odd ring to it, > don't you think? ..... I read today that the odds are about 50-50 given the War situation and the pneumonia outbreak here. The closer the concert the more 50-50 I am about attending fortunately (as long as I get my money back if it’s cancelled;-)) Metta, Sarah ===== 20393 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 3:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K, Sarah, Jon] Dear Dan, There were a few more points from your earlier post which I’ve only now read through more carefully: --- "Dan D." wrote: > Dear Robert, Sarah, and Jon, > I looked up the Vibhanga passage [PTS p. 2; U Thittila §6] that > Rob's Sammohavinodani discussion refers to: > > "Therein what is superior material quality? That material quality > which, for this or that being, is not contemptible, not despised, not > worthless, not derisible, respected, superior, .... > > VbhA's "disputatious speaker" contends: "There is no > intrinsic agreeable and disagreeable. It is stated according to the > likings of these or those." It is difficult to read the Vbh text > as something other than that a superior material quality is sense > data that is desirable to this or that being. However, there is still > an intrinsic agreeable/disagreeable aspect to a sense object. The > question, then, is what is a sense object? (i) The data processed by > the mind through the sense door, or (ii) some object "out > there"? Two > very different views with two very different implications... ..... As I understand, sense object and sense data are the same. The rupa has its intrinsic nature and arises and passes away regardless. Depending on kamma supported by other conditions, there may be the arising of vipaka cittas (seeing and so on) to experience it in a sense door process, possibly followed by a mind door process. The “disputatious speaker” doesn’t accept this. “for this or that being....” means according to the experiencing of the rupa for A or B. ..... > > (ii) If a sense object is some object "out there," then it > can't > really be experienced. ..... Why not? There are kalapas (groups) of rupas arising and falling away all the time. Of course, as Rob M & Howard always point out, the concern of the Teachings is with what is experienced and what can be known. ..... >Buddha cannot pass through the eye-door, and a > piece of dogs--- does not pass through the body-door (even if one > were to squeeze it very hard!). You can't very well call something > that can't be experienced "pleasant" or "unpleasant". ..... I’m not sure of your meaning here. As we’ve all clarified, when there are references to seeing the Buddha, holding any object, hearing waterfalls or thunder, naturally the realities experienced are visible objects, hardness, softness, sound and so on. We use conventional language here for clarification only of the distinctions. The nature of the sound is so, regardless of whether it is experienced or not. It will depend on kamma condition which sound is heard. eg VismX1V, 55 “Sound has the characteristic of impinging on the ear. Its function is to be the object of ear-consciousness. It is manifested as the resort of that too. it is of various kinds as ‘drum sound, tabor sound’ (Dhs621) and so on.” ..... >The mistake > that the disputatious speaker is making is that he is > misunderstanding the object as something real, lasting, to be > experienced by me, you, and the next person as we pass the dogs--- > down the line. This kind of abstract, conceptual object would > certainly not carry an intrinsic "pleasant" or "unpleasant" label, > and if Vbh were referring to that kind of object, the disputatious > speaker would be right. ..... I think the mistake the disputatious speaker is making is to suggest rupas experienced are not inherently pleasant or unpleasant. Your comment is right about conceptual objects, but visible object, hardness and so on are not “abstract, conceptual object” in this context. ..... > (i) If a sense object is the data processed by the mind through the > sense door, ..... Sorry, not clear on what this means....Mind door cittas cannot process anything through the sense door.....only sense door cittas....Visible object or data is the same. ..... In summary and just in brief looking at a few more of your comments: Seeing a visible object is either kusala or akusala vipaka and a pleasant or unpleasant object will be seen accordingly. It’s not important to know whether it is a pleasant or unpleasant object that is experienced and useless to try to work it out. Awareness is aware of the characteristic of visible object, but I’m not sure that it’s ever possible to know these precise details just as we cannot know the precise workings of kamma. You mention correctly that we all have different tastes in music and we cannot say which are ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’. This is true, but not the point that regardless of our limited knowledge, certain truths hold. Just as we read that all realities experienced are inherently anicca or dukkha. This is true whether there is any knowledge of it or not. I don’t understand either the Vbh or Sv to be comparing tastes “and then deciding the matter by a vote to find the opinion of the average man” or a few other comments you make. See my other post. It’s not straight forward, I agree;-) I hope the other quotes Rob K gave and the ones from the Vism have also helped clarify. I think these are really good points to raise, Dan and I now understand better why you had objections/difficulties before with related comments in ADL. It’s always a pleasurable challenge writing to you;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 20394 From: Dan D. Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 4:00am Subject: Re: Questions [Sarah] Dear Sarah, I don't disagree with most of what you say about desirable/undesirable sense object. However, the first 1/3 of the Smv explanation contradicts both us and the second 1/3. I wouldn't be so quick to say there is a contradiction in the text if it weren't structured explicitly to point out the dispute, which seems to read like: "I think that ittha/anittha can be understood via the predilections of the average man because he (unlike rulers and peasants) can properly distinguish between agreeable and disagreeable. But the Elder Tipitika Cula-Abhaya disagrees. He thinks the ittha/anittha aspect can only be understood by how, say, the sound is actually heard (vipaka) rather than how it is perceived and conceived (javana/impulsion)." This "But so-and-so said" construction is not uncommon in the commentaries. Isn't its function to point out where there is disagreement about interpretation? Otherwise, why "but"? The distinction between the two interpretations is stark and important. In the Elder Tipitika Cula-Abhaya's interpretation, the distinction is ONLY by way of vipaka, and NOT by javana. The implications are that methods of distinguishing via likes and dislikes (i.e. how the object is interpreted in javana) are mistaken. Those methods would include distinguishing ittha/anitta via the likes and dislikes of the average man. For example, it is non-sensical to say that the music of Bach is intrinsically anittha (or ittha) or that the screaming of a spoiled child is intrinsically ittha because the distinction is made only at the moment of vipaka and only when the sense object actually becomes an object of a sense, neither before nor after nor according to the javana (likes and dislikes). In other words, the question of ittha/anittha is answered moment by moment, vipaka by vipaka, not by secondary categories derived from likes and dislikes (e.g. screaming kid, beautiful harmonies). Dan 20395 From: m. nease Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 9:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parameters Hi Dharam, Still catching up on old flagged messages--please pardon the delay. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 8:43 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters > MN: I don't know of any other teachings that address the four noble > truths (or two, as above). It's my guarded opinion that these are > unique to Buddhadhamma. > > D: Mike, thank you for your lightning quick response, with > information that I found very appropriate. It seems that other > teachings also have suffering and its resolution/salvation as > important endeavors. No doubt there are other teachings that attempt to address these issues. I'm not aware of one, though, that contains even one of even the most conventional expressions of the eight path factors--much less all eight of them or the incredible elucidation of them in the Tipitaka. > Also, addressing the unsatisfactoriness of > this existence is presumably one reason for the popularity of so many > (all?) religious teachings. I agree. People in general I think tend to have a sense that 'something's wrong'--and religions do try to address this sense (and more often exploit it, I'm afraid). And not only religions try to isolate the origin of suffering. For communists, it's capitalism; for feminists, it's patriarchy; for atheists, it's religion; for anarchists, it's government; for capitalists, it's regulation, and so on and on. Where else, though, is it identified as ta.nhaa? What an amazing and unique insight. > However, if this unsatisfactory state > of affairs is only defined as in the four noble truths, then > implicitly they are unique to Buddhadhama. Actually, unsatisfacoriness (dukkha) is, I think, the only of the four noble truths that fits in fairly well with the understanding of suffering to be found in other teachings (well--minus the five aggregates bit): dukkha(m): Stress; suffering; pain; distress; discontent. "Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." SN LVI.11 The other three noble truths I would agree are unique to Buddhadhamma, but not implicitly (if by that you mean sort of tautologically)--I mean I really don't think any of them are to be found elsewhere (except where borrowed from Buddhadhamma). > So, I think it is again > an issue of terminology, view, parameters, and ultimately ... > belief. Here we disagree. The uniqueness of the four noble truths is not a matter of 'terminology, view, parameters and ultimately ... belief.'--they are unique quite outside these considerations. As for belief, for my part, I don't 'believe' in the Buddhadhamma. I accept it as a working hypothesis because it explains more, more satsifactorily, than anything else I've discovered so far. If by belief you mean something like 'blind faith', the Buddha discouraged this sort of thing as I understand it. For example, "So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when undertaken & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" -- then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said...When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when undertaken & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' -- then you should enter & remain in them..." Anguttara Nikaya III.65 Kalama Sutta To the Kalamas > I guess what I am looking for is a view about other > teachings not overly restricted by the parameters of one's own > dominant belief. Perhaps even this is not easily possible, let > alone true objectivity. I don't see (my perception of) the absence of the four noble truths from other teachings as being an overly restricted view, or as being restricted at all. I do see this as the distinction between Buddhadhamma and religions and other teachings, though. I think this is quite a valid distinction. > [Somehow, I am reminded of Gothic Queen Tamora's remarkable response > after Roman sacrificial rites supercede her appeal for the life of > her first-born in Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus. I have to admit I don't think I ever read Titus Andronicus. > "Cruel, irreligious piety!" A very nice line! And so often true of religions--never of Buddhadhamma properly understood though, in my opinion. > What struck me there was that mutually > exclusive beliefs of both parties, provided no bridge to aid > understanding. > Needless to say both thought they were right. > What therefore follows is a showcase for kilesa and kamma! If you're suggesting that the absence of a 'bridge to aid understanding (between the parties?) is the source of the following evil, I think this is an error (no offense). People who understand each other perfectly well (in the conventional meaning of 'understanding') are capable of the of the greatest horrors. I think, for example, that George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein understand each other perfectly well, speaking conventionally. Understanding in the sense of pa~n~naa is something entirely different, of course. > BTW > this play also reveals many aspects of Dukkha i.e. dukkha-dukkha, > change and unsatisfactoriness that those interested may want to > review it. Personal dukkha-dukkha's fade in comparison!] > > MN: Personally, I don't find religions or philosophies either > complimentary to Buddhadhamma or 'wrong' per se (well, some seem > wrong to me in various ways). However, I haven't found one that I > think is relevant to the four noble truths. > > D: I understand this then to mean that the four noble truths are the > only focus of your endeavor. I wouldn't say this; every day I endeavour to have fun, to 'be good', to make a living, to stay well etc. I also try to understand (in a conventional way) what's happening in the world socio-economically and even a little about physics and so on. It's true that I have no interest in religion, though. In fact, I quite dislike religion (akusala, I know!). By religion I mean, roughly, superstitious belief in the possibility of influencing events by means of the supernatural (or the petitioning of supernatural beings). > Therefore the other teachings are > irrelevant, rather than either complimentary or wrong. Please let > me know if I understand you correctly, Mike. I think that all manner of teachings can be more or less relevant to lots of different things--I just don't know of one that I find relevant to the four noble truths and conditioned origination. > I enjoyed reading your quote from the Simsappa Sutta. It just > reinforced my impression that the Buddha was concentrating on one > aspect of reality - Dukkha, and he knew it, and even explicitly > declared it. It is that very aspect of supra-mundane reality (non- > Dukkha - if there is such a thing) that I want to get at here. Nibbaana? Do you think that nibbaana exists outside the four noble truths? > MN: I think this finally gets into the meaning of 'reality'. A big > can of worms, as can be seen in the archives...! > > D: I had to stop counting the number of messages with the > word 'reality' in the dsg search!! I assume that if everything is > encompassed in Anicca, Anatta and Dukkha, there is no *need* for > consideration of an unconditioned "............", (apart from > Nibbana?). Yet, that is the preoccupation of so many (billions) of > other humans, and I wonder whether this anomaly can be reconciled? To me, one of the most striking (and delightful) aspects of Buddhadhamma is the way that it illustrates that the preoccupations of everyone, everywhere are unsatisfactory, impermanent and empty. I've deliberately equivocated 'proliferation' (papa~nca) with preoccupation here--hope I'm not twisting your meaning: "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a condition there is feeling. What one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates. With what one has mentally proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a man with respect to past, future and present forms cognizable though the eye." Honeyball Sutta Mn18 > Is it possible to reconcile internally consistent beliefs? Not quite sure what you mean here. It's a real pleasure corresponding with you, Dharam. I hope this belated reply clarifies my very limited understanding, for what it's worth. mike 20396 From: dwlemen Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 9:55am Subject: Re: Precepts Rob, Don't worry about any delays. I need to keep myself focused on work more anyway! > ROB WROTE: > When it comes to precepts, the "natural law" that I am referring to > is the law of kamma. Here's how it works. Whenever there is a willed > action, this creates a "seed". When conditions are right, this seed > will develop. The nature of what develops depends on the type of > seed (mango seeds can only develop into mango trees). If I do > something "bad", this creates a "bad" seed and a "bad" effect will > arise when conditions allow. "Do" includes willed actions performed > by the body, through speech or through thought. "Bad" means a willed > action motivated by desire, aversion or delusion. The law of kamma > is a moral law and considered to be absolute; independent of time or > cultural relativism. > > "Dependent Origination" is not really a "natural law", it is an > explanation to the question, "What keeps us being reborn and how do > we stop from being reborn?" Dependent Origin is one of the most > complex aspects of Buddhism. There are twelve factors. Each factor > is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the following factor > to arise. As an analogy, if I see a tree, I know that there are > multiple factors which arose to allow this tree to come into > existence. Some of the factors include: > - A seed > - Rain > - Fertile soil > - Sun > - Seasons > > Each of these factors contributed in their own way to the arising of > the tree. One could say that the "seed" is the "root factor" because > the nature of the seed determines the nature of the tree, but we > know that a seed is not a sufficient condition for a tree to arise. > > So we can see that the law of kamma focuses on moral retribution > whereas dependent origination focuses on salvation from continued > rebirth. > > ===== DAVE REPLY: I think that in my mind, I've perhaps combined these 2 concepts, and I think I still have difficulty seperating them. I've always thought of the world as operating on probabilities. And, our actions cause probability levels to rise in different ways. It's like dropping stones into a pond. You get ripples. Sometimes a small stone causes a small ripple that just dissapates. Other times, the ripples merge to form waves. But, while the direct effects of the stone may not be felt (I have a hard time accepting that we all are getting what we "deserve"), we may feel the effects of those merges, or even our children or grandchildren may be impacted. Anyway, morality involves doing those things that cause good ripples. I hope that makes sense... OK, enough of "Davism" (or would it be Dave-ianity?). So far as Buddhism is concerned, how do I separate the concepts of Kamma (is this the same as "Karma?") and Dependent Origination? Is there a way to diferentiate them, to say "this causes Kamma" or "that causes D.O."? I will look up these 12 factors. I do not know what they are; perhaps they will shed light on this. > ROB WROTE: > Yes, the kammic impact of these are very well defined. Let's explore > the first one (avoid killing) as an example. > > Every willed action creates a kammic seed, but the constituent > factors necessary for killing to arise are: > 1. There must be life > 2. There must be knowldege of life > 3. There must be intention to kill > 4. There must be effort to kill > 5. There must be consequent death > DAVE REPLY: This may be a huge rationalization, but, since my favorite past time is fishing, and I only practice catch-and-release, I think I am OK! I try not to kill the fish, but only annoy it for a while. :-) Here again, I will look for places that further define the precepts. Even Christianity has a lot of trouble agreeing on what the "rules" are. I suppose that there is the same spectrum in the Buddhist circles as well. Peace, Dave 20397 From: dwlemen Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:03am Subject: Re: Precepts Rob, Actually, I think I could use the "layman's terms." The writing style of the Buddhist texts is different and somewhat difficult to discern. I was reading one I printed last night. I don't remember the title, but it had to do with some king asking Buddha about rewards of the contemplative life. Anyway, the king said this teacher said this, and that one said that and at the end, the king and Buddha had an understanding that was unfortunately, completely lost on me! Anyway, point being, by way of introduction, I would personally prefer a more matter of fact approach. Once I get a good foundation of the core beliefs and practices there, then I can probably make better sense of the texts (I hope so!) Peace, Dave --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Dave, > > I teach Buddhist Theory (Abhidhamma) for beginners each Sunday > morning, so my tendency is to give explanations in layman's terms > without a lot of references (i.e. a non-scholarly approach). > > However, if you would like some background reading on precepts, I > can recommend the following by Bhikkhu Bodhi: > > http://www.buddhistinformation.com/going_for_refuge_taking_the_prec.h > tm > > Don't be put off by technical terms or words in Pali. Let me know if > I can help your understanding. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 20398 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:04am Subject: sila, samadhi, panna, no 2. Dear Lars, Now follows more from my "In Asoka's Footsteps". Note also what I wrote about citta, concentration and higher concentration, adhicitta. You will see in the Co (to which we return later on) that with this kind of siila the lokuttara samaadhi is reached. Thus, it really is far-reaching. Nina 20399 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:04am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 6 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 6 We read further on: By the word arahattå the Commentator refers to the fulfilment of the aditthåna dhammas (dhammas that are foundations) of upasama (calm or peace) and paññå, by showing the attainment of the calming of all sankhåra dhammas (conditioned realities) and by showing the attainment of the awakening wisdom. We read about the importance of truthfulness as follows: Therefore, the aditthåna dhamma of sacca is the perfection developed by the Buddha when he was still a Bodhisatta and made the aspiration (abhinihåra) for the fulfilment of the highest good which is supramundane. An aspiration, abhinihåra, is a weighty cause of receiving a weighty result, and this is the attainment of Buddhahood. We read: For this reason he accumulated each perfection in accordance with his vow and this was inspired by his great compassion. He fulfilled the aditthåna dhamma of relinquishment as a perfection because he relinquished what was an enemy [4] . Studying the Dhamma and applying it, and knowing the importance of the truth is the way leading to the realization of the noble Truths. In the ³Verses of Uplift² (Udåna), Ch 1, no. 9, Matted Hair (Jatila) it has been explained that if one does not accumulate sati-sampajañña, one will become deluded. We read: Thus have I heard: On a certain occasion the Exalted One was staying near Gayå, on Gayå Head. Now on that occasion a great number of ascetics, on the cold winter nights between the eighths [5] in time of snowfall, were plunging up and down (in the water) and sprinkling and burning sacrifice, thinking: This way comes purity. Now the Exalted One saw that great number of ascetics so doing, and at that time, seeing the meaning of it, gave utterance to this verse of uplift: ³Not by water is one pure, tho¹ many folk bathe here. In whom is truth and dhamma, he is pure and he¹s a bråhmin.² Footnotes: 4. Defilements are like enemies. He has relinquished all defilements. 5. The eighth day before and after the full moon of Mågha, January, and Phagguna, February.